Colin (and other list members)
Many thanks for your most useful and extensive notes in relation to
the lectures.
>Nor, as far as I know, does he elsewhere give quite the same
>explanation of the
>benefits of the governmentality perpective or make the same explicit comment
>on its merits as an advance on savoir-pouvoir. I am myself sure he did not
>mean to tell other people who find the latter approach useful for their own
>purposes that they should give it up.
I certainly haven't seen anything as extreme elsewhere either. He is
well-known however for enthusiastically adopting new ideas while
saying that his previous ones had not been quite up to par -but when
one looks at the general structure of his work there are strong
continuities (or patterns) there.
David comments
At 10:42 +1030 20/3/04, David McInerney wrote:
>I'm just wondering if you think that this formulation might not present a
>notion of 'the author' and 'his ouevre' that Foucault himself rejected? It
>seems to suggest that the work of Foucault consists in the unfolding of
>something that was always present. Can you clarify exactly how you
>understand the relation between the early and later work - do you mean that
>the ideas in the earlier work persist alongside new, unprecedented concepts
>that emerge later? Or that the later ideas are somehow entirely a
>'development' of the earlier ideas?
Depends on how one uses these concepts. If you select a body of work
produced by one individual, or maybe a few individuals then you can
look at the structures that emerge in that opus and draw out
patterns. I think for Foucault it was identifying and confusing the
conceptual orders of the author and the work and explaining one in
terms of the other that was the problem. One, however, could usefully
look at the relation between these two separate cultural orders. If
one examines Foucault's work you can see patterns that emerge. This
is not the same thing as saying that his work consists of unfolding
something that is always present. One could look at his work as a
kind of mini episteme. I don't think the later ideas are a
development of earlier ideas. In my view, Foucault tended to look at
the same concerns from different angles throughout his career, and
like the episteme, these kind of structures only become evident after
the fact. In relation to recent discussions, I have to say that I
rather like the episteme and the similar notion of historical a
priori as ideas.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************
Many thanks for your most useful and extensive notes in relation to
the lectures.
>Nor, as far as I know, does he elsewhere give quite the same
>explanation of the
>benefits of the governmentality perpective or make the same explicit comment
>on its merits as an advance on savoir-pouvoir. I am myself sure he did not
>mean to tell other people who find the latter approach useful for their own
>purposes that they should give it up.
I certainly haven't seen anything as extreme elsewhere either. He is
well-known however for enthusiastically adopting new ideas while
saying that his previous ones had not been quite up to par -but when
one looks at the general structure of his work there are strong
continuities (or patterns) there.
David comments
At 10:42 +1030 20/3/04, David McInerney wrote:
>I'm just wondering if you think that this formulation might not present a
>notion of 'the author' and 'his ouevre' that Foucault himself rejected? It
>seems to suggest that the work of Foucault consists in the unfolding of
>something that was always present. Can you clarify exactly how you
>understand the relation between the early and later work - do you mean that
>the ideas in the earlier work persist alongside new, unprecedented concepts
>that emerge later? Or that the later ideas are somehow entirely a
>'development' of the earlier ideas?
Depends on how one uses these concepts. If you select a body of work
produced by one individual, or maybe a few individuals then you can
look at the structures that emerge in that opus and draw out
patterns. I think for Foucault it was identifying and confusing the
conceptual orders of the author and the work and explaining one in
terms of the other that was the problem. One, however, could usefully
look at the relation between these two separate cultural orders. If
one examines Foucault's work you can see patterns that emerge. This
is not the same thing as saying that his work consists of unfolding
something that is always present. One could look at his work as a
kind of mini episteme. I don't think the later ideas are a
development of earlier ideas. In my view, Foucault tended to look at
the same concerns from different angles throughout his career, and
like the episteme, these kind of structures only become evident after
the fact. In relation to recent discussions, I have to say that I
rather like the episteme and the similar notion of historical a
priori as ideas.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************