Hello all,
I wanted to know what people thought of the conception that Foucault's
politics is directed against speaking for others. We can see this in the
psychoanalyst (among others) who "interprets" the truth of their patient,
and in Foucualt's own political activities, the way in which testimonials
were collected for the GIP being the best example. In Macey's biography of
Foucault, Deleuze is reported to have said to Foucault "In my view, you were
the first to teach us a basic lesson: speaking for others in shameful." I
have not really been able to find anything more detailed than this as a
theoretical position, what precisely he means by giving others a voice
(without falling into very un-Foucauldian subjectivism, Carol Gilligan
springs to mind) and how this can be related back to representative
democracy.
Rupert
I wanted to know what people thought of the conception that Foucault's
politics is directed against speaking for others. We can see this in the
psychoanalyst (among others) who "interprets" the truth of their patient,
and in Foucualt's own political activities, the way in which testimonials
were collected for the GIP being the best example. In Macey's biography of
Foucault, Deleuze is reported to have said to Foucault "In my view, you were
the first to teach us a basic lesson: speaking for others in shameful." I
have not really been able to find anything more detailed than this as a
theoretical position, what precisely he means by giving others a voice
(without falling into very un-Foucauldian subjectivism, Carol Gilligan
springs to mind) and how this can be related back to representative
democracy.
Rupert