i was curious about the need to ""reconcile" a Foucaultian governmentality
methodology with traditional moral panic theory." why reconcile?
why not rather put both bodies of writing to work on the problem at hand;
drawing out their possible ccoextensivities but also playing on their
possible tensions and contradictions in an attempt to describing a
problem/problematisation?
k
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gokhanbirdal@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 18 May 2005 03:20:04 +0300
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Foucault-L] governmentality and 'law and order'
>
> Hi,
>
> I am new at list, not studying cultural studies, however, I would have
> some
> improvised thoughts to offer related with the issue. when we talk about
> moral panic theory, it is essential to recall two things; media
> structures,
> which are distributing the truth discourses of power and "deviance
> amplification spiral" which could be the elementary component of any
> moral
> panic phenomena. for the latter, I would say, deviances are no longer the
> things that should be discovered, analyzed and confined for the
> population's
> sake today; but they became the things that could be produced in the
> discursive practices by the aid of media structures, tested by scientific
> authorities, based on not negative, but positive, productive definition
> of
> power. What happens is a great subjectivation process... So any
> "deviancy"
> like "hoons" is no more posing real moral threat to the population as it
> is
> captured in certain conditions and just works for shaping the norms by
> differentiating from the original meaning of "cult". This difference
> marks
> the governmental rationality of neo-liberalism and its ultimate end
> called
> "control society". A link with biopower is also crucial here.
>
> well, just a sudden chain of thoughts,
>
> Gökhan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Glen Fuller
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:26 AM
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] governmentality and 'law and order'
>
>
> hi list,
>
> I am researching modified-car culture and I have come to a particular
> junction in my thinking. I was hoping the list might be able to help me
> by pointing me in the direction of any research on similar situations
> or whatever.
> a
> My specific problem is that I have been dealing with what in Australia
> we call 'hoons' (in the UK and NZ they are called 'boy racers' in the
> US it is sometimes the more traditional 'hot rodder'). Basically
> the 'hoon' is an iconic cultural figure: a loud and aggressive young
> man, driving a loud and aggressive car in a loud and aggressive way
> (often playing loud and aggressive music on a booming car stereo;).
> Anyway, the problem is that I can see there is a shift across three
> phases in the power relations from the 'normative' governance of the
> system of automobility (ala Jeremy Packer's essay on road safety)
> through general anxieties about the 'at risk' group labelled 'young
> drivers' to the moral panics that have recently emerged in Australia
> around this figure of the hoon.
>
> What I am interested in finding out is if anyone on the list had come
> across any work that attempts to reconcile a Foucaultian
> governmentality methodology with traditional moral panic theory. My
> problem is in the way power relations operate differently in the two
> situations. I have been thinking Agamben's work on the state of
> exception may be a useful way to think about how moral panics are the
> expression of a kind of localised state of exception within the
> institutionalised cultural formations of a given society. By 'localised
> state of exception' I mean organised around a particular social problem
> and discursively constructed around a necessarily problematic figure,
> such as the hoon. This would be thinking about folk devils as some way
> equivalent to Agamben's conception of homo sacer, and, well, generally
> offering a specific (but I think productive) misreading of Agamben.
> These things can be worked around. However it becomes very problematic
> when Agamben and Foucault's respective approaches are thought alongside
> the neo-Gramscian approaches of the British cultural studies tradition,
> specifically the work of Hall and others on the 'Exceptional State' and
> the 'Law and Order Society'.
>
> Hmmm, I may just leave it as an unresolved, but productive tension in
> my thesis. But if someone has come across some work or has some
> thoughts on how to think through this tension I would love to discuss
> it with them.
>
> ciao,
> glen.
>
>
> --
> PhD Candidate
> Centre for Cultural Research
> University of Western Sydney
>
> Read my rants: http://glenfuller.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
methodology with traditional moral panic theory." why reconcile?
why not rather put both bodies of writing to work on the problem at hand;
drawing out their possible ccoextensivities but also playing on their
possible tensions and contradictions in an attempt to describing a
problem/problematisation?
k
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gokhanbirdal@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 18 May 2005 03:20:04 +0300
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Foucault-L] governmentality and 'law and order'
>
> Hi,
>
> I am new at list, not studying cultural studies, however, I would have
> some
> improvised thoughts to offer related with the issue. when we talk about
> moral panic theory, it is essential to recall two things; media
> structures,
> which are distributing the truth discourses of power and "deviance
> amplification spiral" which could be the elementary component of any
> moral
> panic phenomena. for the latter, I would say, deviances are no longer the
> things that should be discovered, analyzed and confined for the
> population's
> sake today; but they became the things that could be produced in the
> discursive practices by the aid of media structures, tested by scientific
> authorities, based on not negative, but positive, productive definition
> of
> power. What happens is a great subjectivation process... So any
> "deviancy"
> like "hoons" is no more posing real moral threat to the population as it
> is
> captured in certain conditions and just works for shaping the norms by
> differentiating from the original meaning of "cult". This difference
> marks
> the governmental rationality of neo-liberalism and its ultimate end
> called
> "control society". A link with biopower is also crucial here.
>
> well, just a sudden chain of thoughts,
>
> Gökhan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Glen Fuller
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:26 AM
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] governmentality and 'law and order'
>
>
> hi list,
>
> I am researching modified-car culture and I have come to a particular
> junction in my thinking. I was hoping the list might be able to help me
> by pointing me in the direction of any research on similar situations
> or whatever.
> a
> My specific problem is that I have been dealing with what in Australia
> we call 'hoons' (in the UK and NZ they are called 'boy racers' in the
> US it is sometimes the more traditional 'hot rodder'). Basically
> the 'hoon' is an iconic cultural figure: a loud and aggressive young
> man, driving a loud and aggressive car in a loud and aggressive way
> (often playing loud and aggressive music on a booming car stereo;).
> Anyway, the problem is that I can see there is a shift across three
> phases in the power relations from the 'normative' governance of the
> system of automobility (ala Jeremy Packer's essay on road safety)
> through general anxieties about the 'at risk' group labelled 'young
> drivers' to the moral panics that have recently emerged in Australia
> around this figure of the hoon.
>
> What I am interested in finding out is if anyone on the list had come
> across any work that attempts to reconcile a Foucaultian
> governmentality methodology with traditional moral panic theory. My
> problem is in the way power relations operate differently in the two
> situations. I have been thinking Agamben's work on the state of
> exception may be a useful way to think about how moral panics are the
> expression of a kind of localised state of exception within the
> institutionalised cultural formations of a given society. By 'localised
> state of exception' I mean organised around a particular social problem
> and discursively constructed around a necessarily problematic figure,
> such as the hoon. This would be thinking about folk devils as some way
> equivalent to Agamben's conception of homo sacer, and, well, generally
> offering a specific (but I think productive) misreading of Agamben.
> These things can be worked around. However it becomes very problematic
> when Agamben and Foucault's respective approaches are thought alongside
> the neo-Gramscian approaches of the British cultural studies tradition,
> specifically the work of Hall and others on the 'Exceptional State' and
> the 'Law and Order Society'.
>
> Hmmm, I may just leave it as an unresolved, but productive tension in
> my thesis. But if someone has come across some work or has some
> thoughts on how to think through this tension I would love to discuss
> it with them.
>
> ciao,
> glen.
>
>
> --
> PhD Candidate
> Centre for Cultural Research
> University of Western Sydney
>
> Read my rants: http://glenfuller.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list