Hi all.
I have another question for you.
Firstly:
Clausewitz:
â??War is simply the continuation of policy with other meansâ?? (Clausewitz,
C. 1976 On War Howard, M. and Paret, P. (eds), Princeton: Princeton
University Press: 87>.
Foucault:
'Should we turn the expression around, then, and say that politics is war
pursued by other means? If we still wish to maintain a separation between
war and politics, perhaps we should postulate rather that this
multiplicity of force relations can be coded â?? in part but never totally â??
either in the form of "war," or in the form of "politics;" this would
imply two different strategies (but the one always liable to switch into
the other) for integrating these unbalanced, heterogeneous, unstable, and
tense force relations'
(Foucault, M. 1979 The History of Sexuality: Volume I, An Introduction,
Harmondsworth: Penguin: 93).
And hereâ??s the question:
Given the above statement, and given Foucaultâ??s comments, presented some
six years later towards the end of the essay 'The Subject and Power'
(Foucault, M. 2001 'The Subject and Power,' in Foucault, M. Power:
Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 Vol. III, Harmondsworth:
Penguin: 326-348.), concerning strategy, and his remarks, given some eight
years later in an interview conducted not long before his untimely death,
in which he stated that:
'[i]f God grants me life, after madness, illness, crime, sexuality, the
last things that I would like to study would be the problem of war and the
institution of war in what one could call the military dimension of
society' (Foucault, M. 1989 'What Our Present Is,' in id. Foucault Live,
New York: Semiotext(e): 407-415: 415)
is it feasible to say, yes or no, that, following the publication of The
History of Sexuality Vol. 1, Foucault rejected the military model of
discipline and the war model of power; that, in short, he rejected the
"Nietzschean hypothesis"?
Regards â?? Kevin.
--
Kevin Turner
Dept. of Sociology
Cartmel College
Lancaster University
Lancaster
LA1 4YL
(01524) 594508
I have another question for you.
Firstly:
Clausewitz:
â??War is simply the continuation of policy with other meansâ?? (Clausewitz,
C. 1976 On War Howard, M. and Paret, P. (eds), Princeton: Princeton
University Press: 87>.
Foucault:
'Should we turn the expression around, then, and say that politics is war
pursued by other means? If we still wish to maintain a separation between
war and politics, perhaps we should postulate rather that this
multiplicity of force relations can be coded â?? in part but never totally â??
either in the form of "war," or in the form of "politics;" this would
imply two different strategies (but the one always liable to switch into
the other) for integrating these unbalanced, heterogeneous, unstable, and
tense force relations'
(Foucault, M. 1979 The History of Sexuality: Volume I, An Introduction,
Harmondsworth: Penguin: 93).
And hereâ??s the question:
Given the above statement, and given Foucaultâ??s comments, presented some
six years later towards the end of the essay 'The Subject and Power'
(Foucault, M. 2001 'The Subject and Power,' in Foucault, M. Power:
Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 Vol. III, Harmondsworth:
Penguin: 326-348.), concerning strategy, and his remarks, given some eight
years later in an interview conducted not long before his untimely death,
in which he stated that:
'[i]f God grants me life, after madness, illness, crime, sexuality, the
last things that I would like to study would be the problem of war and the
institution of war in what one could call the military dimension of
society' (Foucault, M. 1989 'What Our Present Is,' in id. Foucault Live,
New York: Semiotext(e): 407-415: 415)
is it feasible to say, yes or no, that, following the publication of The
History of Sexuality Vol. 1, Foucault rejected the military model of
discipline and the war model of power; that, in short, he rejected the
"Nietzschean hypothesis"?
Regards â?? Kevin.
--
Kevin Turner
Dept. of Sociology
Cartmel College
Lancaster University
Lancaster
LA1 4YL
(01524) 594508