David McInerney wrote:
Thank you (and others who replied similarly). I'd like to suggest
a different tack, and also say a *little* more about the agent in Foucault.
On sociology, I think one has to look at a few separate questions:
1. How does the rhetoric of "the agent" function in the field of
sociology? In the internal logic of the field? In establishing
the borders of the field -- e.g., is framing sociological work in
terms of the agent actually a precondition for inclusion in the
field? And, in the role of sociology in adjacent fields of discourse
-- e.g., does the "problem of the agent" have some function
when sociology is applied to forming social policy? In
other words, if asked "Where is the agent in Foucault?" it
seems to me that one answer is to ask "What is the agent,
and what it is it a part of, in sociology?" Said another way:
in Foucault-style analytics, sociology's "agent" is an object
of study -- a term in the discourse of and around sociology
and therefore, potentially, an object of study in a Foucault-style
analysis.
(When I did background skimming to try to understand the
student's original question, I was struck by how the debate
about the agent, within sociology, seems to tacitly refer to
conceptions of morality and responsibility, and thus is ready-made
to play an "interesting" role when sociology is applied to
forming social policy. What comprises "the scientific" in this
context? What institutional practices of management are
accepted in/reinforced by the boundaries of the sociological
debate over the agent?)
2. There is no reason to presume, a priori, that sociology's agent --
any flavor -- is an epistemological obstacle, an incoherent concept,
a term that Foucault refutes, or any other kind of mistake. Taking
the view that sociological logics are tools, one can legitimately ask
how the tools apply to Foucault's writings, if one is suitably careful.
And so that brings us to the agent *in* Foucault. Peter Chamberlain
asked "isn't the agency the very act of management itself?" That
is, the discursive practices of a time and place instill within and around
the subject practices of surveillance, modulation, confinement, etc.
Then, isn't agency just the reliable acting out of roles within these
constraints? Drawing on Nietzsche, "the actor is instilled after the action?"
I don't think that that's a very satisfying or accurate answer. It
simply recapitulates the framing of the sociological debate and then
takes a particular position in that debate (namely that it's all structure
and no agent).
Rather, Foucault's way of thinking would turn that debate into an
object, to be studied, rather than entering into the debate.
See (1), above. But, why is this?
I think the agent is clear in Foucault, albeit non-trivial.
Primarily, there are two agents in Foucault's writings: he himself
and his reader. He himself displays agency by (with partial success)
stepping outside of received discursive practices at least far enough
to objectify them, study them, and begin to build tools for analyzing
them. His reader is one to whom he conveys, by example, the
possibility of that form of escape. He is not escaping from
discursive practices in general, quite the opposite: he is attempting
to create new ones.
Secondarily, Foucault and reader share in common a kind of
transcendent agency which can, for the purposes of understanding
the tools he builds, be projected into any historic context.
The self that author and reader have in common can better
understand itself in relation to its conditions by envisioning that
common, transcendent essence in different conditions -- an Attic
city, a medieval town, etc. We don't need to (and in Foucault
studies, should generally avoid) making any strong metaphysical
commitments as to the nature of this transcendent, projectable
agent other than to note that it is implicit in all of his writings
and then to ask "how and why" it operates in those writings.
Well, that's easy, and Foucault has a cute hermeneutic for it.
The specific form of that agent, at a given time and place,
the self-conception, and consequently the action of
that transcendent agent is, indeed, produced (for Foucault)
through discursive practices. His project, overall, seems to me
to be to create a generative process that yields new discursive
practices which liberate that agent as far as possible -- practices
which, by their nature, create the liberated self. He wants
to help the self have control over that which shapes the self.
Tying this all together, I think we have an answer to the
original question, "Where is the agent in Foucault?"
In Foucault, the agent -- the self -- is an object of contention
whose possibilities are shaped by discursive practices -- Foucault's
specific conception of structure. By shaping discourse, we
change the possibilities of agency.
If a sociologist asks "What is the (immortal) fact of the matter
regarding the balance between social structure and individual
agency," Foucault might tell us: there are none -- or at least
decline to answer.
Rather, it is all specificities, at each time and place, although certain
dynamics are seen to reliably repeat as the specificities change
over time. The degrees of freedom of the self are produced by
the structure, which itself is the contentious discursive practices
of agents. "Structure or agent?" -- "No, agents play the competitive
game of structure, determining the disposition of real bodies,
from moment to moment, and thus the degrees of freedom of
agency. Here are some good moves in
that game -- perhaps you can draw from their example."
-t
Amateur Philosopher
Yes but unfortunately in the "social sciences" and sociology this stupid question cannot be avoided, because it takes for granted the "agency problem" and the subject/structure opposition on which it depends.
I guess the right tack would be to show how the notion of "agency" functions as an unquestioned/unquestionable ground within sociological discourse. You might also make use of the concept of "epistemological obstacle" etc.
Thank you (and others who replied similarly). I'd like to suggest
a different tack, and also say a *little* more about the agent in Foucault.
On sociology, I think one has to look at a few separate questions:
1. How does the rhetoric of "the agent" function in the field of
sociology? In the internal logic of the field? In establishing
the borders of the field -- e.g., is framing sociological work in
terms of the agent actually a precondition for inclusion in the
field? And, in the role of sociology in adjacent fields of discourse
-- e.g., does the "problem of the agent" have some function
when sociology is applied to forming social policy? In
other words, if asked "Where is the agent in Foucault?" it
seems to me that one answer is to ask "What is the agent,
and what it is it a part of, in sociology?" Said another way:
in Foucault-style analytics, sociology's "agent" is an object
of study -- a term in the discourse of and around sociology
and therefore, potentially, an object of study in a Foucault-style
analysis.
(When I did background skimming to try to understand the
student's original question, I was struck by how the debate
about the agent, within sociology, seems to tacitly refer to
conceptions of morality and responsibility, and thus is ready-made
to play an "interesting" role when sociology is applied to
forming social policy. What comprises "the scientific" in this
context? What institutional practices of management are
accepted in/reinforced by the boundaries of the sociological
debate over the agent?)
2. There is no reason to presume, a priori, that sociology's agent --
any flavor -- is an epistemological obstacle, an incoherent concept,
a term that Foucault refutes, or any other kind of mistake. Taking
the view that sociological logics are tools, one can legitimately ask
how the tools apply to Foucault's writings, if one is suitably careful.
And so that brings us to the agent *in* Foucault. Peter Chamberlain
asked "isn't the agency the very act of management itself?" That
is, the discursive practices of a time and place instill within and around
the subject practices of surveillance, modulation, confinement, etc.
Then, isn't agency just the reliable acting out of roles within these
constraints? Drawing on Nietzsche, "the actor is instilled after the action?"
I don't think that that's a very satisfying or accurate answer. It
simply recapitulates the framing of the sociological debate and then
takes a particular position in that debate (namely that it's all structure
and no agent).
Rather, Foucault's way of thinking would turn that debate into an
object, to be studied, rather than entering into the debate.
See (1), above. But, why is this?
I think the agent is clear in Foucault, albeit non-trivial.
Primarily, there are two agents in Foucault's writings: he himself
and his reader. He himself displays agency by (with partial success)
stepping outside of received discursive practices at least far enough
to objectify them, study them, and begin to build tools for analyzing
them. His reader is one to whom he conveys, by example, the
possibility of that form of escape. He is not escaping from
discursive practices in general, quite the opposite: he is attempting
to create new ones.
Secondarily, Foucault and reader share in common a kind of
transcendent agency which can, for the purposes of understanding
the tools he builds, be projected into any historic context.
The self that author and reader have in common can better
understand itself in relation to its conditions by envisioning that
common, transcendent essence in different conditions -- an Attic
city, a medieval town, etc. We don't need to (and in Foucault
studies, should generally avoid) making any strong metaphysical
commitments as to the nature of this transcendent, projectable
agent other than to note that it is implicit in all of his writings
and then to ask "how and why" it operates in those writings.
Well, that's easy, and Foucault has a cute hermeneutic for it.
The specific form of that agent, at a given time and place,
the self-conception, and consequently the action of
that transcendent agent is, indeed, produced (for Foucault)
through discursive practices. His project, overall, seems to me
to be to create a generative process that yields new discursive
practices which liberate that agent as far as possible -- practices
which, by their nature, create the liberated self. He wants
to help the self have control over that which shapes the self.
Tying this all together, I think we have an answer to the
original question, "Where is the agent in Foucault?"
In Foucault, the agent -- the self -- is an object of contention
whose possibilities are shaped by discursive practices -- Foucault's
specific conception of structure. By shaping discourse, we
change the possibilities of agency.
If a sociologist asks "What is the (immortal) fact of the matter
regarding the balance between social structure and individual
agency," Foucault might tell us: there are none -- or at least
decline to answer.
Rather, it is all specificities, at each time and place, although certain
dynamics are seen to reliably repeat as the specificities change
over time. The degrees of freedom of the self are produced by
the structure, which itself is the contentious discursive practices
of agents. "Structure or agent?" -- "No, agents play the competitive
game of structure, determining the disposition of real bodies,
from moment to moment, and thus the degrees of freedom of
agency. Here are some good moves in
that game -- perhaps you can draw from their example."
-t
Amateur Philosopher
On 18/04/2007, at 8:24 AM, Arianna wrote:
its a stupid question, that's the answer
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