I agree with what you say, but just because there was no "explicitly"
conceptualisation of power in these texts does not mean that there was no
(operative) model of power. As I said, I think if one reads these texts
there is quite clearly a model of power being mobilised. This model, which
one can retrospectively characterise as the Reichian hypothesis, was
unathematised, untheorised, and thus "implicit," but it was nonetheless
present.
In addition, I think it possible to note traces of the Nietzschean model of
power (the descriptions of Tuke, Pinel, Pomme), and of Foucault's later
notion of governmentality (the role of the police, the political
consciousness of medicine, etc) in these books.
Thus whilst it is probably the case that, as you say, linking knowledge to
power "implies that there was then neither a
conceptual development of power nor of the knowledge/power relations," I
think Foucault is quite right to note, however retrospectively, the power
axis evidenced in MC, BC, and OT. It was this that lead me to ask about the
specific term (pouvoir or puissance) that Foucault used when he did mention
the word power in these texts.
I say probably in the above, because I also think that Foucault has, at
least since MC, been interested in the relationship between thinking and
doing, between a thought and a gesture, between the theoretical and the
practical, the real and the imaginary, history and philosophy, etc.: which
is to say, between what he later referred to as pouvoir-savoir, and later
still to governmentalité - i.e. governmental rationality.
And this is why I think Mark, perhaps in spite of himself, gave a very good
answer to my original question.
Regards - Kevin.
----- Original Message -----
From: "François Gagnon" <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
> '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
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.3 - Release Date: 26/11/2004
conceptualisation of power in these texts does not mean that there was no
(operative) model of power. As I said, I think if one reads these texts
there is quite clearly a model of power being mobilised. This model, which
one can retrospectively characterise as the Reichian hypothesis, was
unathematised, untheorised, and thus "implicit," but it was nonetheless
present.
In addition, I think it possible to note traces of the Nietzschean model of
power (the descriptions of Tuke, Pinel, Pomme), and of Foucault's later
notion of governmentality (the role of the police, the political
consciousness of medicine, etc) in these books.
Thus whilst it is probably the case that, as you say, linking knowledge to
power "implies that there was then neither a
conceptual development of power nor of the knowledge/power relations," I
think Foucault is quite right to note, however retrospectively, the power
axis evidenced in MC, BC, and OT. It was this that lead me to ask about the
specific term (pouvoir or puissance) that Foucault used when he did mention
the word power in these texts.
I say probably in the above, because I also think that Foucault has, at
least since MC, been interested in the relationship between thinking and
doing, between a thought and a gesture, between the theoretical and the
practical, the real and the imaginary, history and philosophy, etc.: which
is to say, between what he later referred to as pouvoir-savoir, and later
still to governmentalité - i.e. governmental rationality.
And this is why I think Mark, perhaps in spite of himself, gave a very good
answer to my original question.
Regards - Kevin.
----- Original Message -----
From: "François Gagnon" <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
> '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
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.3 - Release Date: 26/11/2004