Going back to the quote, I think it interesting that he relates the
"peeping tom's" keyhole to the educators' questionnaire. On one level, he
is highlighting the discursive nature of epistemology in general--like the
contours of the "peeping tom's" keyhole which works to sexualize
(fetishize), for the peeping tom, the every-day, the questionnaire of the
educator also has a fetishizing effect, esp. in the Marxist sense that
there is a valuation that exceeds the actual material reality (the
relations of production). This is of course primarily an aesthetic rather
than scientific move. The common is made extraordinary for the peeping
tom by way of the keyhole's contours, working as a technology which
produces its revelations mostly by way of what the keyhole conceals (the
relation of power between the observer and observed, for one).
Likewise the questionnaire acts as a technology in dispensing with the
sort of panoramic discourse of "common-sense" in favor of a "key hole"
observation, creating a new, privileged space in which the researcher's
power is sovereign, and hidden from sight. I believe the deficiency of
"common -sense" for the social sciences is precisely the "plate glass
door" visibility that must simultaneously reveals the researcher. So it
does not matter that social science repeats the findings of "common
sense," what matters is that the findings have the proper (aesthetic)
attributes to be taken as objective.
"Michael Arfken" <marfken@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
02/17/05 11:53 AM
Please respond to Mailing-list
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: RE: [Foucault-L] anybody still there?
Thinking about this quote, I would like to reply in the following way.
Psychology maintains an ambivalent relationship with what it refers to as
"common-sense". The new student of psychology is taught that they may have
a
basic understanding of the way the world works, but it cannot be true
knowledge until it has been verified by psychological research. Psychology
points to research indicating that our everyday understanding is often at
odds with psychological knowledge. Even when it confirms what we already
know, it offers no apology. Psychology, as with most of the other
sciences,
suggests that all non-methodological understanding is deficient. In this
way, it presumes that our natural state is one of misunderstanding.
Just some thoughts...
Best,
Mike
Michael Arfken
Center For Applied Phenomenological Research
Department of Psychology
The University of Tennessee
http://phenomenology.utk.edu/
e-mail: marfken@xxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Clare O'Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:06 AM
To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Foucault-L] anybody still there?
It's been very quiet of late! In the interests of creating some list
traffic here is a nice controversial statement by Foucault.
'It is hard to see what kind of objectivity is achieved by the
statistical analysis of a questionnaire examining the lies of school
age children and their playmates. At the end of the day, the results
are reassuring, we learn that children lie mostly to avoid
punishment, then to boast of their exploits etc. We can be sure by
virtue of these very findings, that the method was quite objective.
So what? There are those obsessive peeping toms who, in order to look
through a plate glass door, peer through the keyhole'.
(1957) 'La recherche scientifique et la psychologie', in Dits et
Ecrits vol I Paris: Gallimard, 1994. pp. 137-58.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
"peeping tom's" keyhole to the educators' questionnaire. On one level, he
is highlighting the discursive nature of epistemology in general--like the
contours of the "peeping tom's" keyhole which works to sexualize
(fetishize), for the peeping tom, the every-day, the questionnaire of the
educator also has a fetishizing effect, esp. in the Marxist sense that
there is a valuation that exceeds the actual material reality (the
relations of production). This is of course primarily an aesthetic rather
than scientific move. The common is made extraordinary for the peeping
tom by way of the keyhole's contours, working as a technology which
produces its revelations mostly by way of what the keyhole conceals (the
relation of power between the observer and observed, for one).
Likewise the questionnaire acts as a technology in dispensing with the
sort of panoramic discourse of "common-sense" in favor of a "key hole"
observation, creating a new, privileged space in which the researcher's
power is sovereign, and hidden from sight. I believe the deficiency of
"common -sense" for the social sciences is precisely the "plate glass
door" visibility that must simultaneously reveals the researcher. So it
does not matter that social science repeats the findings of "common
sense," what matters is that the findings have the proper (aesthetic)
attributes to be taken as objective.
"Michael Arfken" <marfken@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
02/17/05 11:53 AM
Please respond to Mailing-list
To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: RE: [Foucault-L] anybody still there?
Thinking about this quote, I would like to reply in the following way.
Psychology maintains an ambivalent relationship with what it refers to as
"common-sense". The new student of psychology is taught that they may have
a
basic understanding of the way the world works, but it cannot be true
knowledge until it has been verified by psychological research. Psychology
points to research indicating that our everyday understanding is often at
odds with psychological knowledge. Even when it confirms what we already
know, it offers no apology. Psychology, as with most of the other
sciences,
suggests that all non-methodological understanding is deficient. In this
way, it presumes that our natural state is one of misunderstanding.
Just some thoughts...
Best,
Mike
Michael Arfken
Center For Applied Phenomenological Research
Department of Psychology
The University of Tennessee
http://phenomenology.utk.edu/
e-mail: marfken@xxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Clare O'Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:06 AM
To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Foucault-L] anybody still there?
It's been very quiet of late! In the interests of creating some list
traffic here is a nice controversial statement by Foucault.
'It is hard to see what kind of objectivity is achieved by the
statistical analysis of a questionnaire examining the lies of school
age children and their playmates. At the end of the day, the results
are reassuring, we learn that children lie mostly to avoid
punishment, then to boast of their exploits etc. We can be sure by
virtue of these very findings, that the method was quite objective.
So what? There are those obsessive peeping toms who, in order to look
through a plate glass door, peer through the keyhole'.
(1957) 'La recherche scientifique et la psychologie', in Dits et
Ecrits vol I Paris: Gallimard, 1994. pp. 137-58.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panoptique@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list