the agent?
drawing out the nietzschean in foucault, pehaps one could respond by
referring to nietzsche's own work, 'on the genealogy of morals' and that
there is no doer behind the deed, the actor is installed after the action.
(b) in Foucault's "we", "ourselves", "one", etc. -- that agency which is
subject to the management of the body, of sex, of madness, etc.
isn't the agency the very act of management itself? foucault stated that the
soul does exist, but it comes about through the very discursive practices
that would supposedly claim to only describe it.
stupid question, well yes and no. perhaps inappropriate and misleading as it
presupposes the existence of one.
On 4/18/07, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
drawing out the nietzschean in foucault, pehaps one could respond by
referring to nietzsche's own work, 'on the genealogy of morals' and that
there is no doer behind the deed, the actor is installed after the action.
(b) in Foucault's "we", "ourselves", "one", etc. -- that agency which is
subject to the management of the body, of sex, of madness, etc.
isn't the agency the very act of management itself? foucault stated that the
soul does exist, but it comes about through the very discursive practices
that would supposedly claim to only describe it.
stupid question, well yes and no. perhaps inappropriate and misleading as it
presupposes the existence of one.
On 4/18/07, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Arianna wrote:
> its a stupid question, that's the answer
>
Why? The question is a bit vague as stated and may suggest that the
student
is hopelessly enmeshed in a department that is mostly concerned with
making
sure he learns the jargon of his field (as they see it) -- writes papers
that will
fly with reviewers and so forth. On the other hand, aren't there at
least
two kinds of answers that might make sense, depending on the more fully
elaborated question? (a) in Foucault's reader (for whom he built tools);
(b) in Foucault's "we", "ourselves", "one", etc. -- that agency which is
subject to the management of the body, of sex, of madness, etc. The two
answers are not contradictory or exclusive, of course.
It seems like the student is being asked to locate Foucault within a
famous
debate that has structured a lot of sociological research, and to which
researchers
in that field are expected to pay homage -- I would think that's a good
launching
point for many kinds of response. "Stupid question," may be accurate,
but
it isn't very fulfilling.
-t
Amateur Philosopher
> jataseli@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I´m a PhD student (MSocSc) in the Department of Social Sciences and
>> Philosophy at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland.
>>
>> My sociological research is about the history of drug addiction
treatments
>> in Finland from 1960´s to present day. In this genealogical study I try
>> relate the changes in treatment practices to the changes of other
>> practices, be they discursive or non-discursive, that have made changes
in
>> treatment practices possible. So basic foucauldian stuff.
>>
>> My current interests lie in the modern concept of addiction and in the
>> "original" problematization that the emergence of this concept was
related
>> to in the late 18th and early 19th century. Furthermore, being a
student
>> of sociology I confront all the time the question "where´s the agent in
>> Foucault´s thought". I´ve got a kind of a answer to this question but
it
>> needs more clarification.
>>
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Jani Selin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list