Re: [Foucault-L] request for a seminar in political philosophy

I agree with you for the most part.
The scholar you were emailing with seems to me to have an interpretation
based on a very superficial and problematic reading of Discipline and Punish
and perhaps The History of Sexuality volume 1. The interpretation I hear
most commonly from the average reader of Foucault who focuses on D&P.
Oftentimes, D&P is all that they have read.

Considering and interpreting Foucault's work as a whole helps us see the
continuity and cohesive unity between the various strands of Foucault's
thinking in its lead up to a dynamic yet consistent philosophic framework of
the political.



On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Nicholas J. Kiersey <
nicholaskiersey@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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:
>
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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"

Replies
[Foucault-L] request for a seminar in political philosophy, Annelies Decat
Re: [Foucault-L] request for a seminar in political philosophy, Chetan Vemuri
Re: [Foucault-L] request for a seminar in political philosophy, Nicholas J. Kiersey
Partial thread listing: