Dear fellows,
Thanks for your responses on The Order of Things and if anybody else has something to say, I'd love to hear more on the topic.
Another query I have regards what I view as a fundamental misconception regarding Foucault's treatment of power and the Law. A introductory guide to critical theory criticized Foucault's notion of power for precluding any form of resistance because Foucault's concept shows how resistance works back into a logic of power relations and institutions such as the carceral, the law, etc. I criticize this criticism as it seems to work under the assumption that Foucault rejects power relations and the political. Just because a political action works back into the system of power as productive does not mean its useless to resist. The way I see it is resistance is possible, just be aware of what system it works within. That does not make it pointless, that's just how it works. The system is not one of total totalitarianism or oppression. Power as productive and not merely repressive, in of itself answers back this criticism by showing how power relations can work positively as well as negatively. So that criticism makes no sense to me. Its possible Foucault also better articulated this with his advanced notions of biopower/biopolitics and governmentality.
What is your guys take on this misleading criticism? Do you agree with it or do you think, like me, that it misses the point about what power relations are supposed to be? Do you think like me that it falsely assumes that working back into power relations is a negative thing for Foucault and destroys the effect of resistance? I believe it does falsely assumes this but I don't know if I'm right or wrong.
Alot of these introductory pamphlets to Foucault seem to provide really simplistic, half baked definitions and conceptions of what Foucault is talking about, missing the nuances and even entire facts about Foucault's analysis, going off of hearsay and popular distortions of Foucault instead.
Thanks for your responses on The Order of Things and if anybody else has something to say, I'd love to hear more on the topic.
Another query I have regards what I view as a fundamental misconception regarding Foucault's treatment of power and the Law. A introductory guide to critical theory criticized Foucault's notion of power for precluding any form of resistance because Foucault's concept shows how resistance works back into a logic of power relations and institutions such as the carceral, the law, etc. I criticize this criticism as it seems to work under the assumption that Foucault rejects power relations and the political. Just because a political action works back into the system of power as productive does not mean its useless to resist. The way I see it is resistance is possible, just be aware of what system it works within. That does not make it pointless, that's just how it works. The system is not one of total totalitarianism or oppression. Power as productive and not merely repressive, in of itself answers back this criticism by showing how power relations can work positively as well as negatively. So that criticism makes no sense to me. Its possible Foucault also better articulated this with his advanced notions of biopower/biopolitics and governmentality.
What is your guys take on this misleading criticism? Do you agree with it or do you think, like me, that it misses the point about what power relations are supposed to be? Do you think like me that it falsely assumes that working back into power relations is a negative thing for Foucault and destroys the effect of resistance? I believe it does falsely assumes this but I don't know if I'm right or wrong.
Alot of these introductory pamphlets to Foucault seem to provide really simplistic, half baked definitions and conceptions of what Foucault is talking about, missing the nuances and even entire facts about Foucault's analysis, going off of hearsay and popular distortions of Foucault instead.