One is never perfectly free to read as one chooses in any case.
Allen
Paul Allen Miller
Carolina Distinguished Professor of Classics and Comparative Literature
Director of Comparative Literature
Editor, Transactions of the American Philological Association
Languages, Literatures and Cultures
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0951
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> rongriffin@xxxxxxxxx 05/01/07 2:08 AM >>>
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
Allen
Paul Allen Miller
Carolina Distinguished Professor of Classics and Comparative Literature
Director of Comparative Literature
Editor, Transactions of the American Philological Association
Languages, Literatures and Cultures
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-0951
pamiller@xxxxxx
>>> rongriffin@xxxxxxxxx 05/01/07 2:08 AM >>>
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