ok...time someone answers the questions so we can move on with our lives...
WARNING: to anyone who has a good understanding of Foucault, this email
contains no new insights and is merely meant to demonstrate the flaws behind
Lionel's approach. If you are not interested in Lionel's question, I would
throw this email away. It is very long and I don't want to waste your time.
I'm sorry to spam the list but I only do so in the hope that no more emails
will be sent regarding this subject.
> My comments concern the dominant discouses in society. In recent years
drug
> gaze has had an increasing influence on society. With this gaze comes a
> discourse relating to drugs, their consumption and their distrubution. My
> suggestion is that the drug gaze and drug discourse have replaced that of
> Masonic gaze and Masonic discourse of the Modern era.
Where do I begin?
1. Gaze isn't what you think it is. There are several reasons why drug
dealers are not analogous to physicians, psychologists, or prison wardens.
There is NO dominant discourse in modern society which encourages drug use.
In drug abuse physicians see the decay of the body, psychologists see the
decay of the mind, sociologists see a system which takes potentially
productive workers and turns them into uproductive addicts or criminals, the
legal scholar sees a vast an growing area of criminal activity which must be
stopped.
2. You said it yourself, drug use runs counter to productive society.
Anyone with ANY understanding of biopolitics knows that biopower is the
integration of human/social sciences into governmentality. The aim of
biopower is to produce a productive population as understood through these
human sciences. See above for why they all hate drugs. Thus it seems that
drug abuse is very much opposed to biopolitics (though this does not imply
that it is *necessarliy* an efficable strategy for resistance).
3. Where the hell does this Freemason shit come from? Been watching too
many Oliver Stone movies? Although the Freemasons would certainly make an
interesting object of study in terms of power relations, they seem a poor
fit with disciplinary power. In fact one of the key elements of Freemasonry
is its aristocratic nature. Freemasonry cannot be seen as an exercise in
disciplinary power because it was not a moral system meant for the masses.
It was not designed to promote productivity. In fact, Freemasonry seems to
have much more in common with early monastic orders, and perhaps even "care
of the self" than disciplinary technology.
> Does Postmodernity
> discard Morality Plays for Immorality Plays? For example, if it is legal
to
> break some laws within one's home will that create a precedence for
breaking
> all laws within one's home?
Nothing to do with knowledge production, everything to do with a flawed
legalistic view of power. Nothing to do with Foucault.
> Will the Morality based discourse of
> Freemasonry be replaced by the Immorality based discourse of Drugs? How
has
> the social order changed?
Last question is very interesting. Unfortunately it has very little to do
with either Freemasonry, or the gaze of a drug dealer.
> Why are some people refusing to engage in polemics?
Cause polemics suck 'n stuff bro. People are engaging in discussion, they
are merely questioning the way your are approaching the issue. Just because
they don't want to answer the question you asked does not mean they aren't
willing to approach the question of drug use.
> Is there a new discipline based on political correctness as opposed to
> truth?
As we say in the good ol' US of A, this one comes straight outta left field.
If you are trying to say that supporting the drug war is politically
incorrect and that on this basis we are silencing you? Thats rediculous.
Not only is it much more politically incorrect to support drug use, no one
on this list has been opposed to the investigation of the question of drug
use. They simply think the way you are going about it is flawed.
> What is truth? Has truth changed?
Another very interesting question worthy of further investigation. Again,
nothing to do with Freemasons or dope pushers.
> Has truth become a lie?
Sounds pretty, means nothing.
> Has a drug gaze contributed to the elimnation of docility and utility?
Ok now this is rediculous. Docility and utility are opposed to each other.
You don't eliminate docility and productivity together, the elimination of
docility would lead to increased productivity.
> How has drug gaze become an issue that is de-legitimised to be discussed
on
> this list (foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)?
See above about the fundamental flaws in your analysis of a "drug gaze."
See also Stuart's commentary showing that this analysis is a
misappropriation of the concept of gaze.
> What power / knowlege
> relationship has led some people to deny it legitimacy or worthy of
> discussion?
Your ideas contradict the ideas of Foucault to a great degree. Most people
on this list are big fans of Foucault. Thus, we are not big fans of your
analysis. As there is no subject prior to power, of course our opposition
to you is the result of a series of power relations, just as your opposition
to us is a result of your subjectivation.
> Why do some people want the list moderated to eliminate this
> discussion?
Cause they want a serious and scholarly analysis regarding Foucault. Yours
isn't getting the job done.
> Is the security of the western world being undermined by a drug gaze?
Damnit, when I saw this question my eyes popped clean outta my head and now
I'm blind and its YOUR FAULT! Anyway the concept of security is tied very
deeply to biopolitics. We've been over this.
The bottom line is this: a serious discussion of drug discourse from a
Foucauldian standpoint must look to the major distinctions between the
discourse advocating drug use (very seldom scientific, very often standing
against dominant disciplines) and systems of disciplinary discourse. Your
analysis fails to do this.
On that note, does anyone have something relevant to add? More analysis of
the discourses surrounding addiction perhaps?
WARNING: to anyone who has a good understanding of Foucault, this email
contains no new insights and is merely meant to demonstrate the flaws behind
Lionel's approach. If you are not interested in Lionel's question, I would
throw this email away. It is very long and I don't want to waste your time.
I'm sorry to spam the list but I only do so in the hope that no more emails
will be sent regarding this subject.
> My comments concern the dominant discouses in society. In recent years
drug
> gaze has had an increasing influence on society. With this gaze comes a
> discourse relating to drugs, their consumption and their distrubution. My
> suggestion is that the drug gaze and drug discourse have replaced that of
> Masonic gaze and Masonic discourse of the Modern era.
Where do I begin?
1. Gaze isn't what you think it is. There are several reasons why drug
dealers are not analogous to physicians, psychologists, or prison wardens.
There is NO dominant discourse in modern society which encourages drug use.
In drug abuse physicians see the decay of the body, psychologists see the
decay of the mind, sociologists see a system which takes potentially
productive workers and turns them into uproductive addicts or criminals, the
legal scholar sees a vast an growing area of criminal activity which must be
stopped.
2. You said it yourself, drug use runs counter to productive society.
Anyone with ANY understanding of biopolitics knows that biopower is the
integration of human/social sciences into governmentality. The aim of
biopower is to produce a productive population as understood through these
human sciences. See above for why they all hate drugs. Thus it seems that
drug abuse is very much opposed to biopolitics (though this does not imply
that it is *necessarliy* an efficable strategy for resistance).
3. Where the hell does this Freemason shit come from? Been watching too
many Oliver Stone movies? Although the Freemasons would certainly make an
interesting object of study in terms of power relations, they seem a poor
fit with disciplinary power. In fact one of the key elements of Freemasonry
is its aristocratic nature. Freemasonry cannot be seen as an exercise in
disciplinary power because it was not a moral system meant for the masses.
It was not designed to promote productivity. In fact, Freemasonry seems to
have much more in common with early monastic orders, and perhaps even "care
of the self" than disciplinary technology.
> Does Postmodernity
> discard Morality Plays for Immorality Plays? For example, if it is legal
to
> break some laws within one's home will that create a precedence for
breaking
> all laws within one's home?
Nothing to do with knowledge production, everything to do with a flawed
legalistic view of power. Nothing to do with Foucault.
> Will the Morality based discourse of
> Freemasonry be replaced by the Immorality based discourse of Drugs? How
has
> the social order changed?
Last question is very interesting. Unfortunately it has very little to do
with either Freemasonry, or the gaze of a drug dealer.
> Why are some people refusing to engage in polemics?
Cause polemics suck 'n stuff bro. People are engaging in discussion, they
are merely questioning the way your are approaching the issue. Just because
they don't want to answer the question you asked does not mean they aren't
willing to approach the question of drug use.
> Is there a new discipline based on political correctness as opposed to
> truth?
As we say in the good ol' US of A, this one comes straight outta left field.
If you are trying to say that supporting the drug war is politically
incorrect and that on this basis we are silencing you? Thats rediculous.
Not only is it much more politically incorrect to support drug use, no one
on this list has been opposed to the investigation of the question of drug
use. They simply think the way you are going about it is flawed.
> What is truth? Has truth changed?
Another very interesting question worthy of further investigation. Again,
nothing to do with Freemasons or dope pushers.
> Has truth become a lie?
Sounds pretty, means nothing.
> Has a drug gaze contributed to the elimnation of docility and utility?
Ok now this is rediculous. Docility and utility are opposed to each other.
You don't eliminate docility and productivity together, the elimination of
docility would lead to increased productivity.
> How has drug gaze become an issue that is de-legitimised to be discussed
on
> this list (foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)?
See above about the fundamental flaws in your analysis of a "drug gaze."
See also Stuart's commentary showing that this analysis is a
misappropriation of the concept of gaze.
> What power / knowlege
> relationship has led some people to deny it legitimacy or worthy of
> discussion?
Your ideas contradict the ideas of Foucault to a great degree. Most people
on this list are big fans of Foucault. Thus, we are not big fans of your
analysis. As there is no subject prior to power, of course our opposition
to you is the result of a series of power relations, just as your opposition
to us is a result of your subjectivation.
> Why do some people want the list moderated to eliminate this
> discussion?
Cause they want a serious and scholarly analysis regarding Foucault. Yours
isn't getting the job done.
> Is the security of the western world being undermined by a drug gaze?
Damnit, when I saw this question my eyes popped clean outta my head and now
I'm blind and its YOUR FAULT! Anyway the concept of security is tied very
deeply to biopolitics. We've been over this.
The bottom line is this: a serious discussion of drug discourse from a
Foucauldian standpoint must look to the major distinctions between the
discourse advocating drug use (very seldom scientific, very often standing
against dominant disciplines) and systems of disciplinary discourse. Your
analysis fails to do this.
On that note, does anyone have something relevant to add? More analysis of
the discourses surrounding addiction perhaps?