well basically his understanding of Foucault's notion of subjectification
(or really subjectivation as its written in the books) is flawed in that he
assumes it to mean that humans turn themselves into subjects of observation
and control.
He basically assumes that throughout the History of Sexuality volume 1,
there is a subtext of criticism of science.
He also views Foucault as essentially a social constructionist which is an
understandable yet rather mistaken (to me at least) characterization of his
work and project.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> These parts are very confused:
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 09:52 -0600, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>
> > "[....]
>
> > [...] Powerful insights into the deep
> > interaction of nature and nurture have
> > already established that Foucault's
> > notions of subjectification and social
> > construction are pretty far off the
> > mark. [...]"
>
> and
>
> >"Chetan, read The History of Sexuality.
> > Please show me where Foucault gives
> > any serious consideration to genetic
> > predisposition in gendered roles. The
> > entire subcontext, especially when he
> > considers science and sexuality, is to
> > undermine and undo what he thinks to be
> > entirely socially constructed norms
> > of sexuality. [....]"
>
>
>
> Um.
>
> There are many ways to begin
> to approach the layers of error upon
> error in such a statement. Here
> are two:
>
> 1) Challenge the speaker to produce
> even one empirical claim, anywhere,
> for which he gives one account, the
> evolutionary psychologists (or whatever
> group you like another), and where
> the latter account displaces the former.
> None of this hand-waving: let's have
> one concrete example. (Hint: there are none.)
>
> If he gives an answer we can have a debate.
> If he doesn't, he's blowing hot air.
>
> 2) Foucault examines the history of sexuality
> in recent millennia and specifically in its
> relation to political, pedagogical, and other
> systems of power within the self-reproducing
> arrangements of societies. He pays particular
> attention to how these arrangements change
> over time, not infrequently considering how
> change emerges out of the interaction between
> contemporary systems of thought (such as
> scientific theories meeting juridical theories).
>
> Now, the evolutionary psychologists, on the
> other hand, have very very little to say about
> these changes for these same changes *did not
> take place on evolutionary timescales*.
>
> Maybe the right response is to say to the
> speaker "I'll answer that but only if you first
> answer a similar question: 'When did you stop
> beating your wife?'"
>
> That said, it's funny that your teacher
> looks at some of the in-vogue and often
> factually misinterpreted science and characterizes
> it as "powerful".
>
> Indeed. The scientific discourse around things
> like evolutionary psychology *is* a focus of
> power. You could go count mentions of it at,
> say, Ted conferences, if you like. You could go
> find the number of times its referred to in,
> for example, current civil rights debates.
>
> I think Foucault would be quite fascinated with
> evolutionary psychology and similar in-vogue
> theories as they are applied today, including by
> your teacher.
>
>
> -t
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
(or really subjectivation as its written in the books) is flawed in that he
assumes it to mean that humans turn themselves into subjects of observation
and control.
He basically assumes that throughout the History of Sexuality volume 1,
there is a subtext of criticism of science.
He also views Foucault as essentially a social constructionist which is an
understandable yet rather mistaken (to me at least) characterization of his
work and project.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Thomas Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> These parts are very confused:
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 09:52 -0600, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
>
> > "[....]
>
> > [...] Powerful insights into the deep
> > interaction of nature and nurture have
> > already established that Foucault's
> > notions of subjectification and social
> > construction are pretty far off the
> > mark. [...]"
>
> and
>
> >"Chetan, read The History of Sexuality.
> > Please show me where Foucault gives
> > any serious consideration to genetic
> > predisposition in gendered roles. The
> > entire subcontext, especially when he
> > considers science and sexuality, is to
> > undermine and undo what he thinks to be
> > entirely socially constructed norms
> > of sexuality. [....]"
>
>
>
> Um.
>
> There are many ways to begin
> to approach the layers of error upon
> error in such a statement. Here
> are two:
>
> 1) Challenge the speaker to produce
> even one empirical claim, anywhere,
> for which he gives one account, the
> evolutionary psychologists (or whatever
> group you like another), and where
> the latter account displaces the former.
> None of this hand-waving: let's have
> one concrete example. (Hint: there are none.)
>
> If he gives an answer we can have a debate.
> If he doesn't, he's blowing hot air.
>
> 2) Foucault examines the history of sexuality
> in recent millennia and specifically in its
> relation to political, pedagogical, and other
> systems of power within the self-reproducing
> arrangements of societies. He pays particular
> attention to how these arrangements change
> over time, not infrequently considering how
> change emerges out of the interaction between
> contemporary systems of thought (such as
> scientific theories meeting juridical theories).
>
> Now, the evolutionary psychologists, on the
> other hand, have very very little to say about
> these changes for these same changes *did not
> take place on evolutionary timescales*.
>
> Maybe the right response is to say to the
> speaker "I'll answer that but only if you first
> answer a similar question: 'When did you stop
> beating your wife?'"
>
> That said, it's funny that your teacher
> looks at some of the in-vogue and often
> factually misinterpreted science and characterizes
> it as "powerful".
>
> Indeed. The scientific discourse around things
> like evolutionary psychology *is* a focus of
> power. You could go count mentions of it at,
> say, Ted conferences, if you like. You could go
> find the number of times its referred to in,
> for example, current civil rights debates.
>
> I think Foucault would be quite fascinated with
> evolutionary psychology and similar in-vogue
> theories as they are applied today, including by
> your teacher.
>
>
> -t
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"