Francois
>It is indeed pretty funny! But is there any indication as to what are the key
>reasons why he wants to leave power-knowledge aside? Getting away from
>ideology, for example, was an effort to get rid of the quasi-implied false
>consciousness in any usage of it - amongst other things.
He does say that he has been using the notion of government already
in his courses of the two previous years. He says that he finds the
notion of government much more operational (operatoire) than the
notion of power because it has wider and more refined applications.
He also says that he 'now wants to elaborate the notion of knowledge
in the direction of the problem of truth.'
>I'm asking because when I look at the concepts that have been associated by
>Foucault and/or others to the governmentality frame of reference I
>don't see so
>much discontinuity as the following of a particular line of inquiry:
>problematisation, truth, genealogy, liberal rule, un-governable populations,
>etc.- these were all notions that he had used before - or that he could well
>have used, ie. they fit in well with his previous concerns. In other words, it
>does'nt seem to me that this 'new' conceptual apparatus is so much a
>fundamental distanciation from previous work as an extension in (a) specific
>direction(s).
I completely agree with you here. These things are already there in
his work in the notions of power-knowledge. They are just in a
slightly different format. The same ideas are also there right from
his earliest work - he merely keeps on changing his terminology and
developing things from slightly different angles and refining his
analysis.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************
>It is indeed pretty funny! But is there any indication as to what are the key
>reasons why he wants to leave power-knowledge aside? Getting away from
>ideology, for example, was an effort to get rid of the quasi-implied false
>consciousness in any usage of it - amongst other things.
He does say that he has been using the notion of government already
in his courses of the two previous years. He says that he finds the
notion of government much more operational (operatoire) than the
notion of power because it has wider and more refined applications.
He also says that he 'now wants to elaborate the notion of knowledge
in the direction of the problem of truth.'
>I'm asking because when I look at the concepts that have been associated by
>Foucault and/or others to the governmentality frame of reference I
>don't see so
>much discontinuity as the following of a particular line of inquiry:
>problematisation, truth, genealogy, liberal rule, un-governable populations,
>etc.- these were all notions that he had used before - or that he could well
>have used, ie. they fit in well with his previous concerns. In other words, it
>does'nt seem to me that this 'new' conceptual apparatus is so much a
>fundamental distanciation from previous work as an extension in (a) specific
>direction(s).
I completely agree with you here. These things are already there in
his work in the notions of power-knowledge. They are just in a
slightly different format. The same ideas are also there right from
his earliest work - he merely keeps on changing his terminology and
developing things from slightly different angles and refining his
analysis.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************