perhaps you could start from here...
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
if you take this section...
On the other hand, when we discussed the problem of human nature and
...and substitute the themes of human nature and justice with the notion of
agency then the outcome is the same, perhaps? when one speaks of agency,
human agency, they are possible referring to a universally and
trans-historical idea. such a conceptualization would perhaps fail to
acknowledge the knowledge systems that facilitated the very emergence of the
concept to begin with.
and another section...
*ELDERS:*
hence the notion of agency must be limited, and the may arise a question as
to whether this agency retains any of its former understanding.
perhaps two qualifications are required.
what is meant by agency? and what is stupid supposed to indicate?
i have not done either of the things you requested, sorry.
On 5/1/07, Kaori Tsurumoto <tsuru@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
if you take this section...
On the other hand, when we discussed the problem of human nature and
political problems, then differences arose between us. And contrary to what
you think, you can't prevent me from believing that these notions of human
nature, of justice, of the realisation of the essence of human beings, are
all notions and concepts which have been formed within our civilisation,
within our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as a
result form part of our class system; and one can't, however regrettable it
may be, put forward these notions to describe or justify a fight which
should-and shall in principle--overthrow the very fundaments of our society.
This is an extrapolation for which I can't find the historical
justification.
...and substitute the themes of human nature and justice with the notion of
agency then the outcome is the same, perhaps? when one speaks of agency,
human agency, they are possible referring to a universally and
trans-historical idea. such a conceptualization would perhaps fail to
acknowledge the knowledge systems that facilitated the very emergence of the
concept to begin with.
and another section...
*ELDERS:*
Well, may I first of all ask you not to make your answers so lengthy?
[Foucault laughs.]
When you discuss creativity and freedom, I think that one of the
misunderstandings, if any misunderstandings have arisen, has to do with the
fact that Mr. Chomsky is starting from a limited number of rules with
infinite possibilities of application, whereas you, Mr. Foucault, are
stressing the inevitability of the "grille" of our historical and
psychological determinisms, which also applies to the way in which we
discover new ideas.
Perhaps we can sort this out, not by analysing the scientific process,
but just by analysing our own thought process.
When you discover a new fundamental idea, Mr. Foucault, do you
believe, that as far as your own personal creativity is concerned something
is happening that makes you feel that you are being liberated; that
something new has been developed? Perhaps afterwards you discover that it
was not so new. But do you yourself believe that, within your own
personality, creativity and freedom are working together, or not?
*FOUCAULT:*
Oh, you know, I don't believe that the problem of personal experience
is so very important...
*ELDERS:*
Why not?
*FOUCAULT:*
...in a question like this. No, I believe that there is in reality
quite a strong similarity between what Mr. Chomsky said and what I tried to
show: in other words there exist in fact only possible creations, possible
innovations. One can only, in terms of language or of knowledge, produce
something new by putting into play a certain number of rules which will
define the acceptability or the grammaticality of these statements, or which
will define, in the case of knowledge, the scientific character of the
statements.
Thus, we can roughly say that linguists before Mr. Chomsky mainly
insisted on the rules of construction of statements and less on the
innovation represented by every new statement, or the hearing of a new
statement. And in the history of science or in the history of thought, we
placed more emphasis on individual creation, and we had kept aside and left
in the shadows these communal, general rules, which obscurely manifest
themselves through every scientific discovery, every scientific invention,
and even every philosophical innovation.
And to that degree, when I no doubt wrongly believe that I am saying
something new, I am nevertheless conscious of the fact that in my statement
there are rules at work, not only linguistic rules, but also epistemological
rules, and those rules characterise contemporary knowledge.
hence the notion of agency must be limited, and the may arise a question as
to whether this agency retains any of its former understanding.
perhaps two qualifications are required.
what is meant by agency? and what is stupid supposed to indicate?
i have not done either of the things you requested, sorry.
On 5/1/07, Kaori Tsurumoto <tsuru@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I already know why posing the agency question is not stupid. I know (or
at
least I made a huge effort to 'know' as best as I'll ever 'know') because
I
spent a huge chunk of my PhD studies (yep---Sociology!) finding the
question, finding out why the question is not stupid at all but rather
important, and establishing my own---provisional---little answer to this
question.
What I do not yet know is why posing the agency question could be
considered
stupid. When you look at the responses, the ones that agree with
'Arianna'
(the disembodied being) or know her in another context---and are her
friends, I guess---say something along the lines of 'well, Arianna, you're
right. It's stupid, but... blah, blah (providing explanation as to why it
is sometimes necessary)'. The ones that don't agree with 'Arianna' simply
explain why it is not stupid. In any case, it seems to me that no one has
been forthcoming (at least not on Foucault-L) as to WHY posing the agency
question could be considered stupid in the first place.
If someone could make a well-developed argument explaining why it is
stupid
to try and ascertain the whereabouts of the agency in Foucault's thoughts,
I'd find that a really interesting read....
Kaori
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list