Re: Drugs and Social Reality

bravo Bryan
in vino veritas etc.
I am not being a Foucault fascist, but it seems to me that several people
participating in this debate would be far better off spending their time
reading some Foucault than propagating their inane opinions. This list
really does exit for the discussion of Foucault, critical or otherwise, not
for posts which start 'I don't know anything about Foucault, but here's what
I think about drugs'.

Just to give this email some positive content, some remarks by Foucault on
drugs can be found in. . .
Disipline and Punish where he talks in passing about the way the drug trade
is economically useful to the existing order while being conducted by
I think Power/Knowledge (but maybe Language, Counter-Memory, Practice) where
in an interview with students he talks about the way in which drug laws are
a way of controlling youth. This has been one of the most influential
coments for me in my thinking about drugs: since almost everyone in my age
group uses drugs, the use of drug searches are basically just an arbitrary
way of persecuting whoever is searched. I notice in Sydney where I live that
the targets of drug searches are gays, ethnic minorities and people who
dress in certain ways (e.g. punks like me).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Clark" <bryan_clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Drugs and Social Reality

> WARNING: serious scholars throw this one away too. its a drunken rant. i
> know silence would probably be the best policy...but i'm really pissed
> > Human beings exist prior to discourse
> > and culture (whatever Foucault may believe).
> > There were many repressed impulses, desires and thoughts
> > lurking below the surface. There was a longing for something deeper.
> random psychoanalytic bullshit (which, by the way, you aren't backing up
> all with anything other than blind fucking assertions) go do that in the
> random psychoanalytic bullshit list. In these 2 statements you have
> rejected the almost ALL of Foucault's work. If you want to actually make
> the argument that the repressive hypothesis is not a flawed framework, go
> fer it. But just saying "human being exist prior to discourse" without
> backing it up in any way is just plain dogmatic and stupid. And why do
> say "whatever Foucault may believe). Foucault did extensive research on
> this. Large sections of at least four of his major books are devoted to
> showing how it is historically inaccurate to say the subject is repressed.
> On they other hand you have your random assertion that "human beings exist
> prior to discourse and culture." Go you.
> Sorry...sorry. I know I'm an asshole. Thats just my style. But I mean

Partial thread listing: