On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:14:48PM -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
>
> Perhaps to put this topic to bed, I will offer a definitive answer. I
> think this represents the consensus of previous discussion:
>
> Q. Where is the "agent" in Foucault.
>
> A. He did not write or speak about that directly, so far as we
> know. In the spirit of his work, the answer would most likely be
> that:
>
> The "agent" is a term of disputed meaning, used in the field
> of sociology. It first appeared at a particular point in
> history.
>
> He might or might not have had more to say about it than that, but
> that is probably something he would have agreed to, minimally.
> That would be the starting point for an answer, "in Foucault".
Well--I guess I'm not terribly interested in questions of the form,
"What would Foucault say about X?" But Jani's answer seemed to have
more content than that.
>
> Perhaps to put this topic to bed, I will offer a definitive answer. I
> think this represents the consensus of previous discussion:
>
> Q. Where is the "agent" in Foucault.
>
> A. He did not write or speak about that directly, so far as we
> know. In the spirit of his work, the answer would most likely be
> that:
>
> The "agent" is a term of disputed meaning, used in the field
> of sociology. It first appeared at a particular point in
> history.
>
> He might or might not have had more to say about it than that, but
> that is probably something he would have agreed to, minimally.
> That would be the starting point for an answer, "in Foucault".
Well--I guess I'm not terribly interested in questions of the form,
"What would Foucault say about X?" But Jani's answer seemed to have
more content than that.