It does seem to me that an important prelimary analysis to the analysis of
of the possibility of 'agency' in Foucault would be an analysis, ala
Nietzsche, of 'why agency'? One can certainly proceed as most philosophers
do and assume that one knows in advance that agency exists and cobble
together the materials that one likes in order to proclaim the Truth of
agency as whatever one wants it to be. However, I would be more interested
in a genealogy of agency to see how it has been historically construed and
enacted and then look at Foucault to see how he fits (or doesn't) in that
lineage. If we do follow Foucault, it would seem that there is no essential
being to agency, but only different formations of agency (knowing that
agency may cease to be relevant or even to exist in the future, as was the
case in the past). I don't want to know somebody's new true Truth of agency
(the Truth is boring), to paraphrase James, I want to know its cash value in
the world today.
-Cory
_________________________________________________________________
Testez Windows Live Mail Beta ! http://www.ideas.live.com/
-Cory
_________________________________________________________________
Testez Windows Live Mail Beta ! http://www.ideas.live.com/