Subjects and Freedom or Bodies and Pleasure?

I think we need to be careful with the language that we use with Foucault's
later work. To use the terms freedom and subject may well be to already
misspeak Foucault. Remember his words in His Sex I on a turn to Bodies and
Pleasures to resist the normalization of sexuality as well as the more
general domination of bio- and disciplinary power.

I really don't see how the subject is a useful notion in this context.
Foucault problematises the birth of subjectivity in His Sex II and III and
finds that the division of the self into a subject which is the object of an
ethical interrogation by the self and others is genetically related to rise
of disciplinary institutions. If one wants to take seriously his claim that
an examination of bodies and pleasure is the starting point for counter
attack--then why not look at why Foucault would talk of bodies instead of
subjects. Perhaps because subjectivity is not a counter to disciplinary

Additionally, I cannot see what work the word freedom would do in Foucault
except as an opposite to domination. But is freedom what Foucault is
seeking outside of discipline? Is the movement a movement of bi-lateral,
binary opposition? I don't think so...he instead gives us to think about
pleasure, not as an opposite of domination, but as an alternative. A form
of ethical involvement which is outside of that of the disciplines and the
control of populations.

MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !

Partial thread listing: