Hello, David, Chetan,
Thank you for your comments and hints! It is true that Smith is seen as a
transitional figure (Foucault says he still works with an analysis of
wealth), but I think it is possible to coherently interpret Smith's study of
human beings in his Theory of Moral Sentiments as dealing with the figure of
Man: people are determined empirically by the passions they experience, but,
at the same time, the nature of passions is open to the transcendental
questioning of the “impartial spectator” (or so I try to argue…). My problem
with Ricardo is that he never directly questions human nature – it seems to
me it is an empirically given for him: given a historical and institutional
framework, people will act according to their self-interest, period. In this
sense, Ricardo paves the way for a sort of anthropology in economics, as
Foucault argues, but it doesn’t seem to me that the figure of Man is in
there, since he never questions the empirical determinations that men
undergo. He seems to discuss it only in his letters to Malthus, where the
latter questions his assumptions about self-interest in humans. J. S. Mill,
on the other hand, presents a more nuanced work dealing specifically with
the nature of man -- how it is empirically and transcendentally constituted.
Best,
Emmanoel
2009/4/20 David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> I think you need to read The Order of Things more carefully, but you
> will notice that Smith is positioned as a transitional figure whereas
> David Ricardo is pretty much centred on a concept of man. Whether
> the empirico-transcendental doublet idea (which relates predominantly
> to Kant) is valid for Ricardo is a good question, but undoubtedly
> Ricardo's work is centred on a notion of human nature. As far as
> J.S. Mill is concerned, well there is a shift there in terms of how
> value is explained but in abstract terms he is just as theoretical
> humanist as Ricardo.
>
> I suggest reading Keith Tribe's Land, Labour and Economic Discourse
> (1978). It's old, but still valuable. You won't find adequate
> answers to this on an email list, sorry.
>
> You might also try the chapter on Foucault in Lecourt's Marxism and
> Epistemology for a critical view of Foucault's work of this period,
> especially regarding the Ricardo/Marx question.
>
> Personally I find the Order of Things to be historicist to a quite
> objectionable degree, and even Hegelian. Foucault went on to provide
> an implicit critique of it in subsequent work, and didn't return to
> certain of its formulations regarding historical a prioris etc, which
> posed in such an abstract way were perhaps poorly formulated.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure there are people here who would see Foucault's work
> as some kind of unity and would be appalled by what I have just stated!
>
>
> On 21/04/2009, at 2:35 AM, Emmanoel B wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello, Chetan,
> >
> > It is true, the "Birth of Biopolitics" is useful as well. To be more
> > precise, I would like to verify if "man" understood as an
> > empirico-transcendental doublet is found in the economic works of
> > J. S. Mil,
> > A. Smith and W.S. Jevons, despite Foucault's definition of
> > economics as an
> > empirical science. I am trying to better qualify Foucault's
> > statements in
> > the works of those three economists.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Emmanoel
> >
> > 2009/4/20 Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >> You might want to complement that with Foucault's 1979 course, The
> >> Birth of
> >> Biopolitics, which, unlike those two (fine book as they are),
> >> actually
> >> deals
> >> with economics and the figure of man in neoliberal economy, "homo
> >> oeconomicus".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Emmanoel B <emmanoelb@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, all,
> >>>
> >>> I am doing research on the history of economics from a foucauldian
> >>> perspective (mainly from "The Order of Things" and "Archaeology of
> >>> Knowledge"). I try to verify if Foucault's figure of Man appears
> >>> in the
> >>> works of some economists of the nineteenth century. If anyone has a
> >> similar
> >>> kind of research or would like to exchange ideas about Foucault and
> >> history
> >>> economics, please, feel free to contact me!
> >>>
> >>> Emmanoel
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chetan Vemuri
> >> West Des Moines, IA
> >> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> >> (319)-512-9318
> >> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to
> >> change the
> >> world"
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
Thank you for your comments and hints! It is true that Smith is seen as a
transitional figure (Foucault says he still works with an analysis of
wealth), but I think it is possible to coherently interpret Smith's study of
human beings in his Theory of Moral Sentiments as dealing with the figure of
Man: people are determined empirically by the passions they experience, but,
at the same time, the nature of passions is open to the transcendental
questioning of the “impartial spectator” (or so I try to argue…). My problem
with Ricardo is that he never directly questions human nature – it seems to
me it is an empirically given for him: given a historical and institutional
framework, people will act according to their self-interest, period. In this
sense, Ricardo paves the way for a sort of anthropology in economics, as
Foucault argues, but it doesn’t seem to me that the figure of Man is in
there, since he never questions the empirical determinations that men
undergo. He seems to discuss it only in his letters to Malthus, where the
latter questions his assumptions about self-interest in humans. J. S. Mill,
on the other hand, presents a more nuanced work dealing specifically with
the nature of man -- how it is empirically and transcendentally constituted.
Best,
Emmanoel
2009/4/20 David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> I think you need to read The Order of Things more carefully, but you
> will notice that Smith is positioned as a transitional figure whereas
> David Ricardo is pretty much centred on a concept of man. Whether
> the empirico-transcendental doublet idea (which relates predominantly
> to Kant) is valid for Ricardo is a good question, but undoubtedly
> Ricardo's work is centred on a notion of human nature. As far as
> J.S. Mill is concerned, well there is a shift there in terms of how
> value is explained but in abstract terms he is just as theoretical
> humanist as Ricardo.
>
> I suggest reading Keith Tribe's Land, Labour and Economic Discourse
> (1978). It's old, but still valuable. You won't find adequate
> answers to this on an email list, sorry.
>
> You might also try the chapter on Foucault in Lecourt's Marxism and
> Epistemology for a critical view of Foucault's work of this period,
> especially regarding the Ricardo/Marx question.
>
> Personally I find the Order of Things to be historicist to a quite
> objectionable degree, and even Hegelian. Foucault went on to provide
> an implicit critique of it in subsequent work, and didn't return to
> certain of its formulations regarding historical a prioris etc, which
> posed in such an abstract way were perhaps poorly formulated.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure there are people here who would see Foucault's work
> as some kind of unity and would be appalled by what I have just stated!
>
>
> On 21/04/2009, at 2:35 AM, Emmanoel B wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello, Chetan,
> >
> > It is true, the "Birth of Biopolitics" is useful as well. To be more
> > precise, I would like to verify if "man" understood as an
> > empirico-transcendental doublet is found in the economic works of
> > J. S. Mil,
> > A. Smith and W.S. Jevons, despite Foucault's definition of
> > economics as an
> > empirical science. I am trying to better qualify Foucault's
> > statements in
> > the works of those three economists.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Emmanoel
> >
> > 2009/4/20 Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >> You might want to complement that with Foucault's 1979 course, The
> >> Birth of
> >> Biopolitics, which, unlike those two (fine book as they are),
> >> actually
> >> deals
> >> with economics and the figure of man in neoliberal economy, "homo
> >> oeconomicus".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Emmanoel B <emmanoelb@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, all,
> >>>
> >>> I am doing research on the history of economics from a foucauldian
> >>> perspective (mainly from "The Order of Things" and "Archaeology of
> >>> Knowledge"). I try to verify if Foucault's figure of Man appears
> >>> in the
> >>> works of some economists of the nineteenth century. If anyone has a
> >> similar
> >>> kind of research or would like to exchange ideas about Foucault and
> >> history
> >>> economics, please, feel free to contact me!
> >>>
> >>> Emmanoel
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chetan Vemuri
> >> West Des Moines, IA
> >> aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> >> (319)-512-9318
> >> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to
> >> change the
> >> world"
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>