Response to message 7 .
Dear Andrew!
I am very impressed by the way you set the problem of individual and power seen from writing of Foucault about enlightment. I think it would be useful to "cross" what he writes there with the "ontology" of power he describes in "History of sexuality 1" (la volontè de savoir). In that book Foucault points out pretty clearly that wherever power developes technologies and "discourses" there it finds resistence. So the question wich you seem to set : "how can individals resist and question power when it is so deep" should probably be twisted, inverted in the question "Can power really win and fix individuals - bodies and thoughts- once for all?"....According to the onthology of "history of sexuality 1" the answer is luckily "No". The whole problem remains very fascinating anyway.
PS- I apologize for my kiddy english and for the lack of bibliographical precision , I just wanted to let you know my opinion hoping it can be useful to you.
Best wishes and greetings from Italy,
Marco Ferro> From: foucault-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Foucault-L Digest, Vol 8, Issue 2> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:34:27 -0600> > Send Foucault-L mailing list submissions to> foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://foucault.info/mailman/listinfo/foucault-l> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> foucault-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > You can reach the person managing the list at> foucault-l-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of Foucault-L digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. RE?: experience-experiment. (Gagnon Fran?ois)> 2. Re: RE : experience-experiment. (Kevin Turner)> 3. Re: RE : experience-experiment. (M. Karskens)> 4. Re: RE : experience-experiment. (Andrew Cady)> 5. Re: counter-history (Andrew Cady)> 6. Re: Other spaces (Andrew Cady)> 7. Re: A recent question that I asked of my lecturer (Andrew Cady)> 8. Re: RE : experience-experiment. (Kevin Turner)> 9. Re: REcent Question (Andrew Cady)> 10. Re: RE : experience-experiment. (Andrew Cady)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:14:04 -0500> From: Gagnon Fran?ois <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [Foucault-L] RE?: experience-experiment.> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID:> <FAD90587F7F53049B8DCD504E1A4C4CE2B83F4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > I can help if you give me the sentences. In this one, I agree with you that it should read experience... > Best,> Fran?ois> > ________________________________> > De: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx de la part de Kevin Turner> Date: jeu. 2008-01-03 08:41> ?: Foucault List> Objet : [Foucault-L] experience-experiment.> > > > It has been noted by a number of people that the term experience was mistraslated as experiment in the Archaeology of Knowledge.> > I was wondering whether this is also the case in the Birth of the Clinic.> > The term "experiment" appears on pages: xiii, xv, 38, 48, 69, 71, 84, 108, 136.> If, for example, one reads the passage on page 38, it seems that experiment should be experience: 'In fact, an entierly free field of medical experiment [experience] had to be constituted...'> > Can any one help in sorting out the good trasnlations from the bad?> > Regards,> Kevin> > > > _______________________________________________> Foucault-L mailing list> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:22:53 -0800> From: Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <C121E00F306.0000041Akevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8> > Hi Fran?ois> > Having re-read all the paragraphs in which the word ?experiment? appears, I have selected the following sentences in which the term ?experiment? should possibly have been translated as ?experience.? > > >From the ?Preface:?> > ?The breadth of the experiment [experience] seems to be identified with the domain of the careful gaze?? (BC: xiii).> > > >From ?The Lessons of the Hospital:?> > ?Once one defined a practical experiment [experience] carried out on the patient himself, one insisted on the need to relate particular knowledge to an encyclopaedic whole? (BC: 71).> > ?The doctrine of the hospital was an ambiguous one: theoretically free, and, because of the non-contractual character of the relation between doctor and patient, open to the indifference of experiment [experience]?(BC: 83-4).> > >From ?Seeing and Knowing:?> > ?The opposition between clinic and experiment [experience] overlays exactly the difference between the language we hear, and consequently recognise, and the question we pose, or, rather, impose: ?The observer?reads nature, he who experiments [experiences] questions?? (BC: 108).> > And from ?Open Up a Few Corpses:?> > ??progress in observation, a wish to develop and extend experiment [experience]?? (BC: 136).> > Many thanks for your help with this,> Kevin.> > > > -----Original Message-----> > From: francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:14:04 -0500> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> > > > I can help if you give me the sentences. In this one, I agree with you> > that it should read experience...> > Best,> > Fran?ois> > > > ________________________________> > > > De: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx de la part de Kevin Turner> > Date: jeu. 2008-01-03 08:41> > ?: Foucault List> > Objet : [Foucault-L] experience-experiment.> > > > > > > > It has been noted by a number of people that the term experience was> > mistraslated as experiment in the Archaeology of Knowledge.> > > > I was wondering whether this is also the case in the Birth of the Clinic.> > > > The term "experiment" appears on pages: xiii, xv, 38, 48, 69, 71, 84,> > 108, 136.> > If, for example, one reads the passage on page 38, it seems that> > experiment should be experience: 'In fact, an entierly free field of> > medical experiment [experience] had to be constituted...'> > > > Can any one help in sorting out the good trasnlations from the bad?> > > > Regards,> > Kevin> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________> > Foucault-L mailing list> > > > > > _______________________________________________> > Foucault-L mailing list> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:31:37 +0100> From: "M. Karskens" <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <20080104093141.F0AFD4EB45@xxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed> > As far as I know and could check <experience> > must be translated everywhere in the Birth with > <experience>; <experiment> is a false translation> > > best wishes> yours> > machiel karskens> > > At 20:22 3-1-2008, you wrote:> >Hi Fran??ois Having re-read all the paragraphs > >in which the word ???experiment??? appears, I > >have selected the following sentences in which > >the term ???experiment??? should possibly have > >been translated as ???experience.??? From the > >???Preface:??? ???The breadth of the experiment > >[experience] seems to be identified with the > >domain of the careful gaze???? (BC: xiii). From > >???The Lessons off the Hospital:??? ???Once one > >defined a practical experiment [experience] > >carried out on the patient himself, one insisted > >on the need to relate particular knowledge to an > >encyclopaedic whole??? (BC: 71). ???The doctrine > >of the hospital was an ambiguous one: > >theoretically free, and, because of the > >non-contractual character of the relation > >between doctor and patient, open to the > >indifference of experiment [experience]?(BC: > >83-4). From ???Seeing andd Knowing:??? ???The > >opposition between clinic and experiment > >[experience] overlays exactly the difference > >between the language we hear, and consequently > >recognise, and the question we pose, or, rather, > >impose: ???The observer???reads nature, he who > >experiments [experiences] questions?????? (BC: > >108). And from ???Open Up a Few Corpses:??? > >????progress in observation, a wish to develop > >and exttend experiment [experience]???? (BC: > >136). Many thankss for your help with this, > >Kevin. > -----Original Message----- > From: > >francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thu, 3 > >Jan 2008 12:14:04 -0500 > To: > >foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [Foucault-L] > >RE : experience-experiment. > > I can help if > >you give me the sentences. In this one, I agree > >with you > that it should read experience... > > >Best, > Fran??ois > > > >________________________________ > > De: > >foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx de la part de > >Kevin Turner > Date: jeu. 2008-01-03 08:41 > ??: > >Foucault List > Objet : [Foucault-L] > >experience-experiment. > > > > It has been noted > >by a number of people that the term experience > >was > mistraslated as experiment in the > >Archaeology of Knowledge. > > I was wondering > >whether this is also the case in the Birth of > >the Clinic. > > The term "experiment" appears on > >pages: xiii, xv, 38, 48, 69, 71, 84, > 108, > >136. > If, for example, one reads the passage on > >page 38, it seems that > experiment should be > >experience: 'In fact, an entierly free field > >of > medical experiment [experience] had to be > >constituted...' > > Can any one help in sorting > >out the good trasnlations from the bad? > > > >Regards, > Kevin > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > Foucault-L mailing list > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > Foucault-L mailing list > >_______________________________________________ Foucault-L mailing list> > > > > Prof. Machiel Karskens> social and political philosophy> Faculty of Philosophy> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 4> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:55:46 -0500> From: Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <20080106175546.GB30192@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:22:53AM -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:> > Hi Fran??ois> >> > Having re-read all the paragraphs in which the word ???experiment???> > appears, I have selected the following sentences in which the> > term ???experiment??? should possibly have been translated as> > ???experience.???> >> > From the ???Preface:???> >> > ???The breadth of the experiment [experience] seems to be identified> > with the domain of the careful gaze?????? (BC: xiii).> > This one--unlike the others, in my eyes--can be read either way.> > > From ???The Lessons of the Hospital:???> >> > ???Once one defined a practical experiment [experience] carried out> > on the patient himself, one insisted on the need to relate particular> > knowledge to an encyclopaedic whole??? (BC: 71).> > How does one carry out an experience on someone else? What is a> "practical" experience, and how can defining one create a need to relate> particulars to general medical knowledge?> > > ???The doctrine of the hospital was an ambiguous one: theoretically> > free, and, because of the non-contractual character of the relation> > between doctor and patient, open to the indifference of experiment> > [experience]???(BC: 83-4).> > How can experience be called indifferent? Does this sentence not say> the following?> > "Because the doctor did not need the patient's agreement, he could> experiment on the patient (with indifference to his experience!)> rather than constrain himself to treatment. This fell within the> mission of the hospital because it advanced medical knowledge."> > > From ???Seeing and Knowing:???> >> > ???The opposition between clinic and experiment [experience]> > overlays exactly the difference between the language we hear, and> > consequently recognise, and the question we pose, or, rather,> > impose: ???The observer???reads nature, he who experiments> > [experiences] questions?????? (BC: 108).> > Experimenting is questioning, for sure. But experiencing?> > Can we say this?> > "The difference between experiment and observation is that in the> former, one controls conditions, one attempts to isolate phenomena by> interfering, one acts in specific ways on one's object and observes> the consequences of action; in the latter one is passive. To ask> a question is to affect what is said; merely to listen is not. It> is observation which is experience, and experiment which is action;> observation/experience listens/knows(connaitre); experiment/action> questions/knows(savoir)."> > (Often the notion of experiment affecting its object is expressed with a> not-quite-accurate reference to Heisenberg.)> > The strange word in that sentence seems to me not 'experiment' but> 'clinic.' Looking it up:> > 3. (Med.) a medical facility, often connected with a school> or hospital, which treats primarily outpatients.> > 4. (Med.) A school, or a session of a school or class, in which> medicine or surgery is taught by the examination and treatment of> patients in the presence of the pupils.> > Oh... Within the clinic(4), the medical students just watch passively.> > > And from ???Open Up a Few Corpses:???> >> > ??????progress in observation, a wish to develop and extend experiment> > [experience]?????? (BC: 136).> > Novel experiments (and the publication of their results) are the means> by which scientific observation progresses. But experience?> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 5> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:01:08 -0500> From: Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] counter-history> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <20080106190108.GC30192@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:20:26AM -0500, jonathan nash wrote:> > The phrase "counterhistory" appears on page 79 in the recent David> > Macey translation of *"Society Must Be Defended"* (Picador 2003).> > The sentence follows: "The history of the revolutionary project> > and of revolutionary practice is, I think, indissociable from the> > counterhistory that broke with the Indo-European form of historical> > practices, which were bound up with the exercise of sovereignty; it is> > indissociable from the appearance of the counterhistory of races and> > of the role played in the West by clashes between races."> > Coincidentally I came across a text on "revolutionary practice" recently> at the URL below. Not being directly familiar with Marx I found it to> clarify a great deal.> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/comment/lois1.htm> > (Off-topic, but this abridged version of the German Ideology really> got me to the point where I feel like the Marxist stuff is familiar:> http://www.btinternet.com/%7Eglynhughes/squashed/marx.htm )> > Another random comment: the discussion in Actuel has Foucault saying> (IIRC) "society as a whole is to be considered only as something to> be destroyed." He also gives a brief definition of "revolutionary> practice." A very exciting article; Foucault is filled with hope.> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 6> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:13:08 -0500> From: Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Other spaces> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <20080106201308.GD30192@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:09:35PM +0100, ?sa Rosenberg wrote:> > I'm reading the "Of Other Spaces" article plus some interpretations of> > Foucaults heterotopia and while I might be able to figure this out in> > time by myself... I thought it would be interesting to hear what you> > guys think.> >> > I am confused as to whether heterotopia consitutes or facilitates the> > construction of other spaces. When he talks about the mirror, it seems> > that the mirror is heterotopia which makes possible the "other space"> > (the site of simultaneous reflection and contestation).> >> > "The mirror functions as a heterotopia in this respect: it makes this> > place that I occupy at the moment when I look at myself in the glass> > at once absolutely real, connected with all the space that surrounds> > it, and absolutely unreal, since in order to be perceived it has to> > pass through this virtual point which is over there."> > Most interesting that the lecture was given *before* the May '68> revolt (although the introduction doesn't say how it was changed for> publication). Does anyone know if Foucault was connected to the> situationists in any direct way? (I know that Foucault has disclaimed> direct involvement in the event itself.) Would the influence have> been more in the one direction or the other? (Were situationist> architectural ideas popularly known before '68? I would assume> not.) If I could read French, I would read this, but I can't...> http://www.lib.sfu.ca/cgi-bin/edocs/Mai68?Display=753> > Anyway you will want to check the archives of the cleverly named Bureau> of Public Secrets: http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI . There is something> specific there that I would point you to, but I can't recall the title> or find it with google. Apologies!> > There are incidentally a few relevant comments on the "revolutionary> battle" in the Actuel discussion I mentioned in another post. Here:> > Foucault: I would rather oppose actual experiences than the> possibility of a utopia. It is possible that the rough outline of> a future society is supplied by the recent experiences with drugs,> sex, communes, other forms of consciousness, and other forms of> individuality. If scientific socialism emerged from the Utopias of> the nineteenth century, it is possible that a real socialization will> emerge, in the twentieth century, from experiences.> > Jean-Fran?ois: The events of May were, of course, the experience of> a certain power. But this experience essentially implied utopian> discourse: May was a discourse occupying a space.> > Philippe: A discourse that was inadequate. The older ideas of the Left> had only a marginal relationship to the aspirations liberated in May.> The movement could have gone much further if it had been supported> by an adequate theory, a thought capable of providing it with new> perspectives.> > Foucault: I'm not convinced of this. But Jean-Francois has reason> to speak of the experience of power. It is of the utmost importance> that thousands of people exercised a power which did not assume the> form of a hierarchical organization. Unfortunately, since power is> by definition that which the ruling class abandons least readily and> recaptures on the first occasion, it was impossible to maintain the> experience for longer than a few weeks.> > A discourse occupying a space... I do wonder what really happened in> May '68; anyone know a good account *in English*?> > > But then in most other examples it seems that heterotopia IS the> > actual other space. (This is also how i see other people using the> > term, heterotopia _as_ other space).> > It seems to me that heterotopias and utopias are the two types of other> spaces:> > [A]mong all these sites, I am interested in certain ones that have the> curious property of being in relation with all the other sites, but in> such a way as to suspect, neutralize, or invert the set of relations> that they happen to designate, mirror, or reflect. These spaces, as it> were, which are linked with all the others, which however contradict all> the other sites, are of two main types.> > First there are the utopias ... There are also ... heterotopias.> I believe that between utopias and these quite other sites, these> heterotopias, there might be a sort of mixed, joint experience, which> would be the mirror.> > In any case if you want a source on heterotopias the S.I. seems to me> like the best bet, not Foucault.> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 7> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:43:01 -0500> From: Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] A recent question that I asked of my> lecturer> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <20080106204301.GE30192@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:12:52PM +1000, Scott Nicholas wrote:> > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm just wondering if anyone would care to give me their perspective> > on this question that I recently and I think legimately posed?:> > > > "the question that I meant to follow up with you is: if social> > practices, power relations and technologies of the self in creating> > docile bodies are constitutive of the contemporary individual> > according to Foucault (this is what I believe him to be saying?) then> > how can the individual decide to or take the initiative to resist> > said relations, practices and technologies? Of course Foucault might> > respond by saying well we can invariably reconstitute ourselves by> > actively changing or acting on our environment but that seems to> > presuppose an active body; a knowing self certain individual(not the> > Cartesian variety of course); who has the wherewithall to understand> > their predicament accurately; and, moreover, who has the means to> > influence said practices, relations and technologies. This seems> > to imply that we are more than just docile bodies.I recall you> > saying in the lecture that Foucault did not account sufficiently> > for the psychological effects of power but this may have prove! d> > self defeating in terms of his efforts to remove the subject from> > politicaly motivated discourses."> >> > Is my construal accurate?> > Foucault addresses this in the second half of "What is Enlightenment?"> and in the interview "The ethics of the concern of the self as a> practice of freedom" as well as commenting several times (I will not> look for them!) in Essential Works 3 (Power) on the always-present> possibility of revolt. There was a cute little sentence in Empire: "The> first question of political philosophy today is not if or even why there> will be resistance and rebellion, but rather how to determine the enemy> against which to rebel." Certainly this was Foucault's approach to> power.> > Here are the final paragraphs of the paper on Kant:> > I do not know whether we will ever reach mature adulthood. Many things> in our experience convince us that the historical event of the> Enlightenment did not make us mature adults, and we have not reached> that stage yet. However, it seems to me that a meaning can be attributed> to that critical interrogation on the present and on ourselves which> Kant formulated by reflecting on the Enlightenment. It seems to me that> Kant's reflection is even a way of philosophizing that has not been> without its importance or effectiveness during the last two centuries.> The critical ontology of ourselves has to be considered not, certainly,> as a theory, a doctrine, nor even as a permanent body of knowledge that> is accumulating; it has to be conceived as an attitude, an ethos, a> philosophical life in which the critique of what we are is at one and> the same time the historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on> us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them.> > This philosophical attitude has to be translated into the labor of> diverse inquiries. These inquiries have their methodological coherence> in the at once archaeological and genealogical study of practices> envisaged simultaneously as a technological type of rationality and as> strategic games of liberties; they have their theoretical coherence in> the definition of the historically unique forms in which the> generalities of our relations to things, to others, to ourselves, have> been problematized. They have their practical coherence in the care> brought to the process of putting historico-critical reflection to the> test of concrete practices. I do not know whether it must be said today> that the critical task still entails faith in Enlightenment; I continue> to think that this task requires work on our limits, that is, a patient> labor giving form to our impatience for liberty.> > That is--we can hope to transcend the docility which would be imposed> upon us, and to become capable of doing our own thinking, through the> care of the self.> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 8> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:12:49 -0800> From: Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <E855A4330D4.00000308kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII> > that all depends on how you understand foucault's use of the term experience...> > > -----Original Message-----> > From: d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:55:46 -0500> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> > > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:22:53AM -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:> >> Hi Fran??ois> >> > >> Having re-read all the paragraphs in which the word ???experiment???> >> appears, I have selected the following sentences in which the> >> term ???experiment??? should possibly have been translated as> >> ???experience.???> >> > >> From the ???Preface:???> >> > >> ???The breadth of the experiment [experience] seems to be identified> >> with the domain of the careful gaze?????? (BC: xiii).> > > > This one--unlike the others, in my eyes--can be read either way.> > > >> From ???The Lessons of the Hospital:???> >> > >> ???Once one defined a practical experiment [experience] carried out> >> on the patient himself, one insisted on the need to relate particular> >> knowledge to an encyclopaedic whole??? (BC: 71).> > > > How does one carry out an experience on someone else? What is a> > "practical" experience, and how can defining one create a need to relate> > particulars to general medical knowledge?> > > >> ???The doctrine of the hospital was an ambiguous one: theoretically> >> free, and, because of the non-contractual character of the relation> >> between doctor and patient, open to the indifference of experiment> >> [experience]???(BC: 83-4).> > > > How can experience be called indifferent? Does this sentence not say> > the following?> > > > "Because the doctor did not need the patient's agreement, he could> > experiment on the patient (with indifference to his experience!)> > rather than constrain himself to treatment. This fell within the> > mission of the hospital because it advanced medical knowledge."> > > >> From ???Seeing and Knowing:???> >> > >> ???The opposition between clinic and experiment [experience]> >> overlays exactly the difference between the language we hear, and> >> consequently recognise, and the question we pose, or, rather,> >> impose: ???The observer???reads nature, he who experiments> >> [experiences] questions?????? (BC: 108).> > > > Experimenting is questioning, for sure. But experiencing?> > > > Can we say this?> > > > "The difference between experiment and observation is that in the> > former, one controls conditions, one attempts to isolate phenomena by> > interfering, one acts in specific ways on one's object and observes> > the consequences of action; in the latter one is passive. To ask> > a question is to affect what is said; merely to listen is not. It> > is observation which is experience, and experiment which is action;> > observation/experience listens/knows(connaitre); experiment/action> > questions/knows(savoir)."> > > > (Often the notion of experiment affecting its object is expressed with a> > not-quite-accurate reference to Heisenberg.)> > > > The strange word in that sentence seems to me not 'experiment' but> > 'clinic.' Looking it up:> > > > 3. (Med.) a medical facility, often connected with a school> > or hospital, which treats primarily outpatients.> > > > 4. (Med.) A school, or a session of a school or class, in which> > medicine or surgery is taught by the examination and treatment of> > patients in the presence of the pupils.> > > > Oh... Within the clinic(4), the medical students just watch passively.> > > >> And from ???Open Up a Few Corpses:???> >> > >> ??????progress in observation, a wish to develop and extend experiment> >> [experience]?????? (BC: 136).> > > > Novel experiments (and the publication of their results) are the means> > by which scientific observation progresses. But experience?> > _______________________________________________> > Foucault-L mailing list> > ____________________________________________________________> FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!> Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 9> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:51:09 -0500> From: Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] REcent Question> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <20080106235109.GF30192@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 08:21:24PM +1000, b.nitins@xxxxxxxxx wrote:> > > Foucault wrote each book in order to achieve an effect in his> > audience. The effect that we experience from DP is a sudden> > critical awareness of the systems of discipline, domination,> > repression and normalization that exist in modern western liberal> > socieites. Obviously then, the eruption of this consciousness is> > testament to the fact that we are not simply so many, 'docile bodies'.> > Perhaps, for some of us, this was an accurate description of our> > lives beforehand, but, if we have looked clearly and understood fully> > the portrayal he presents, then Foucaults historical and theoretical> > analysis serves to break down this docility.> > A very interesting statement. Surely true, but then there are and have> always been also those whose awareness of the systems of discipline,> repression, exclusion, etc., is not from books at all. Need it be> pointed out that Foucault was gay (a psychiatric disorder, an excluded> sexuality)? That he sought to control the circumstances of his own> death, another psychiatric disorder (far more serious), and furthermore> the intent to commit a crime? And it is also said that he used drugs.> Foucault indeed wrote to achieve a particular effect--but not merely> on his audience. Here I have collected some quotes of what Foucault> said about the intent of his work and life. These first are from the> untitled interview in Essential Works: Power:> > "To become a bourgeois intellectual, a professor, a journalist, a> writer, or anything of that sort seemed repugnant. The experience of> the war had shown us the urgent need of a society radically different> from the one in which we were living, this society that had permitted> Nazism, that had lain down in front of it, and that had gone over en> masse to de Gaulle. A large sector of French youth had a reaction of> total disgust toward all that. We wanted a world and a society that> were not only different but that would be an alternative version of> ourselves: we wanted to be completely other in a completely different> world."> > "I don't regard myself as a philosopher. What I do is neither> a way of doing philosophy nor a way of discouraging others from> doing philosophy. ... I make use of the most conventional methods:> demonstration, or, at any rate, proof in historical matters, textual> references, citation of authorities ... There is nothing original in> what I do. ... In spite of that, people who read me--particularly> those who value what I do--often tell me with a laugh, 'You know very> well that what you say is really just fiction.' I always reply, 'Of> course, there's no question of it being anything else but fiction.'> > "If I had really wanted, for example, to do the history of psychiatric> institutions in Europe between the seventeenth and eighteenth> centuries, obviously I wouldn't have written a book like /Madness> and Civilization/. But my problem is not to satisfy professional> historians; my problem is to construct myself, and to invite others> to share an experience of what we are, not only our past but also our> present, an experience of our modernity in such a way that we might> come out of it transformed. ... [Discipline and Punish], for me--and> for those who read it and used it--constituted a transformation in the> historical, theoretical, and moral or ethical relationship we have> with madness, the mentally ill, the psychiatric institution, and the> very truth of psychiatric discourse. So it's a book that functions as> an experience, for its writer and reader alike, much more than as the> establishment of a historical truth. ... The essential thing is not> in the series of those true or historically verifiable findings but,> rather, in the experience that the book makes possible."> > "I haven't written a single book that was not inspired, at least in> part, by a direct personal experience. I've had a complex personal> relationship with madness and with the psychiatric institution. ...> The same is true of prison and sexuality, for different reasons."> > "I only began to write [Discipline and Punish] after having> participated for several years in working groups that were thinking> about and struggling against penal institutions. This was a> complicated, difficult work carried out in association with prisoners,> their families, prison staff, magistrates, and others.> > "When the book came out, different readers--in particular,> correctional officers, social workers, and so on--delivered this> peculiar judgment: 'The book is paralyzing. It may contain some> correct observations, but it has clear limits, because it impedes> us; it prevents us from going on with our activity.' My reply is> that this very reaction proves that the work was successful, that it> functioned just as I intended."> > "A phrase by Marx is pertinent here: man produces man. How should it> be understood? In my judgment, what ought to be produced is not man> as natured supposedly designed him, or as his essence ordains him to> be--we need to produce something that doesn't exist yet, without being> able to know what it will be."> > "May '68 was extremely important, without any doubt. It's certain> that without May '68 I wouldn't have afterward done the work I did in> regard to prison, delinquency, and sexuality."> > "People no longer accepted being governed in the broad sense of> government. I'm not talking about state government in the sense the> term has in public law but of those men who orient our daily lives> either through administrative acts or through direct or indirect> influences ... In writing /Madness and Civilization/ and /The Birth of> the Clinic/, I meant to do a genealogical history of knowledge. But> the real guiding thread was this problem of power."> > >From a different interview:> > "We wish to attack an institution at the point where it culminates and> reveals itself in a simple and basic ideology, in the notions of good> and evil, innocence and guilt. We wish to change this ideology which> is experienced through those dense institutional layers where it has> been invested, crystallized, and reproduced."> > I feel silly for not mentioning, in my other post, "Useless to Revolt?":> > "Revolts belong to history. But, in a certain way, they escape from> it. The impulse by which a single individual, a group, a minority, or> an entire people says, 'I will no longer obey,' and throws the risk> of their life in the face of an authority they consider unjust seems> to me to be something irreducible. Because no authority is capable> of making it utterly impossible: Warsaw will always have its ghetto> in revolt and its sewers crowded with rebels. And because the man> who rebels is finally inexplicable; it takes a wrenching-away that> interrupts the flow of history, and its long chains of reasons, for a> man to be able, 'really,' to prefer to the risk of death to the> certainty of having to obey."> > "If societies persist and live, that is, if the powers that be are not> 'utterly absolute,' it is because, behind all the submissions and> coercions, beyond the threats, the violence, and the intimidations,> there is the possibility of that moment when life can no longer be> bought, when the authorities can no longer do anything, and when,> facing the gallows and the machine guns, people revolt."> > "People do revolt; that is a fact. And that is how subjectivity (not> that of great men, but that of anyone) is brought into history,> breathing life into it. A convict risks his life to protest unjust> punishments; a madman can no longer bear being confined and> humiliated; a people refuses the regime that oppresses it."> > "If I were asked my conception of what I do, the strategest being the> man who says, 'What difference does a particular death, a particular> cry, a particular revolt make compared to the great general necessity,> and, on the other hand, what difference does a general principle make> in the particular situation where we are?', well, I would have to say> that it is immaterial to me whether the strategist is a politician, a> historian, a revolutionary, a follower of the sha or of the ayatollah;> my theoretical ethic is opposite to theirs. It is 'antistrategic':> to be respectful when a singularity revolts, intransigent as soon as> power violates the universal. A simple choice; a difficult job: for> one must at the same time look closely, a bit beneath history, at what> cleaves it and stirs it, and keep watch, a bit behind politics, over> what must unconditionally limit it. After all, that is my work; I am> not the first or the only one to do it. But that is what I chose."> > Finally, Marx:> > "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways;> the point is to change it."> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 10> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:56:43 -0500> From: Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Message-ID: <20080106235643.GG30192@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > You can't be serious!> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 02:12:49PM -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:> > that all depends on how you understand foucault's use of the term> > experience...> > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > From: d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:55:46 -0500> > > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] RE : experience-experiment.> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:22:53AM -0800, Kevin Turner wrote:> > >> Hi Fran??ois> > >>> > >> Having re-read all the paragraphs in which the word> > >> ???experiment??? appears, I have selected the following sentences> > >> in which the term ???experiment??? should possibly have been> > >> translated as ???experience.???> > >>> > >> From the ???Preface:???> > >>> > >> ???The breadth of the experiment [experience] seems to be> > >> identified with the domain of the careful gaze?????? (BC: xiii).> > >> > > This one--unlike the others, in my eyes--can be read either way.> > >> > >> From ???The Lessons of the Hospital:???> > >>> > >> ???Once one defined a practical experiment [experience] carried> > >> out on the patient himself, one insisted on the need to relate> > >> particular knowledge to an encyclopaedic whole??? (BC: 71).> > >> > > How does one carry out an experience on someone else? What is a> > > "practical" experience, and how can defining one create a need to> > > relate particulars to general medical knowledge?> > >> > >> ???The doctrine of the hospital was an ambiguous one: theoretically> > >> free, and, because of the non-contractual character of the relation> > >> between doctor and patient, open to the indifference of experiment> > >> [experience]???(BC: 83-4).> > >> > > How can experience be called indifferent? Does this sentence not> > > say the following?> > >> > > "Because the doctor did not need the patient's agreement, he could> > > experiment on the patient (with indifference to his experience!)> > > rather than constrain himself to treatment. This fell within the> > > mission of the hospital because it advanced medical knowledge."> > >> > >> From ???Seeing and Knowing:???> > >>> > >> ???The opposition between clinic and experiment [experience]> > >> overlays exactly the difference between the language we hear, and> > >> consequently recognise, and the question we pose, or, rather,> > >> impose: ???The observer???reads nature, he who experiments> > >> [experiences] questions?????? (BC: 108).> > >> > > Experimenting is questioning, for sure. But experiencing?> > >> > > Can we say this?> > >> > > "The difference between experiment and observation is that in the> > > former, one controls conditions, one attempts to isolate phenomena> > > by interfering, one acts in specific ways on one's object and> > > observes the consequences of action; in the latter one is passive.> > > To ask a question is to affect what is said; merely to listen> > > is not. It is observation which is experience, and experiment> > > which is action; observation/experience listens/knows(connaitre);> > > experiment/action questions/knows(savoir)."> > >> > > (Often the notion of experiment affecting its object is expressed> > > with a not-quite-accurate reference to Heisenberg.)> > >> > > The strange word in that sentence seems to me not 'experiment' but> > > 'clinic.' Looking it up:> > >> > > 3. (Med.) a medical facility, often connected with a school or> > > hospital, which treats primarily outpatients.> > >> > > 4. (Med.) A school, or a session of a school or class, in which> > > medicine or surgery is taught by the examination and treatment of> > > patients in the presence of the pupils.> > >> > > Oh... Within the clinic(4), the medical students just watch> > > passively.> > >> > >> And from ???Open Up a Few Corpses:???> > >>> > >> ??????progress in observation, a wish to develop and extend> > >> experiment [experience]?????? (BC: 136).> > >> > > Novel experiments (and the publication of their results) are the> > > means by which scientific observation progresses. But experience?> > > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> Foucault-L mailing list> Foucault-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > http://foucault.info/mailman/listinfo/foucault-l> > End of Foucault-L Digest, Vol 8, Issue 2> ****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Organizza le tue feste, cenoni e ritrovi del Natale con Windows Live Eventi!
http://home.services.spaces.live.com/events/