I understand Kevin but I wasn't intending what you think I said.
What I meant was that people got these flawed notions that Foucault was
proposing a sexual dandyism and generalizing Greek techniques of the self by
reading just those two books when really he was just talking about specific
instances with those rather than the entire techniques of self, and I
thought that The Hermeneutics of the Subject simply showed the larger
framework he was working in and served to demonstrate that his conception of
greek practices were not limited to sex but much larger and broader
concerns, a broader and and very accurate conception they give little credit
for.
But yes, your points are very true.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
What I meant was that people got these flawed notions that Foucault was
proposing a sexual dandyism and generalizing Greek techniques of the self by
reading just those two books when really he was just talking about specific
instances with those rather than the entire techniques of self, and I
thought that The Hermeneutics of the Subject simply showed the larger
framework he was working in and served to demonstrate that his conception of
greek practices were not limited to sex but much larger and broader
concerns, a broader and and very accurate conception they give little credit
for.
But yes, your points are very true.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"