> Stuart, as you already know!! I have to say I am the one of those who
> don't share this opinion - although I really like your article on the
> book.
Yes, that was intended. I remember you saying as much when we first
discussed the text on the list.
> For me, it has been one of the *most* interesting books of
> lectures so far. I prefer it to volumes 2 and 3 of The history of
> Sexuality for example. I think there is a lot of spelling out and
> logical working through of material that is perhaps abbreviated in
> Foucault's other texts on the same subjects.
I'm sure the last bit of that is true. I've always found Vols 2 and 3 and a
lot of the later Foucault much less interesting, which would explain this.
But i do find the whole issue of his work on Christianity fascinating.
> Re the other lectures, I
> didn't like 'Abnormal' at all - even if it was unfamiliar material
> and am pleased that Foucault didn't pursue that line of enquiry.
Whereas that for me was the most interesting. I found it a remarkable course
with lots of great, but undeveloped ideas.
In general terms I do think that in sum these courses are going to radically
shake up Foucault scholarship. The Heidegger lecture courses published over
the last 30 years have really changed how people perceive his work, and I
think this is true for Foucault too. I think particularly that seeing the
'governmentality' lecture back in its original context is going to be very
revealing.
Stuart
> don't share this opinion - although I really like your article on the
> book.
Yes, that was intended. I remember you saying as much when we first
discussed the text on the list.
> For me, it has been one of the *most* interesting books of
> lectures so far. I prefer it to volumes 2 and 3 of The history of
> Sexuality for example. I think there is a lot of spelling out and
> logical working through of material that is perhaps abbreviated in
> Foucault's other texts on the same subjects.
I'm sure the last bit of that is true. I've always found Vols 2 and 3 and a
lot of the later Foucault much less interesting, which would explain this.
But i do find the whole issue of his work on Christianity fascinating.
> Re the other lectures, I
> didn't like 'Abnormal' at all - even if it was unfamiliar material
> and am pleased that Foucault didn't pursue that line of enquiry.
Whereas that for me was the most interesting. I found it a remarkable course
with lots of great, but undeveloped ideas.
In general terms I do think that in sum these courses are going to radically
shake up Foucault scholarship. The Heidegger lecture courses published over
the last 30 years have really changed how people perceive his work, and I
think this is true for Foucault too. I think particularly that seeing the
'governmentality' lecture back in its original context is going to be very
revealing.
Stuart