Colin,
I'm not sure how convincing I find your answer. There are other
crucial concepts which Foucault refused to define or flesh-out in
greater detail. It is well known (mostly through his interviews) that
he had a distaste for the category of "theory" and those concepts
proper to it. Thus, he proposes an "analytic of power relation" in the
place of a "theory of power". What he means by "analytic", for
instance, is only ever (to the best of my knowledge) developed
*negatively*; i.e., insofar as it isn't a "theory" -- which is usually
dismissed as "globalizing and totalizing". The concept of "analytic"
becomes further confused in my reading when you compare it to terms
such as "analytical theory" (a term Althusser uses throughout "The
Future Lasts Forever" in the place of psychoanalysis) or compare it to
his discussion with Deleuze, specifically 'theory as a toolkit'.
Whereas the idea of "power relations" is developed extensively in HSI
and SMBD, "analytic" is almost never discussed -- let alone defined.
Despite the concept of "analytic" being absolutely essential to
understanding what he means by "of power relations". This blindness --
or refusal, as it may be -- is repeated in the secondary literature,
especially that of the governmentality school who regularly argue in
favour of an "analytic of government". Like Foucault, they are keen to
discuss "of government" (you, yourself, wrote an excellent discussion
of "of government" in "The Foucault Effect" latter picked up by Rose et
al), but they never speak of "analytic". Clearly "analytic" is a
crucial concept that is undeveloped in both Foucault and the secondary
literature.
So, my question, I suppose, is why do you defend certain concepts as
having great importance ("government" and "governmentality", for
instance) while denying the importance of concepts upon which they
rely, specifically "dispotif" and possibly "analytic"? I recognize
that Foucault's historical work -- especially in the late seventies --
relies more upon the meaning of "government" than it does upon the
meaning of "analytic", but the importance of his study of "government"
is largely missed if we don't take into account the importance of
"analytic" and "dispotif". Without having a conceptual grounding --
"dispotif" and "analytic" -- one ends up with a series of interesting
historical studies that are mostly incoherent and eclectic on the
theoretical level thus obscuring their actual contributions both
theoretically and empirically.
I agree with Mark Cote that a deeper understanding of "dispotif" and
"analytic" reveals a confrontation with Marxist theory -- especially
Althusser's. It also reveals, in my view, that Foucault's work isn't
necessarily as anti-Marxist as some commentators have suggested.
cm.
On 10-Sep-04, at 2:30 AM, ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> Maybe there is no disagreement. I was only saying that, if Foucault
> himself
> thought the dispositif was a crucial concept he seems to have kept
> fairly
> quiet about it (though there is the moment in the discussion with the
> Lacanians
> when he is asked about it, and links it to the episteme), whereas he
> was
> usually quite forthcoming about questions of method. It is vastly more
> important
> of course in Deleuze's reading of F, which is a work of genius in its
> own
> right. And he was quite frugal in its use, I think - are there any
> dispositifs
> of ethics in the later work?
>
> I would venture to guess that if one could ask him about this he might
> have
> said,
> yes you are quite right, you have shown that this concept which I used
> so
> insouciantly in a few places has potentialities far beyond what I
> myself was
> able to perceive and exploit!
>
> regards
>
> Colin
I'm not sure how convincing I find your answer. There are other
crucial concepts which Foucault refused to define or flesh-out in
greater detail. It is well known (mostly through his interviews) that
he had a distaste for the category of "theory" and those concepts
proper to it. Thus, he proposes an "analytic of power relation" in the
place of a "theory of power". What he means by "analytic", for
instance, is only ever (to the best of my knowledge) developed
*negatively*; i.e., insofar as it isn't a "theory" -- which is usually
dismissed as "globalizing and totalizing". The concept of "analytic"
becomes further confused in my reading when you compare it to terms
such as "analytical theory" (a term Althusser uses throughout "The
Future Lasts Forever" in the place of psychoanalysis) or compare it to
his discussion with Deleuze, specifically 'theory as a toolkit'.
Whereas the idea of "power relations" is developed extensively in HSI
and SMBD, "analytic" is almost never discussed -- let alone defined.
Despite the concept of "analytic" being absolutely essential to
understanding what he means by "of power relations". This blindness --
or refusal, as it may be -- is repeated in the secondary literature,
especially that of the governmentality school who regularly argue in
favour of an "analytic of government". Like Foucault, they are keen to
discuss "of government" (you, yourself, wrote an excellent discussion
of "of government" in "The Foucault Effect" latter picked up by Rose et
al), but they never speak of "analytic". Clearly "analytic" is a
crucial concept that is undeveloped in both Foucault and the secondary
literature.
So, my question, I suppose, is why do you defend certain concepts as
having great importance ("government" and "governmentality", for
instance) while denying the importance of concepts upon which they
rely, specifically "dispotif" and possibly "analytic"? I recognize
that Foucault's historical work -- especially in the late seventies --
relies more upon the meaning of "government" than it does upon the
meaning of "analytic", but the importance of his study of "government"
is largely missed if we don't take into account the importance of
"analytic" and "dispotif". Without having a conceptual grounding --
"dispotif" and "analytic" -- one ends up with a series of interesting
historical studies that are mostly incoherent and eclectic on the
theoretical level thus obscuring their actual contributions both
theoretically and empirically.
I agree with Mark Cote that a deeper understanding of "dispotif" and
"analytic" reveals a confrontation with Marxist theory -- especially
Althusser's. It also reveals, in my view, that Foucault's work isn't
necessarily as anti-Marxist as some commentators have suggested.
cm.
On 10-Sep-04, at 2:30 AM, ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> Maybe there is no disagreement. I was only saying that, if Foucault
> himself
> thought the dispositif was a crucial concept he seems to have kept
> fairly
> quiet about it (though there is the moment in the discussion with the
> Lacanians
> when he is asked about it, and links it to the episteme), whereas he
> was
> usually quite forthcoming about questions of method. It is vastly more
> important
> of course in Deleuze's reading of F, which is a work of genius in its
> own
> right. And he was quite frugal in its use, I think - are there any
> dispositifs
> of ethics in the later work?
>
> I would venture to guess that if one could ask him about this he might
> have
> said,
> yes you are quite right, you have shown that this concept which I used
> so
> insouciantly in a few places has potentialities far beyond what I
> myself was
> able to perceive and exploit!
>
> regards
>
> Colin