Allen wrote:
>I take your point, but the problems is that in Foucaull\t's late
lectures he himself uses precisely the vocabulary of "sujet" and
"libert." 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?
Yes, this needed to be said. Cory's post was right to an extent, but
Foucault does certainly use these terms. It's not a question of conceptual
avoidance, but of examination of how the meanings attached to these terms
develop and change, both in Foucault's work and the texts he is examining.
He says that the way round the notion of the subject is to write a genealogy
of it... therefore the problem of the subject is intertwined with the use of
the term. Likewise freedom, which he understands in a particular way (we've
had this debate)
>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.
Yes, but the reverse is true too. There is the danger that the 1970-75 and
1976-1984 publication 'gaps' lead us to believe that there are major
transitions in his work, instead of gradual working at questions and
allowing the approach and terminology to be shaped by the material
uncovered. The lecture courses will fill in these 'gaps' even more than the
shorter writings, best seen in Dits et ecrits, already do. A full
translation of Dits et ecrits would be a serious event in English language
scholarship. The 'Essential' Foucault is a disgrace (I've said this before
too).
Stuart
>I take your point, but the problems is that in Foucaull\t's late
lectures he himself uses precisely the vocabulary of "sujet" and
"libert." 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?
Yes, this needed to be said. Cory's post was right to an extent, but
Foucault does certainly use these terms. It's not a question of conceptual
avoidance, but of examination of how the meanings attached to these terms
develop and change, both in Foucault's work and the texts he is examining.
He says that the way round the notion of the subject is to write a genealogy
of it... therefore the problem of the subject is intertwined with the use of
the term. Likewise freedom, which he understands in a particular way (we've
had this debate)
>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.
Yes, but the reverse is true too. There is the danger that the 1970-75 and
1976-1984 publication 'gaps' lead us to believe that there are major
transitions in his work, instead of gradual working at questions and
allowing the approach and terminology to be shaped by the material
uncovered. The lecture courses will fill in these 'gaps' even more than the
shorter writings, best seen in Dits et ecrits, already do. A full
translation of Dits et ecrits would be a serious event in English language
scholarship. The 'Essential' Foucault is a disgrace (I've said this before
too).
Stuart