well actually i didn't. i said if one were to then... and i certainly didn't
claim foucault imbued any trans-historical attributes.
i would although argue that autonomy and free will 'have no place in
foucault's home".
finally i'd say 'what is enlightenment' should be approached with great
care. i believe foucault laid may mines within that piece, waiting to trip
up the unsuspecting or over enthusiastic reader.
On 5/2/07, Kaori Tsurumoto <tsuru@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
claim foucault imbued any trans-historical attributes.
i would although argue that autonomy and free will 'have no place in
foucault's home".
finally i'd say 'what is enlightenment' should be approached with great
care. i believe foucault laid may mines within that piece, waiting to trip
up the unsuspecting or over enthusiastic reader.
On 5/2/07, Kaori Tsurumoto <tsuru@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am presuming that I should give some response to the part which stated:
> what is meant by agency? and what is stupid supposed to indicate?
Actually, given the ad hoc nature of discussion on the web, the notion of
'agency' has not really been defined thus far during this string, and of
course, neither has 'stupid'. I do believe that the onus of defining
'stupid' should be left to others who introduced it and accepted its use
(I
envy you not). However, I am willing to suggest a working definition for
'agency', or at least what I deem as a tolerable description of the term
'agency'.
'Agency' is a term heavily ladened with Marxist connotations (at least
within Sociology, and let's face it, within any discipline in the
humanities
and social sciences, right?). If this be the case, then 'agency' points
to
the putative existence of an autonomous and politicized subject who can
exercise that which might be called 'free will' (or some words akin to
these) such that we, as in 'H'umanity, are taking another 'forward' step
toward a better future. In so far as such an interpretation of Marx's
thoughts have gained some standing, we may presume that Marxism is
comparable in many respects to Enlightenment thinking, which, though it
never developed an appropriate framework for analyzing/criticizing the
realm
of economy, did nevertheless presume the existence of a rational subject
which can think and act politically.
Thus, although peter chamberlain engages with the term 'agency' as a
'universally and trans-historical idea', such, for me, is not the case. I
regard 'agency' to be enmeshed in the very history which gave rise to
Marxism and Enlightenment. And you know, it really depends on which
article
you're quoting, but I don't think Foucault imbued 'agency' with any
trans-historical attributes.
I am sure that many will already have read 'What is the Enlightenment?' in
The Foucault Reader (1984). This was a piece of writing which Foucault
specifically requested Paul Rabinow to include. I think he already knew
at
that point in his life that he had not too many more opportunities to
speak,
to define his oeuvre. With this in mind, it is interesting to note that
in
this piece of writing, he locates his own work within the Enlightenment
tradition. He, in other words, historicized his own work, his own oeuvre,
within western modern thinking! He, to put it bluntly, was arguing that
to
be 'Foucault(ian)' was to practice all that which makes one into an 'agent
'-like subject.
I remember finally understanding the implication of this article, and
thinking, 'but, I'm Japanese! I can't carry the torch of western
enlightenment! I can't be a Foucaultian! Why the hxxx couldn't Foucault
claim to be universal?!'
.but of course, he didn't, and so I'm stuck trying to negotiate trying to
be
'Foucaultian' and retain all the other bits and bobs that make me who I
am..
Kaori
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list