This is certainly a superficial line of argument. It also seems unlikely to
do justice to Althusser's work, if it simply constitutes a means to then
introduce Bhaskar's (or Benton's) reading of Althusser as somehow
authoritative.
Rather than being an exercise in making a book on Marx sexier it might
reasonably be assumed that it was a strategy for generalising the features
of Marx's analysis of the labour-process to other forms of social
organization, which is what Foucault does to some extent in _Discipline and
Punish_.
For an interesting account of the relations between the works of Althusser
and Foucault in the early 1970s, see
Warren Montag, '"The soul is the prison of the body": Althusser and
Foucault, 1970-1975', in Jacques Lezra (ed.), _Depositions: Althusser,
Balibar, Macherey, and the Labor of Reading_, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1985 (also published as _Yale French Studies_, No. 88), pp. 53-77.
On Althusser's and Macherey's work relative to structuralism, the following
is also useful (as is Montag's recent book):
Warren Montag, 'Althusser's nominalism: structure and singularity
(1962-1966)', _Rethinking Marxism_, 10(3), 1998.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Foucualt and capital
> I haven't read all of marsden's book - I gave up on it because it didn't
> really seem to have much to do with Foucault. It seemed a really
interesting
> book about Marx though. Marsden in the early stages started pursuing lines
> like 'if Foucault is influenced by Althusser, then he was a realist' which
> seemed to be superficial to say the least as Foucault scholarship. My
> impression was that Foucault had been tacked on to make a book on Marx
> sexier. Not that I remotely blame Marsden for that or think that there is
> anything wrong with his scholarship in general.
do justice to Althusser's work, if it simply constitutes a means to then
introduce Bhaskar's (or Benton's) reading of Althusser as somehow
authoritative.
Rather than being an exercise in making a book on Marx sexier it might
reasonably be assumed that it was a strategy for generalising the features
of Marx's analysis of the labour-process to other forms of social
organization, which is what Foucault does to some extent in _Discipline and
Punish_.
For an interesting account of the relations between the works of Althusser
and Foucault in the early 1970s, see
Warren Montag, '"The soul is the prison of the body": Althusser and
Foucault, 1970-1975', in Jacques Lezra (ed.), _Depositions: Althusser,
Balibar, Macherey, and the Labor of Reading_, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1985 (also published as _Yale French Studies_, No. 88), pp. 53-77.
On Althusser's and Macherey's work relative to structuralism, the following
is also useful (as is Montag's recent book):
Warren Montag, 'Althusser's nominalism: structure and singularity
(1962-1966)', _Rethinking Marxism_, 10(3), 1998.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Foucualt and capital
> I haven't read all of marsden's book - I gave up on it because it didn't
> really seem to have much to do with Foucault. It seemed a really
interesting
> book about Marx though. Marsden in the early stages started pursuing lines
> like 'if Foucault is influenced by Althusser, then he was a realist' which
> seemed to be superficial to say the least as Foucault scholarship. My
> impression was that Foucault had been tacked on to make a book on Marx
> sexier. Not that I remotely blame Marsden for that or think that there is
> anything wrong with his scholarship in general.