I don't think Foucault (we can make up our minds) would class psychoanalysis
as non-interventionist. I have always read it as the oppoiste being the
case, all three volumes of the history of sexuality are an attack on
psychoanalysis in its various forms. Whilst Vol 1 most explicitly is,
detailing how as the patient recants a dream to the analyst, the analyst
then reveals their most inner truth to them by deciphering its meanings
according to the power-knowledge discourses of psychoanalysis. In Vol 2.,
the chapter on dreams is a history of the present, trying to point to
completely different ways in which one can interpret a dream (I think this a
rather weak point). I think the conception of unmasking your hidden truth
which you then internalise is key to the functioning of psychoanalysis for
Foucault.
The question then is, does this have anything to do with this politics? Is
the power-knowledge apparatus one that denies voices to those not in the
positions of authority: the psychiatrist, the doctor, (the MP or
politicians?) etc.
I mentioned representative democracy because here we come to the question of
is it possible for the "representative" to represent the interests of the
people. I see Madison's argument clearly within this framework. For
Madison, the hidden truth of the "true interests" of the people can only be
uncovered by Men of "virtue" and "wisdon". This is essential for his
defence of a representative democracy over a direct one. Hence, we go to
constatntly argue over what are the "true interests" of the people, and once
that is established, the voice of the people can be bracketed off. This
would be almost identitical to Marxism, in Foucault's scheme.
_____
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Kelly
Sent: 09 October 2005 01:00
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Speaking for others
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
as non-interventionist. I have always read it as the oppoiste being the
case, all three volumes of the history of sexuality are an attack on
psychoanalysis in its various forms. Whilst Vol 1 most explicitly is,
detailing how as the patient recants a dream to the analyst, the analyst
then reveals their most inner truth to them by deciphering its meanings
according to the power-knowledge discourses of psychoanalysis. In Vol 2.,
the chapter on dreams is a history of the present, trying to point to
completely different ways in which one can interpret a dream (I think this a
rather weak point). I think the conception of unmasking your hidden truth
which you then internalise is key to the functioning of psychoanalysis for
Foucault.
The question then is, does this have anything to do with this politics? Is
the power-knowledge apparatus one that denies voices to those not in the
positions of authority: the psychiatrist, the doctor, (the MP or
politicians?) etc.
I mentioned representative democracy because here we come to the question of
is it possible for the "representative" to represent the interests of the
people. I see Madison's argument clearly within this framework. For
Madison, the hidden truth of the "true interests" of the people can only be
uncovered by Men of "virtue" and "wisdon". This is essential for his
defence of a representative democracy over a direct one. Hence, we go to
constatntly argue over what are the "true interests" of the people, and once
that is established, the voice of the people can be bracketed off. This
would be almost identitical to Marxism, in Foucault's scheme.
_____
From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Kelly
Sent: 09 October 2005 01:00
To: Mailing-list
Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Speaking for others
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