Chetan,
For a long time, the only text I had read by Foucault was "Discipline and Punish," and from this reading, I think I formed a very clear and coherent understanding of what Foucault was doing with this book, of the kind of work it was carrying out.
Somewhat later, I began to read all the texts available in English, and consequently formed a different understanding of what was taking place in the pages of DP.
Is this second reading more accurate than the first? Is it a reading which, due to the extra material, produces a more fuller, more detailed, more sophisticated, and truer understanding of what takes place in DP? I’m not sure. For me it simply represents a different understanding, one that in no way invalidates my original reading of the text, but which has certainly modified that reading.
This also holds for my undertaking of what happens in DP following my reading of the Collège de France lectures that took place prior to its publication (Psychiatric Power, Abnormal), and which formed the background research for it.
Does all this extra data bring me “closer” to the “real” Foucault as this is presented in Discipline and Punish? Once again, I’m not sure. But I don’t think so. I think that the difference between my reading of that text 14 years ago and now is not one of accuracy, but one of interpretation.
So, I think I would respond to your question by saying that "Hermeneutic of the Subject" does not so much reveal the “true light” of UP and CS but, rather, opens up a different aperture (grid of intelligibility) through which these texts can be read and understood.
There are only interpretations of interpretations...
Regards,
Kevin.
____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
For a long time, the only text I had read by Foucault was "Discipline and Punish," and from this reading, I think I formed a very clear and coherent understanding of what Foucault was doing with this book, of the kind of work it was carrying out.
Somewhat later, I began to read all the texts available in English, and consequently formed a different understanding of what was taking place in the pages of DP.
Is this second reading more accurate than the first? Is it a reading which, due to the extra material, produces a more fuller, more detailed, more sophisticated, and truer understanding of what takes place in DP? I’m not sure. For me it simply represents a different understanding, one that in no way invalidates my original reading of the text, but which has certainly modified that reading.
This also holds for my undertaking of what happens in DP following my reading of the Collège de France lectures that took place prior to its publication (Psychiatric Power, Abnormal), and which formed the background research for it.
Does all this extra data bring me “closer” to the “real” Foucault as this is presented in Discipline and Punish? Once again, I’m not sure. But I don’t think so. I think that the difference between my reading of that text 14 years ago and now is not one of accuracy, but one of interpretation.
So, I think I would respond to your question by saying that "Hermeneutic of the Subject" does not so much reveal the “true light” of UP and CS but, rather, opens up a different aperture (grid of intelligibility) through which these texts can be read and understood.
There are only interpretations of interpretations...
Regards,
Kevin.
____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!