Hi Brodie,
No, where not talking at cross-purposes; just from different axes :-)
I would, however, like to hear your, or anybody else's, take on what
Foucault means by "experience."
Regards - Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brodie Richards" <brodie_richards@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thank you for the long reply, when I meant to question your "thesis" I
meant
> the thesis of your one post not the broader work that it forms but a part
> of. I would never want to question the "significance" of someone's work
> that I haven't read. But you give a lengthy reply that does explain more
> your interest in power and why you are raising these specific issues.
>
> But.
>
> I still think in a philosophical sense the question of the "subject" is
> central. The three "matrixs of experience" were defined as three related
> modes of interpreting the formation of subjects, and so you are absolutely
> right to prioritize them, and then within them is is worth problemtaizing
> power, but that still entails that Foucault's project is a sustained
attempt
> to find a way out of the modern paradigm of subjectivty.
>
> Foucault defines this well:
>
> "Currently, when on does history - the history of ideas, of knowlegde, or
> simply history - one sticks to this subject of knowledge, to this subject
of
> representation as the point of origin from whoch knowledge is possible and
> truth appears. It would be interesting to try to see how a subject came
to
> be constituted that is not definitively given, that is not the thing on
the
> basis of which truthhappens to history - rather, a subject that
constitutes
> itself within history and is constantly established and reestablished by
> history. It is towards that radical critique of the human subject by
> history that we should direct our efforts." (Truth and Juridical Forms"
>
> Later in U/P this is part of the claim that he is studying the
> problematization of "being." If we link this to others then we can say
that
> Foucualt agrees with Habermas that the "philosophy of the subject is
> exhausted" and that we must move beyond "subject-centred reason"
> (Philosophical Discourse of Modernity) and with Gadamer that subjectivity
is
> a "distorting mirror."
>
> I know there may be some confusion because Foucault suggested that
"ethics"
> was about "the subject" but really all three axes are about subjectivity
in
> one form or another. The early works look to situate the production of
> knowledge/truth about the "mad subject" or the "healthly subject" in B/C
and
> in OT the living, labouring and speaking subjects. Later, knowledge/power
> is developed to interpretation the constitution of the delinquent subject
> and sexual subject, and finally, U/P beyond interprets the desiring
subject.
> Like I said in the earlier post, knowledge, power and ethics are the
> structures he builds to study the historical formation of possible
> experiences of subjectivity and are not ends in themselves. What you call
> the "space" constituted by these three axes is "filled in" by the
production
> of a historical form of "subjectivity." Foucault is not interested in
just
> "experience" but the experience of subjectivity - that experience is
> developed by discursive structures that posit the "subject" as an object
for
> knowledge/truth; by power structures that posit "the subject" in normative
> relations and ethics which forms the basis for someone to posit himself as
a
> "subject" of ethical action.
>
> So, I think there is philosophical warrant to say that the primary
question
> Foucault raised was how to ground "subjectivity" in historical practices
and
> not in a transcendental "self-consciousness" and that what you call the
> "foucault problematic" is the "grammar" that he developed to develop a
> post-metaphyscial definition of subjectivty. I don't think we are
> necessarily talking at cross purposes on this issue, I am simply
suggesting
> that the foundation to what you call "foucault's problematic" is the
> question he shares with others about the problem of subjectivity.
>
> I don't see this altering your ideas about power but situating them in a
> broader philosophical dialogue in which Foucault is such an important
member
> and a dialogue about "the subject" in which all of us participate in when
we
> try to understand Foucault or apply him to do work of our own.
>
> Myself, I am more interested in the "ethics" axis and using it to study
how
> the Jacobins of the French Revolution problematized the self and
constituted
> in ascetic practice an experience of being a revolutionary and "true
> republican." I think this raises larger questions about the constittion of
> civics and possibilities of experience ourselves as "political subjects."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brodie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Turner" <k_turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:11 PM
> Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
>
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.7 - Release Date: 07/12/2004
No, where not talking at cross-purposes; just from different axes :-)
I would, however, like to hear your, or anybody else's, take on what
Foucault means by "experience."
Regards - Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brodie Richards" <brodie_richards@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thank you for the long reply, when I meant to question your "thesis" I
meant
> the thesis of your one post not the broader work that it forms but a part
> of. I would never want to question the "significance" of someone's work
> that I haven't read. But you give a lengthy reply that does explain more
> your interest in power and why you are raising these specific issues.
>
> But.
>
> I still think in a philosophical sense the question of the "subject" is
> central. The three "matrixs of experience" were defined as three related
> modes of interpreting the formation of subjects, and so you are absolutely
> right to prioritize them, and then within them is is worth problemtaizing
> power, but that still entails that Foucault's project is a sustained
attempt
> to find a way out of the modern paradigm of subjectivty.
>
> Foucault defines this well:
>
> "Currently, when on does history - the history of ideas, of knowlegde, or
> simply history - one sticks to this subject of knowledge, to this subject
of
> representation as the point of origin from whoch knowledge is possible and
> truth appears. It would be interesting to try to see how a subject came
to
> be constituted that is not definitively given, that is not the thing on
the
> basis of which truthhappens to history - rather, a subject that
constitutes
> itself within history and is constantly established and reestablished by
> history. It is towards that radical critique of the human subject by
> history that we should direct our efforts." (Truth and Juridical Forms"
>
> Later in U/P this is part of the claim that he is studying the
> problematization of "being." If we link this to others then we can say
that
> Foucualt agrees with Habermas that the "philosophy of the subject is
> exhausted" and that we must move beyond "subject-centred reason"
> (Philosophical Discourse of Modernity) and with Gadamer that subjectivity
is
> a "distorting mirror."
>
> I know there may be some confusion because Foucault suggested that
"ethics"
> was about "the subject" but really all three axes are about subjectivity
in
> one form or another. The early works look to situate the production of
> knowledge/truth about the "mad subject" or the "healthly subject" in B/C
and
> in OT the living, labouring and speaking subjects. Later, knowledge/power
> is developed to interpretation the constitution of the delinquent subject
> and sexual subject, and finally, U/P beyond interprets the desiring
subject.
> Like I said in the earlier post, knowledge, power and ethics are the
> structures he builds to study the historical formation of possible
> experiences of subjectivity and are not ends in themselves. What you call
> the "space" constituted by these three axes is "filled in" by the
production
> of a historical form of "subjectivity." Foucault is not interested in
just
> "experience" but the experience of subjectivity - that experience is
> developed by discursive structures that posit the "subject" as an object
for
> knowledge/truth; by power structures that posit "the subject" in normative
> relations and ethics which forms the basis for someone to posit himself as
a
> "subject" of ethical action.
>
> So, I think there is philosophical warrant to say that the primary
question
> Foucault raised was how to ground "subjectivity" in historical practices
and
> not in a transcendental "self-consciousness" and that what you call the
> "foucault problematic" is the "grammar" that he developed to develop a
> post-metaphyscial definition of subjectivty. I don't think we are
> necessarily talking at cross purposes on this issue, I am simply
suggesting
> that the foundation to what you call "foucault's problematic" is the
> question he shares with others about the problem of subjectivity.
>
> I don't see this altering your ideas about power but situating them in a
> broader philosophical dialogue in which Foucault is such an important
member
> and a dialogue about "the subject" in which all of us participate in when
we
> try to understand Foucault or apply him to do work of our own.
>
> Myself, I am more interested in the "ethics" axis and using it to study
how
> the Jacobins of the French Revolution problematized the self and
constituted
> in ascetic practice an experience of being a revolutionary and "true
> republican." I think this raises larger questions about the constittion of
> civics and possibilities of experience ourselves as "political subjects."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brodie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Turner" <k_turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:11 PM
> Subject: Re: critique or criticism?
>
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.7 - Release Date: 07/12/2004