Let's take this point about psychoanalysis. Assuming an analyst did do this,
and I'm sure there are plenty who do, simply tell the patient the meaning of
the dream, well, this is obviously interventionist, you are right. But is it
speaking for someone else? The entire point in psychoanalysis is that the
unconscious is not something that cna be accessed either by the subject or,
indeed, by the analyst in a direct manner. Telling the subject the hidden
meaning of his dream is a didactic operation which presupposes a certain
power relation, and is therefore, as Foucault would say, certainly
dangerous, but it is not speaking for. Speaking for the subject would, I
would have thought, be articulating the conscious experience of the subject
itself, for example when a journalist waxes about the pain of the victims of
a natural disaster, not making a diagnosis about the unconscious based on
the subject's own account of himself. This is by no means non-invasive - I
was wrong if I said that - but it's not shameful either.
Representative democracy is tricky too: are politicians speaking for us, or
do we delegate them to speak for themselves? It seems that the latter is
both what happens and what is supposed to happen. All the stuff about the
war not being in our name was admitted by Blair, I seem to remember, who
claimed it was his function as leader to do things that the people did not
want. Clearly he had to claim that the war was in our interests, but that is
not the same as speaking for us. No, I think journalists and academics are
the ones who speak for others, and of course activists in many cases.
Mark
On 10/9/05, Mr. Rupert Russell <rhr30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
and I'm sure there are plenty who do, simply tell the patient the meaning of
the dream, well, this is obviously interventionist, you are right. But is it
speaking for someone else? The entire point in psychoanalysis is that the
unconscious is not something that cna be accessed either by the subject or,
indeed, by the analyst in a direct manner. Telling the subject the hidden
meaning of his dream is a didactic operation which presupposes a certain
power relation, and is therefore, as Foucault would say, certainly
dangerous, but it is not speaking for. Speaking for the subject would, I
would have thought, be articulating the conscious experience of the subject
itself, for example when a journalist waxes about the pain of the victims of
a natural disaster, not making a diagnosis about the unconscious based on
the subject's own account of himself. This is by no means non-invasive - I
was wrong if I said that - but it's not shameful either.
Representative democracy is tricky too: are politicians speaking for us, or
do we delegate them to speak for themselves? It seems that the latter is
both what happens and what is supposed to happen. All the stuff about the
war not being in our name was admitted by Blair, I seem to remember, who
claimed it was his function as leader to do things that the people did not
want. Clearly he had to claim that the war was in our interests, but that is
not the same as speaking for us. No, I think journalists and academics are
the ones who speak for others, and of course activists in many cases.
Mark
On 10/9/05, Mr. Rupert Russell <rhr30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>