While I agree that the majority of the "Drug Gaze" discussion was rather
irrelevant to Foucault studies, but it got me off on an interesting tangent.

I do my share of cannibis, and it pisses me off when people start knocking
it. I usually find myself spouting off the numerous studies showing its
dramatic lack of side effects and pointing out the flaws in the few studies
that have shown any permanent side effects. I was pondering on whether
this was the best strategy.

There seem to be two sides to Foucault's political activity. On one hand
he appears to have been active in advocating reforms "within the system",
in other words, changing specific practices without greatly changing the
surrounding discourses (e.g. prison reform, etc). On the other hand he
appears to wish to radically redefine his subjectivity in relation to power
strutures (i.e. care of the self). There seems to be at least some tension
between these two political struggles.

For example, when someone talks about the evil side-effects of cannibis
they operate within a set of scientific biological and psychological
discourses. When I choose a mode of resistance which lies within this scientific
epistemology (ie. pointing out better studies, criticising flaws in the
other studies methodology) I am defining my subjectivity in relation to these
discourses. I have accepted science. I can also try and redefine my
relation to cannibis in a radical way (eg. mind expansion, shamanism, etc). But to do so is to give up any hope of working towards change of practice within standard discourses

So my question is, can I truly try change specific bodies of knowledge
within a greater epistemological framework while trying to reformulate my
subjectivity so radically as to escape that same epistemological framework?
Can I have multiple subjectivities perhaps, operate at times "within the
system" and other times try to escape it completely? Can I strategically use
discourses against themselves? Foucault did point out that the rise of
capitalism and disciplinary power gave rise to "good" as well as "bad" ends
(please don't jump on "good" and "bad", i understand that the intellectual
should not plan out a normative framework, lets not rehash old discussions).
Should we merely accept disciplinary power and biopolitics and simply
create strategic discourses to move biopolitics toward good ends?

I realize these are huge questions, I'm just curious for everyone's take.

Partial thread listing: