Hi Brodie,
Thanks for your interesting, and somewhat challenging, set of questions;
challenging in the sense that they go to the hart of what I am attempting to
do.
1. I agree that "one" of the central concerns Foucault was addressing was
the subject; however, I have a problem with positing the subject as being
"the" central concern of Foucault's critical project. To present the subject
as being Foucault's central concern is as problematic as positing either
knowledge/truth or power/government as being "the" central question Foucault
was addressing. Rather, I think Foucault project is best situated within the
space constituted by these three axes: our relations to knowledge and to
truth; our relations to rules and to obligations; our relations to others
and to ourselves. Such a triangle constitutes what Foucault termed the
"matrix of experience" (see 'Preface to The History of Sexuality, Volume
Two'), and what I refer to in my thesis as "Foucault's problematic."
2. I may have given the impression that the question concerning power in
Foucault's early writings was all my thesis was about. If this was the case,
then your concerns would, I think, be fully justified. However, the thesis
is doing more than this; in fact the "bringing to the fore the
conceptualization of power used in MC" only constitutes one chapter of the
thesis.
3. The reason I want to address the model of power operative in MC and BC,
the rationale of bringing the model of power to the fore, is precisely to
raise the question of why Foucault came to see such a negative model of
power as being inadequate for the kind of analyses he is undertaking:
vis-à-vis knowledge and the subject. That is to say, it is to not simply
accept that the repressive model of power was rejected, but to actually look
at why it was rejected, and to do this by looking at how such a model was
used in these texts. In addition, it is also to note that Foucault's later
reformulations of power, first as "pouvoir," then as government, can be seen
in embryonic form in these "early writings."
4. The reason for doing this is that what my thesis is actually about is the
emergence of the notion of government in Foucault's thought. And thus what I
am interested in is noting the conditions of possibility for the emergence
of the notion of government in Foucault's writings from the 1960's and
early-to-mid 1970s.
5. As I have already stated, the three genealogical axes that constitute
what I call Foucault's problematic cannot be separated from each other;
neither in Foucault's analysis of historically specific forms of experience
themselves, nor in a study of these analyses, To specify one of the three
axes of Foucault's problematic as being the primary or organising principle
of that problematic would be to miss the point. To specify one as being the
focus of a particular enquiry is a different matter. Firstly, what I am
doing here, since I am interested in charting the emergence of the notion of
government in Foucault's thought, and since government is the term Foucault
substituted for power in his later writings, is to "focus" on the question
concerning power; which is neither to address that question "exclusively"
nor to treat it "exhaustively." Secondly, of the three axes that form
Foucault's problematic, the axis concerning power is, perhaps, the most
misunderstood, and, accordingly, the one that most warrants further
investigation. Thirdly, and here lies the crux of the issues, of the three
axes that form the matrix of experience that constitutes what I am calling
Foucault's problematic, the most problematic for Foucault, or so I argue,
was the question concerning our relations to rules and obligations, to norms
and normalisations, in short, to the question pertaining to power.
the notion of repression is.more insidious.I myself have had much trouble in
freeing myself of it insofar as it does indeed appear to correspond so well
with a whole range of phenomena that belong among the effects of power (P/K:
119).
Whilst it may be the case that there were formations, transformations and
reformulations, that there were revisions and reversions regarding the
question concerning knowledge and the question concerning self, I want to
argue that the "motor," as it were, for these displacements, that the
"engine" that drove the curve of Foucault's thought, was, in fact, the
question concerning power. This is not to posit power as being "the" central
question Foucault was addressing, but simply to note that is was perhaps the
most problematic or troubling axes for Foucault: it was, after all, the
problematisation of the notion of power, or perhaps of the absence of such a
notion of power, in Foucault's early work that lead to his project of the
early-to-mid 1970s; and it was aging the problematisations of the notion of
power, specifically with reference to the notion of resistance, which marked
a shift in emphasis form a "genealogy of moral" (an analysis of the
political technology of individuals) to a genealogy of ethics (an analysis
of the culture of the self, of a concern of care of the self).
OK. I have gone on longer than I intended to, but I hope the above addresses
some of your concerns vis-à-vis the "significance" of my thesis.
Regards - Kevin.
----- Original Message -----
From: " Richards" <brodie_richards@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
> If we follow Foucault's own production of quotes, then, we must add the
> statement "it is not power, but the subject, which is the general theme of
> my research." (Subject and Power.) This is rather evident, but it is worth
> repeating, that Foucault main task was always to participate in much a
wider
> philosophical project which was attempting to develop a way out of the
> philosophical paradigm of the "constitutive subject."
>
> The most pertinent question seems to me to be how does Foucault interpret
> the constitution of the "mad subject" and how do the different shifts and
> reevaluations throughout his life change that interpretation. The concept
> of power is important to Foucault's concept of subjectivity and how
> subjectivity is constituted by practice, but it seems to me that we have a
> tendency of emphasizing the concept of power and losing the focal point
that
> is Foucault's dialogue with the philosophical discourse that is
> problematizing the nature of subjectivity. Discourse, power, ethics are
the
> central parts to Foucault's grammar about subjectivity, but if we choose
to
> only analyse the concept of power itself, then all we gain from Foucault
is
> a novel idea about power but we don't know what work it can do. How many
> studies can we point to that suggest they are "using" his concept of
power,
> but fail to understand its link with the philosophical question of the
> subject.
>
> Kevin, if we agree that the question of the subject is the central
question
> that Foucault asks, in all his work, how is our understanding of his
> approach to that question enhanced by "trying to bring to the fore" a
> conceptualization of power used in M/C but not theorized? If we say that
he
> uses a "repressive" notion of power in M/C, how does that impact the way
we
> relate to his discussion of the constitution of the "mad subject"? Is the
> "early work" devalued by your thesis that he is using a notion of power
that
> he later rejects?
>
> I think the importance of the "early work" is to watch Foucault situate
> subjectivity in discourse and not consciousness. Yes, he is using a
notion
> of power that he would later rework to explain how language and practice
> form a productive relation with one another, but that was a step built on
> the initial theorization that our experience of ourselves as subjects is
an
> experience constituted by practice, specifically discursive practices.
What
> I am having trouble following is the "significance" of your thesis about
the
> "early work" and power for our understanding of Foucualt. What
possibility
> of understanding about his project does it open up?
>
> Cheers, Brodie
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.7 - Release Date: 07/12/2004
Thanks for your interesting, and somewhat challenging, set of questions;
challenging in the sense that they go to the hart of what I am attempting to
do.
1. I agree that "one" of the central concerns Foucault was addressing was
the subject; however, I have a problem with positing the subject as being
"the" central concern of Foucault's critical project. To present the subject
as being Foucault's central concern is as problematic as positing either
knowledge/truth or power/government as being "the" central question Foucault
was addressing. Rather, I think Foucault project is best situated within the
space constituted by these three axes: our relations to knowledge and to
truth; our relations to rules and to obligations; our relations to others
and to ourselves. Such a triangle constitutes what Foucault termed the
"matrix of experience" (see 'Preface to The History of Sexuality, Volume
Two'), and what I refer to in my thesis as "Foucault's problematic."
2. I may have given the impression that the question concerning power in
Foucault's early writings was all my thesis was about. If this was the case,
then your concerns would, I think, be fully justified. However, the thesis
is doing more than this; in fact the "bringing to the fore the
conceptualization of power used in MC" only constitutes one chapter of the
thesis.
3. The reason I want to address the model of power operative in MC and BC,
the rationale of bringing the model of power to the fore, is precisely to
raise the question of why Foucault came to see such a negative model of
power as being inadequate for the kind of analyses he is undertaking:
vis-à-vis knowledge and the subject. That is to say, it is to not simply
accept that the repressive model of power was rejected, but to actually look
at why it was rejected, and to do this by looking at how such a model was
used in these texts. In addition, it is also to note that Foucault's later
reformulations of power, first as "pouvoir," then as government, can be seen
in embryonic form in these "early writings."
4. The reason for doing this is that what my thesis is actually about is the
emergence of the notion of government in Foucault's thought. And thus what I
am interested in is noting the conditions of possibility for the emergence
of the notion of government in Foucault's writings from the 1960's and
early-to-mid 1970s.
5. As I have already stated, the three genealogical axes that constitute
what I call Foucault's problematic cannot be separated from each other;
neither in Foucault's analysis of historically specific forms of experience
themselves, nor in a study of these analyses, To specify one of the three
axes of Foucault's problematic as being the primary or organising principle
of that problematic would be to miss the point. To specify one as being the
focus of a particular enquiry is a different matter. Firstly, what I am
doing here, since I am interested in charting the emergence of the notion of
government in Foucault's thought, and since government is the term Foucault
substituted for power in his later writings, is to "focus" on the question
concerning power; which is neither to address that question "exclusively"
nor to treat it "exhaustively." Secondly, of the three axes that form
Foucault's problematic, the axis concerning power is, perhaps, the most
misunderstood, and, accordingly, the one that most warrants further
investigation. Thirdly, and here lies the crux of the issues, of the three
axes that form the matrix of experience that constitutes what I am calling
Foucault's problematic, the most problematic for Foucault, or so I argue,
was the question concerning our relations to rules and obligations, to norms
and normalisations, in short, to the question pertaining to power.
the notion of repression is.more insidious.I myself have had much trouble in
freeing myself of it insofar as it does indeed appear to correspond so well
with a whole range of phenomena that belong among the effects of power (P/K:
119).
Whilst it may be the case that there were formations, transformations and
reformulations, that there were revisions and reversions regarding the
question concerning knowledge and the question concerning self, I want to
argue that the "motor," as it were, for these displacements, that the
"engine" that drove the curve of Foucault's thought, was, in fact, the
question concerning power. This is not to posit power as being "the" central
question Foucault was addressing, but simply to note that is was perhaps the
most problematic or troubling axes for Foucault: it was, after all, the
problematisation of the notion of power, or perhaps of the absence of such a
notion of power, in Foucault's early work that lead to his project of the
early-to-mid 1970s; and it was aging the problematisations of the notion of
power, specifically with reference to the notion of resistance, which marked
a shift in emphasis form a "genealogy of moral" (an analysis of the
political technology of individuals) to a genealogy of ethics (an analysis
of the culture of the self, of a concern of care of the self).
OK. I have gone on longer than I intended to, but I hope the above addresses
some of your concerns vis-à-vis the "significance" of my thesis.
Regards - Kevin.
----- Original Message -----
From: " Richards" <brodie_richards@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
> If we follow Foucault's own production of quotes, then, we must add the
> statement "it is not power, but the subject, which is the general theme of
> my research." (Subject and Power.) This is rather evident, but it is worth
> repeating, that Foucault main task was always to participate in much a
wider
> philosophical project which was attempting to develop a way out of the
> philosophical paradigm of the "constitutive subject."
>
> The most pertinent question seems to me to be how does Foucault interpret
> the constitution of the "mad subject" and how do the different shifts and
> reevaluations throughout his life change that interpretation. The concept
> of power is important to Foucault's concept of subjectivity and how
> subjectivity is constituted by practice, but it seems to me that we have a
> tendency of emphasizing the concept of power and losing the focal point
that
> is Foucault's dialogue with the philosophical discourse that is
> problematizing the nature of subjectivity. Discourse, power, ethics are
the
> central parts to Foucault's grammar about subjectivity, but if we choose
to
> only analyse the concept of power itself, then all we gain from Foucault
is
> a novel idea about power but we don't know what work it can do. How many
> studies can we point to that suggest they are "using" his concept of
power,
> but fail to understand its link with the philosophical question of the
> subject.
>
> Kevin, if we agree that the question of the subject is the central
question
> that Foucault asks, in all his work, how is our understanding of his
> approach to that question enhanced by "trying to bring to the fore" a
> conceptualization of power used in M/C but not theorized? If we say that
he
> uses a "repressive" notion of power in M/C, how does that impact the way
we
> relate to his discussion of the constitution of the "mad subject"? Is the
> "early work" devalued by your thesis that he is using a notion of power
that
> he later rejects?
>
> I think the importance of the "early work" is to watch Foucault situate
> subjectivity in discourse and not consciousness. Yes, he is using a
notion
> of power that he would later rework to explain how language and practice
> form a productive relation with one another, but that was a step built on
> the initial theorization that our experience of ourselves as subjects is
an
> experience constituted by practice, specifically discursive practices.
What
> I am having trouble following is the "significance" of your thesis about
the
> "early work" and power for our understanding of Foucualt. What
possibility
> of understanding about his project does it open up?
>
> Cheers, Brodie
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.7 - Release Date: 07/12/2004