I have been on this discussion list for some time now and haven't contributed very much, but have enjoyed observing some of the discussions over the last year or two. I have been especially interested in the discussion about agency/structure, but it is the point about reading Foucault with "any type of mind" that causes me to respond.
I am currently doing some research in which I attempting (perhaps foolishly!) to apply some of Foucault's idea to the domain of 'formal' politics. In particular, to political parties / political organisation. When I embarked upon this project (for my PhD) it seemed to me that Foucault might have some useful things to contribute. In particular, the study of political institutions of any kind is - as it were - caught in a self-referential institutional 'trap'. Power (a term that is rarely defined) is always analysed in terms of the identified structures of the institution itself, models are constructed, and 'relationships' are imputed (members and leaders, with lobby groups, media, the state itself etc), and studied. What it seems to me is missing from that is a sense that power - although present in institutions - is not located in them (as Foucault himself made very clear). Techniques (of eg communication, research and organisation), processes and discourse (for example in the study of politics itself) might be things in which power in the Foucauldian sense is present and which, as it were, run across and through institutional structures, which themselves are not 'real' entities but are crystallisations of the effects of power.
I don't know if this makes a great deal of sense to all you Foucauldians out there but, to return to my original point, I have originally approached Foucault with the mind of a political scientist, looking for useful tools to advance, perhaps challenge, the discipline from which I have come (it has certainly challenged some of my own ideas!). It seems to me that this is a perfectly valid approach. Foucault himself said, I believe (correct me if I am wrong), that he wished his work to be used as a tool rather than followed and certainly made use of Nietzsche in such a manner.
> Message Received: May 01 2007, 08:16 AM
> From: "Ron Griffin"
> To: "Mailing-list"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The agent discussion once more
>
> One is not "perfectly" free to read Foucault with any type of mind if
> sanctions are doled out if a reader seems to cross the Inner Party,
> sanctions supported by power ties. What might be in order is an
> assessment of power structures within the list.
>
> R. Griffin
>
> Frank Ejby Poulsen wrote:
>
> >I guess Foucault's view on the agent/structure debate would be that this
> >precise view of things - agent/structure - is part of a discourse that
> >should be described by analysis (archaeology or genealogy) in order to
> >understand fully the way it frames our minds and knowledge, exercice power,
> >and how to find alternatives to it. One is perfectly free to read Foucault
> >with a "sociological" mind or whatever else type of mind one has. But I
> >really think that the best way to read Foucault is with a completely empty
> >mind. Zero thoughts at all. A little bit like watching a Picasso, from the
> >period when trying to recover a lost childish innocence in his paintings: it
> >is completely useless, and seriously mistaking Picasso's artistic
> >ambition, to watch these paintings with a mind full of classical art history
> >references; and looking in these paintings for frameworks and theories of,
> >say, classical art paintings is disapointing and eventually pointless. The
> >whole entreprise of Foucault is to be able to apply a Pyrrhonean scepticism
> >(Kendall and Wickham, *Using Foucault's Methods*, 1999), i.e. refusing
> >second-order judgements. Looking for "agency/structure" is a second-order
> >judgement.
> >
> >I tend to think that looking with a sociological mind for "agency/structure"
> >in Foucault's work is pointless because one will always find what one is
> >looking for in advance. Probably it will give out a very nuanced and complex
> >answer (if I think a little about that from what I've read of Foucault).
> >Probably the answer will vary greatly according to the work considered -
> >archaeology or genealogy - and the degree of discursivity of the material
> >studied - very discursive like *The Order of Things* or more non-discursive
> >like *The Birth of the Clinic*. Archaelogy will give some kind of "invisible
> >hand" type of answer, with the discourse seemingly having its own laws of
> >internal order, but also having exterior influences, albeit not "structures"
> >per se but frameworks, as well as some actors, but under the conditions of
> >death-of-the-author laws. Genealogy will give a less "invisible hand" kind
> >of impression with more relations between discourse-power-knowledge.
> >
> >But I really think it is much more fun and worthwhile to interrogate the
> >discourse of "agency/structure" in a Foucaultian manner, instead of looking
> >for it as it is without ontological and epistemological
> >(pardon, archaeological) questionning in Foucault's works. Of course, it is
> >perhaps not sociology any more...
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Frank,
> >who is not a professor, not even a PhD candidate (yet! hopefully), but is
> >passionaltely reading everything Foucault at the moment for his MA
> >dissertation in political science.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
I am currently doing some research in which I attempting (perhaps foolishly!) to apply some of Foucault's idea to the domain of 'formal' politics. In particular, to political parties / political organisation. When I embarked upon this project (for my PhD) it seemed to me that Foucault might have some useful things to contribute. In particular, the study of political institutions of any kind is - as it were - caught in a self-referential institutional 'trap'. Power (a term that is rarely defined) is always analysed in terms of the identified structures of the institution itself, models are constructed, and 'relationships' are imputed (members and leaders, with lobby groups, media, the state itself etc), and studied. What it seems to me is missing from that is a sense that power - although present in institutions - is not located in them (as Foucault himself made very clear). Techniques (of eg communication, research and organisation), processes and discourse (for example in the study of politics itself) might be things in which power in the Foucauldian sense is present and which, as it were, run across and through institutional structures, which themselves are not 'real' entities but are crystallisations of the effects of power.
I don't know if this makes a great deal of sense to all you Foucauldians out there but, to return to my original point, I have originally approached Foucault with the mind of a political scientist, looking for useful tools to advance, perhaps challenge, the discipline from which I have come (it has certainly challenged some of my own ideas!). It seems to me that this is a perfectly valid approach. Foucault himself said, I believe (correct me if I am wrong), that he wished his work to be used as a tool rather than followed and certainly made use of Nietzsche in such a manner.
> Message Received: May 01 2007, 08:16 AM
> From: "Ron Griffin"
> To: "Mailing-list"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] The agent discussion once more
>
> One is not "perfectly" free to read Foucault with any type of mind if
> sanctions are doled out if a reader seems to cross the Inner Party,
> sanctions supported by power ties. What might be in order is an
> assessment of power structures within the list.
>
> R. Griffin
>
> Frank Ejby Poulsen wrote:
>
> >I guess Foucault's view on the agent/structure debate would be that this
> >precise view of things - agent/structure - is part of a discourse that
> >should be described by analysis (archaeology or genealogy) in order to
> >understand fully the way it frames our minds and knowledge, exercice power,
> >and how to find alternatives to it. One is perfectly free to read Foucault
> >with a "sociological" mind or whatever else type of mind one has. But I
> >really think that the best way to read Foucault is with a completely empty
> >mind. Zero thoughts at all. A little bit like watching a Picasso, from the
> >period when trying to recover a lost childish innocence in his paintings: it
> >is completely useless, and seriously mistaking Picasso's artistic
> >ambition, to watch these paintings with a mind full of classical art history
> >references; and looking in these paintings for frameworks and theories of,
> >say, classical art paintings is disapointing and eventually pointless. The
> >whole entreprise of Foucault is to be able to apply a Pyrrhonean scepticism
> >(Kendall and Wickham, *Using Foucault's Methods*, 1999), i.e. refusing
> >second-order judgements. Looking for "agency/structure" is a second-order
> >judgement.
> >
> >I tend to think that looking with a sociological mind for "agency/structure"
> >in Foucault's work is pointless because one will always find what one is
> >looking for in advance. Probably it will give out a very nuanced and complex
> >answer (if I think a little about that from what I've read of Foucault).
> >Probably the answer will vary greatly according to the work considered -
> >archaeology or genealogy - and the degree of discursivity of the material
> >studied - very discursive like *The Order of Things* or more non-discursive
> >like *The Birth of the Clinic*. Archaelogy will give some kind of "invisible
> >hand" type of answer, with the discourse seemingly having its own laws of
> >internal order, but also having exterior influences, albeit not "structures"
> >per se but frameworks, as well as some actors, but under the conditions of
> >death-of-the-author laws. Genealogy will give a less "invisible hand" kind
> >of impression with more relations between discourse-power-knowledge.
> >
> >But I really think it is much more fun and worthwhile to interrogate the
> >discourse of "agency/structure" in a Foucaultian manner, instead of looking
> >for it as it is without ontological and epistemological
> >(pardon, archaeological) questionning in Foucault's works. Of course, it is
> >perhaps not sociology any more...
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Frank,
> >who is not a professor, not even a PhD candidate (yet! hopefully), but is
> >passionaltely reading everything Foucault at the moment for his MA
> >dissertation in political science.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>