I take your point, but the problems is that in Foucaull\t's late
lectures he himself uses precisely the vocabulary of "sujet" and
"liberté." It was clearly something he thought needed to be
revisited.
SO the question is how do we square the emphasis on bodies and pleasures
with the late use of this problematic vocabulary?
Likewise, saying there is no real difference between the late Foucault
and the earlier Foucault is clearly a vast oversimplification (this was
implied in earlier posting, not yours), even if you can see traces of
his later interests already in the early work.
Allen
Paul Allen Miller
Professor of Classics
Graduate Director
Languages, Literatures and Cultures
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0473
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> corywimberly@xxxxxxxxxxx 07/11/03 22:38 PM >>>
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
domination.
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.
-Cory
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
lectures he himself uses precisely the vocabulary of "sujet" and
"liberté." It was clearly something he thought needed to be
revisited.
SO the question is how do we square the emphasis on bodies and pleasures
with the late use of this problematic vocabulary?
Likewise, saying there is no real difference between the late Foucault
and the earlier Foucault is clearly a vast oversimplification (this was
implied in earlier posting, not yours), even if you can see traces of
his later interests already in the early work.
Allen
Paul Allen Miller
Professor of Classics
Graduate Director
Languages, Literatures and Cultures
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0473
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> corywimberly@xxxxxxxxxxx 07/11/03 22:38 PM >>>
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
domination.
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.
-Cory
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp