--0-442083269-1054876957=:36214
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hiro:
You must considerate that the foucaultian and althuserain work should be framed like objetivism...: Habitus is a concept that reveals relationist thinking of the social objetitivity, it suposes an epistemologycal rupture (somehow objetivism is necesary to define the regularities of social practices) . Dont forget that this rupture is related to avoid the use of the objetivist concept of individual, and to avoid the subjetivist posture of the subjet. Bourdieu introduces as well the concept of agent, which is far away from this perspectives, and implicates that the mutual exclusion between objetivism and subjetivism -is superated... habitus is mererely pointing to the generative embodyment of social practices...designs a dipositional system...
adr
Hiro Saito <hirosophy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ahh, a joy of studying for a prelim....
I'm wondering whether it's reasonable to conceptualize Foucault's
"governmentality" in terms of Bourdieu's "habitus" (and vice versa).
According to Foucault, "government is the right disposition of things...
[that is] with government it is a question not of imposing law on men, but
of disposing things" (1991:93;95). In other words, governmentality entails
inculcation of certain, govern-mental, durable dispositions--habitus--into
actors, which can render them docile. Put in Althusser's words, actors
become willing to submit to their own subjugation "all by themselves" due to
a set of practices conducive to the emergence of such a "govern-mental"
self, which is embedded in state apparatuses (1971).
In this respect, I'm also wondering about the difference/relationship
between Foucault and Althusser. Their arguments about the production of a
certain form of self sound similar. But, at the same time, I tend to think
that Althusser's argument assumes the systematicity and coherence of
practices and institutions within which a certain subjectivity emerges, as
his student Poulantzas emphasizes a "specific internal unity" of state
apparatuses 1969:301), contrary to Foucault who argues that those practices
and institutions can be incoherent and sometimes contradictory.
What do you think?
Hiro Saito
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.
Visíta Yahoo! Noticias.
--0-442083269-1054876957=:36214
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<DIV>Hiro:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You must considerate that the foucaultian and althuserain work should be framed like objetivism...: Habitus is a concept that reveals relationist thinking of the social objetitivity, it suposes an epistemologycal rupture (somehow objetivism is necesary to define the regularities of social practices) . Dont forget that this rupture is related to avoid the use of the objetivist concept of individual, and to avoid the subjetivist posture of the subjet. Bourdieu introduces as well the concept of agent, which is far away from this perspectives, and implicates that the mutual exclusion between objetivism and subjetivism -is superated... habitus is mererely pointing to the generative embodyment of social practices...designs a dipositional system... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>adr</DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Hiro Saito <hirosophy@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Ahh, a joy of studying for a prelim....<BR><BR>I'm wondering whether it's reasonable to conceptualize Foucault's <BR>"governmentality" in terms of Bourdieu's "habitus" (and vice versa). <BR>According to Foucault, "government is the right disposition of things... <BR>[that is] with government it is a question not of imposing law on men, but <BR>of disposing things" (1991:93;95). In other words, governmentality entails <BR>inculcation of certain, govern-mental, durable dispositions--habitus--into <BR>actors, which can render them docile. Put in Althusser's words, actors <BR>become willing to submit to their own subjugation "all by themselves" due to <BR>a set of practices conducive to the emergence of such a "govern-mental" <BR>self, which is embedded in state apparatuses (1971).<BR><BR>In this respect, I'm also wondering about the difference/relationship <BR>between Foucault and Althusser. Their arguments about the production of a <BR>certain form of self sound similar. But, at the same time, I tend to think <BR>that Althusser's argument assumes the systematicity and coherence of <BR>practices and institutions within which a certain subjectivity emerges, as <BR>his student Poulantzas emphasizes a "specific internal unity" of state <BR>apparatuses 1969:301), contrary to Foucault who argues that those practices <BR>and institutions can be incoherent and sometimes contradictory.<BR><BR>What do you think?<BR><BR>Hiro Saito<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online <BR>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1 noshade><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href=http://espanol.yahoo.com/mail_tagline/*http://espanol.news.yahoo.com><img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/not/dailynews.gif"; width=30 height=26 border=0 align=left></a>
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.<br>
Visíta <a href=http://espanol.yahoo.com/mail_tagline/*http://espanol.news.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Noticias</a>.<br>
--0-442083269-1054876957=:36214--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hiro:
You must considerate that the foucaultian and althuserain work should be framed like objetivism...: Habitus is a concept that reveals relationist thinking of the social objetitivity, it suposes an epistemologycal rupture (somehow objetivism is necesary to define the regularities of social practices) . Dont forget that this rupture is related to avoid the use of the objetivist concept of individual, and to avoid the subjetivist posture of the subjet. Bourdieu introduces as well the concept of agent, which is far away from this perspectives, and implicates that the mutual exclusion between objetivism and subjetivism -is superated... habitus is mererely pointing to the generative embodyment of social practices...designs a dipositional system...
adr
Hiro Saito <hirosophy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ahh, a joy of studying for a prelim....
I'm wondering whether it's reasonable to conceptualize Foucault's
"governmentality" in terms of Bourdieu's "habitus" (and vice versa).
According to Foucault, "government is the right disposition of things...
[that is] with government it is a question not of imposing law on men, but
of disposing things" (1991:93;95). In other words, governmentality entails
inculcation of certain, govern-mental, durable dispositions--habitus--into
actors, which can render them docile. Put in Althusser's words, actors
become willing to submit to their own subjugation "all by themselves" due to
a set of practices conducive to the emergence of such a "govern-mental"
self, which is embedded in state apparatuses (1971).
In this respect, I'm also wondering about the difference/relationship
between Foucault and Althusser. Their arguments about the production of a
certain form of self sound similar. But, at the same time, I tend to think
that Althusser's argument assumes the systematicity and coherence of
practices and institutions within which a certain subjectivity emerges, as
his student Poulantzas emphasizes a "specific internal unity" of state
apparatuses 1969:301), contrary to Foucault who argues that those practices
and institutions can be incoherent and sometimes contradictory.
What do you think?
Hiro Saito
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.
Visíta Yahoo! Noticias.
--0-442083269-1054876957=:36214
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<DIV>Hiro:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You must considerate that the foucaultian and althuserain work should be framed like objetivism...: Habitus is a concept that reveals relationist thinking of the social objetitivity, it suposes an epistemologycal rupture (somehow objetivism is necesary to define the regularities of social practices) . Dont forget that this rupture is related to avoid the use of the objetivist concept of individual, and to avoid the subjetivist posture of the subjet. Bourdieu introduces as well the concept of agent, which is far away from this perspectives, and implicates that the mutual exclusion between objetivism and subjetivism -is superated... habitus is mererely pointing to the generative embodyment of social practices...designs a dipositional system... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>adr</DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Hiro Saito <hirosophy@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Ahh, a joy of studying for a prelim....<BR><BR>I'm wondering whether it's reasonable to conceptualize Foucault's <BR>"governmentality" in terms of Bourdieu's "habitus" (and vice versa). <BR>According to Foucault, "government is the right disposition of things... <BR>[that is] with government it is a question not of imposing law on men, but <BR>of disposing things" (1991:93;95). In other words, governmentality entails <BR>inculcation of certain, govern-mental, durable dispositions--habitus--into <BR>actors, which can render them docile. Put in Althusser's words, actors <BR>become willing to submit to their own subjugation "all by themselves" due to <BR>a set of practices conducive to the emergence of such a "govern-mental" <BR>self, which is embedded in state apparatuses (1971).<BR><BR>In this respect, I'm also wondering about the difference/relationship <BR>between Foucault and Althusser. Their arguments about the production of a <BR>certain form of self sound similar. But, at the same time, I tend to think <BR>that Althusser's argument assumes the systematicity and coherence of <BR>practices and institutions within which a certain subjectivity emerges, as <BR>his student Poulantzas emphasizes a "specific internal unity" of state <BR>apparatuses 1969:301), contrary to Foucault who argues that those practices <BR>and institutions can be incoherent and sometimes contradictory.<BR><BR>What do you think?<BR><BR>Hiro Saito<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online <BR>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1 noshade><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href=http://espanol.yahoo.com/mail_tagline/*http://espanol.news.yahoo.com><img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/not/dailynews.gif"; width=30 height=26 border=0 align=left></a>
![http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/not/dailynews.gif"](http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/not/dailynews.gif"){kind=link}
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.<br>
Visíta <a href=http://espanol.yahoo.com/mail_tagline/*http://espanol.news.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Noticias</a>.<br>
--0-442083269-1054876957=:36214--