Rupert,
this is a very interesting question. I too read years ago that Foucault
taught us this lesson, I have never found Foucault really saying as much
himself. I share the intuition that it is right, and the clearest indication
is certainly the GIP. However, I do find that Foucault is capable of
speaking on behalf of others to some extent. Moreover, I'm not sure who
those who speak on behalf of others realy are. I am certainly dubious about
your example of the psychoanalyst: psychoanalysis is not about telling the
patient the meaning of their experiences, but rather coaxing it out of them.
While there may be more input from the psychoanalyst than the psychoanalyst
believes there is, is their practice not at base supposed to be
non-interventionist in a similar way to Foucault's? And might this be
mitigated in both cases?
Mark
On 10/8/05, Mr. Rupert Russell <rhr30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
this is a very interesting question. I too read years ago that Foucault
taught us this lesson, I have never found Foucault really saying as much
himself. I share the intuition that it is right, and the clearest indication
is certainly the GIP. However, I do find that Foucault is capable of
speaking on behalf of others to some extent. Moreover, I'm not sure who
those who speak on behalf of others realy are. I am certainly dubious about
your example of the psychoanalyst: psychoanalysis is not about telling the
patient the meaning of their experiences, but rather coaxing it out of them.
While there may be more input from the psychoanalyst than the psychoanalyst
believes there is, is their practice not at base supposed to be
non-interventionist in a similar way to Foucault's? And might this be
mitigated in both cases?
Mark
On 10/8/05, Mr. Rupert Russell <rhr30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>