Thank you all for your comments.
I quite agree that the question I´m being asked is stupid or at least
badly construed. The rationale behind the question is, as Thomas pointed
out, the old action/structure dilemma that has been so important in
sociology right from the start. I´ve been aware of the "problem" of agency
in Foucault´s thought a long time, but I haven´t considered it as a
problem because I´ve thought that it is basically the same problem against
which Foucault developed his philosophical criticism in The order of
things. So one could read Foucault´s attempt to focus on practice instead
of object or subject as a way out of this dilemma. (The dilemma is, I
think, the same as in Russell´s famous paradox).
Anyway, my own answer would be that i) there can be agency insofar as
there are possible courses of action, self-understanding, and ways of
being a person available; ii) finding out what is necessary and what is
contingent in the present, i.e. the diagnostic function of Foucault´s
approach is to point out the locus where action is possible; iii) in
historical perspective there are events of thought, which make new ways of
being a person available with all the dangers these events may bring
about; iv) new thought can have an author, but thouhgt as a event has to
become intelligible,i.e. it has to become effective, and this becoming has
always its historical conditions; so no matter how original or
groundbreaking some person´s thought might be, its acceptance is always
conditioned by neighbouring practices which allow it to have effects in
real.
Yours
Jani Selin
> 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
>
I quite agree that the question I´m being asked is stupid or at least
badly construed. The rationale behind the question is, as Thomas pointed
out, the old action/structure dilemma that has been so important in
sociology right from the start. I´ve been aware of the "problem" of agency
in Foucault´s thought a long time, but I haven´t considered it as a
problem because I´ve thought that it is basically the same problem against
which Foucault developed his philosophical criticism in The order of
things. So one could read Foucault´s attempt to focus on practice instead
of object or subject as a way out of this dilemma. (The dilemma is, I
think, the same as in Russell´s famous paradox).
Anyway, my own answer would be that i) there can be agency insofar as
there are possible courses of action, self-understanding, and ways of
being a person available; ii) finding out what is necessary and what is
contingent in the present, i.e. the diagnostic function of Foucault´s
approach is to point out the locus where action is possible; iii) in
historical perspective there are events of thought, which make new ways of
being a person available with all the dangers these events may bring
about; iv) new thought can have an author, but thouhgt as a event has to
become intelligible,i.e. it has to become effective, and this becoming has
always its historical conditions; so no matter how original or
groundbreaking some person´s thought might be, its acceptance is always
conditioned by neighbouring practices which allow it to have effects in
real.
Yours
Jani Selin
> 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
>