Hi Chetan,
Just wanted to second your recommendation of Mark Kelly's book - we're covered in snow in Ohio today, so I have been getting stuck into a copy of the book that I cajoled my library into acquiring for me. Must say, the discussion of power is really quite thorough and stimulating. The argument Kelly presents is timely for me because I have been emailing recently with a scholar of International Political Economy who insists that Foucault's model of power has too many problems: its all encompassing, it reduces human beings to mere vehicles, ignores the role of strategically located individuals ('organic intellectuals'), and makes every single 'free' choice ultimately an inauthentic one.
What I think Kelly recognizes is that these sorts of casual dismissals of Foucault make little or no effort to engage with Foucault on his own terms. By the end of Kelly's second chapter on power, its clear that while Foucault might have done more to help us understand the various levels at which power operates, and the directions it travels, there is a fairly consistent framework to be gleaned. Moreover, I think Kelly does a very important job in explaining the problem that thinking in terms of these sorts of power relations helps us solve: Namely, that without Foucault's focus on the relation between the subject and power, we end up making power relations completely autonomous from human agency (thereby arguably making us all victims of history).
So, the intentionality of power is immanent to our own. But Kelly reminds us that this in no way suggests we are all equals in power's regime. There is a nice quote he gives from Foucault, writing in 1977, that "In so far as power relations are an unequal and relatively stable relation of forces, its clear that this implies an above and a below, a difference in potentials." There is space here for organic intellectuals to some extent, isn't there?
Another great quote: "I don't believe this question of "who exercises power?" can be resolved unless that other question of "how does it happen?" is resolved at the same time" Now this is hardly to say that one's 'free' choice is always really power's choice. Rather, its just to say that there are conditions to thought. Its you doing the thinking, to not always to the extent you might wish.
Great stuff. But I have questions. And I should say upfront that I am no philosopher. Merely a humble, aspiring theorist of International Relations. So there are likely subtleties to Kelly's work I might be missing. But when all is said and done, aren't we really concluding simply that Foucault's theory of power is multi-scaled, multi-leveled, and reversible? If so, why not try to create a more systematic way of doing this like, say, Deleuze and Guattari do. Okay, they do it in an incredibly complex way that requires great patience on the part of their students, but their intention of their materialism seems to boil down to a similar theory of power -
Or we might want to invoke Hardt and Negri, who really seem to be quite compatible with the interpretation of Foucault that Kelly is putting forward, except that they want to inject a retrospective linearity to struggle ... some have issues with that but I'm not sure that they are doing more than joining dots to tell a similar story about power except with a focus on the 'the glass as half full' -
Anyway, all very tentative and admittedly based on an all too superficial reading -
Sincerely,
Nicholas
On Jan 28, 2009, at 17:25, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
----------------------------------
Nicholas J. Kiersey, PhD
Assistant Professor, Political Science
Ohio University, Chillicothe
Just wanted to second your recommendation of Mark Kelly's book - we're covered in snow in Ohio today, so I have been getting stuck into a copy of the book that I cajoled my library into acquiring for me. Must say, the discussion of power is really quite thorough and stimulating. The argument Kelly presents is timely for me because I have been emailing recently with a scholar of International Political Economy who insists that Foucault's model of power has too many problems: its all encompassing, it reduces human beings to mere vehicles, ignores the role of strategically located individuals ('organic intellectuals'), and makes every single 'free' choice ultimately an inauthentic one.
What I think Kelly recognizes is that these sorts of casual dismissals of Foucault make little or no effort to engage with Foucault on his own terms. By the end of Kelly's second chapter on power, its clear that while Foucault might have done more to help us understand the various levels at which power operates, and the directions it travels, there is a fairly consistent framework to be gleaned. Moreover, I think Kelly does a very important job in explaining the problem that thinking in terms of these sorts of power relations helps us solve: Namely, that without Foucault's focus on the relation between the subject and power, we end up making power relations completely autonomous from human agency (thereby arguably making us all victims of history).
So, the intentionality of power is immanent to our own. But Kelly reminds us that this in no way suggests we are all equals in power's regime. There is a nice quote he gives from Foucault, writing in 1977, that "In so far as power relations are an unequal and relatively stable relation of forces, its clear that this implies an above and a below, a difference in potentials." There is space here for organic intellectuals to some extent, isn't there?
Another great quote: "I don't believe this question of "who exercises power?" can be resolved unless that other question of "how does it happen?" is resolved at the same time" Now this is hardly to say that one's 'free' choice is always really power's choice. Rather, its just to say that there are conditions to thought. Its you doing the thinking, to not always to the extent you might wish.
Great stuff. But I have questions. And I should say upfront that I am no philosopher. Merely a humble, aspiring theorist of International Relations. So there are likely subtleties to Kelly's work I might be missing. But when all is said and done, aren't we really concluding simply that Foucault's theory of power is multi-scaled, multi-leveled, and reversible? If so, why not try to create a more systematic way of doing this like, say, Deleuze and Guattari do. Okay, they do it in an incredibly complex way that requires great patience on the part of their students, but their intention of their materialism seems to boil down to a similar theory of power -
Or we might want to invoke Hardt and Negri, who really seem to be quite compatible with the interpretation of Foucault that Kelly is putting forward, except that they want to inject a retrospective linearity to struggle ... some have issues with that but I'm not sure that they are doing more than joining dots to tell a similar story about power except with a focus on the 'the glass as half full' -
Anyway, all very tentative and admittedly based on an all too superficial reading -
Sincerely,
Nicholas
On Jan 28, 2009, at 17:25, Chetan Vemuri wrote:
some suggestions:
Discipline and Punish
Society Must be Defended
Security Territory Population (very good for governmentality)
The Hermeneutics of the Subject perhaps? In terms of ethics of
governmentality
I also recommend The Archaeology of Knowledge if you can find some way to
put that in, as it provides key insights into Foucault's later work as well
as its own merits on the role of discourse and the construction of
knowledge.
in terms of work concerning his influence:
anything by David Halperin, Judith Butler, Jana Sawicki, Giorgio Agamben,
Colin Gordon, Nikolas Rose, Partha Chatterjee or Arnold Davidson should work
fine.
Mark Kelly is actually releasing a book very soon on The Political
Philosophy of Michel Foucault, regarding the coherent progressive political
program he finds in Foucault's work.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Annelies Decat <
Annelies.Decat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear List members,
I am going to prepare some reading for a seminar on Foucault, and I am
looking for some suggestions on which texts to include. The seminar is
meant for students doing a master in philosophy. It is a reading
seminar in political philosophy, focusing on another author each year.
My idea was to roughly divide the seminar into two parts, with the
first part focusing on his work, and the second on his influence, or
the way he has inspired other work (for example feminist theory,
postcolonial thinking, governmentality studies, etc.)
I would welcome any suggestions on which texts of Foucault you find
most suitable for this purpose, which topics should be covered and
also which discussions of his work could be included.
Best,
Annelies Decat
---
Institute of Philosophy (University of Leuven)
Centre for Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy
Contact:
Parkstraat 45 bus 3602 - 3000 Leuven
T. ++32 16 323245
F. ++32 16 323088
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
_______________________________________________
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"
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
----------------------------------
Nicholas J. Kiersey, PhD
Assistant Professor, Political Science
Ohio University, Chillicothe