'1) there is quite clearly a model of power operative in MC, BC, and OT; and
while it is true that Foucault did not theoriese this model, it is evident
on more or less every page of these text: as Phil notes, fouculat has
stated, albeit retrospectively, that ?when I think back now, I ask myself
what else was I talking about in Madness and Civilization or The Birth of
the Clinic, but power??('Truth and Power').'
- I think the keyword here is retrospectively! His effort to develop a
genealogical analytique that would 'augment' his archeological one speaks to
that: the problem of the formation and the transformation of discursive
formations was 'resolved' by linking those phenomenons to practices, to
regime of pratices - and hence to power relations. Thinking back on what he
was doing then, he sees that. But that implies that there was then neither a
conceptual development of power nor of the knowledge/power relations.
François
while it is true that Foucault did not theoriese this model, it is evident
on more or less every page of these text: as Phil notes, fouculat has
stated, albeit retrospectively, that ?when I think back now, I ask myself
what else was I talking about in Madness and Civilization or The Birth of
the Clinic, but power??('Truth and Power').'
- I think the keyword here is retrospectively! His effort to develop a
genealogical analytique that would 'augment' his archeological one speaks to
that: the problem of the formation and the transformation of discursive
formations was 'resolved' by linking those phenomenons to practices, to
regime of pratices - and hence to power relations. Thinking back on what he
was doing then, he sees that. But that implies that there was then neither a
conceptual development of power nor of the knowledge/power relations.
François