I like Gordon's definition of Foucault's approach, I feel it helps create a
unique position towards capitalism within critical theory, something that
differs from and is contrary to typical critical attitudes towards it as
proposed by Adorno, Marcuse, Zizek and certain postcolonial critics.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Jason Weidner <jas_weidner@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> In his interview with Jacques Donzelot, Colin Gordon offers an interesting
> and unconventional understanding of Foucault's political and intellectual
> stance vis-a-vis liberalism. Gordon asserts that in his 1978-1979 lectures,
> Foucault "presents neoliberalism as a modern political rationality worthy of
> attention and a certain intellectual respect, while commenting that
> democratic socialism has failed to engender a distinctive governmental
> rationality" (in "Foucault Studies" No. 5, p. 49). Clearly the idea that
> Foucault found neoliberalism "worthy of attention" is not remarkable or
> controversial. However, the second part of the sentence is important; it
> contains two key ideas: that to a certain degree Foucault had an
> intellectual respect for (neo)liberalism, and that he also was critical of
> socialism's failure to generate its own effective political rationality. The
> two ideas are obviously related.
>
> I bring this up for two reasons. Firstly, if Gordon is correct, it offers a
> more complicated view of Foucault's position on liberalism. In a related
> fashion, it also complicates the notion of governmentality. For, while many
> understand Foucault's political philosophy as one that is fundamentally
> critical of most if not all political projects that aim at governing others
> (or, indeed, of providing the basis for subject's to govern themselves),
> Gordon's reading of Foucault suggests that Foucault does not reject any form
> of governmentality tout court, but instead is open to the possibility, maybe
> even the necessity, of a politically progressive form of governmentality. Of
> course, if the last suggestion is correct, it also means that
> governmentality is not necessarily synonymous with liberal governmentality
> (although it is the latter that is the object of Foucault's analysis and is
> clearly the dominant, if not sole contemporary governmentality).
>
> I would be very glad to hear others' thoughts on this subject.
>
> Jason R. WeidnerPhD. candidate, Department of International
> RelationsFlorida International UniversityMiami, FL USA
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
unique position towards capitalism within critical theory, something that
differs from and is contrary to typical critical attitudes towards it as
proposed by Adorno, Marcuse, Zizek and certain postcolonial critics.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Jason Weidner <jas_weidner@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> In his interview with Jacques Donzelot, Colin Gordon offers an interesting
> and unconventional understanding of Foucault's political and intellectual
> stance vis-a-vis liberalism. Gordon asserts that in his 1978-1979 lectures,
> Foucault "presents neoliberalism as a modern political rationality worthy of
> attention and a certain intellectual respect, while commenting that
> democratic socialism has failed to engender a distinctive governmental
> rationality" (in "Foucault Studies" No. 5, p. 49). Clearly the idea that
> Foucault found neoliberalism "worthy of attention" is not remarkable or
> controversial. However, the second part of the sentence is important; it
> contains two key ideas: that to a certain degree Foucault had an
> intellectual respect for (neo)liberalism, and that he also was critical of
> socialism's failure to generate its own effective political rationality. The
> two ideas are obviously related.
>
> I bring this up for two reasons. Firstly, if Gordon is correct, it offers a
> more complicated view of Foucault's position on liberalism. In a related
> fashion, it also complicates the notion of governmentality. For, while many
> understand Foucault's political philosophy as one that is fundamentally
> critical of most if not all political projects that aim at governing others
> (or, indeed, of providing the basis for subject's to govern themselves),
> Gordon's reading of Foucault suggests that Foucault does not reject any form
> of governmentality tout court, but instead is open to the possibility, maybe
> even the necessity, of a politically progressive form of governmentality. Of
> course, if the last suggestion is correct, it also means that
> governmentality is not necessarily synonymous with liberal governmentality
> (although it is the latter that is the object of Foucault's analysis and is
> clearly the dominant, if not sole contemporary governmentality).
>
> I would be very glad to hear others' thoughts on this subject.
>
> Jason R. WeidnerPhD. candidate, Department of International
> RelationsFlorida International UniversityMiami, FL USA
> _______________________________________________
> 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"