Hello, I agree that there was no Habermas-Foucault debate. Hence, it has
still to be staged... The difficulty is that Habermas is a systematic
thinker who adopt a transcendant perspective on things while Foucault's
perspective is unsystematic and completely rejects transcendance. That's
why Habermas completely fails to understand Foucault in his book titled The
philosophical discourse on modernity.
However, I think the last courses on governmentality and parrhesia at Le
College de France (1976-1984) are both possible responses to the critics
adressed by Jurgen Abermas after Foucault's death. For instance in "Il faut
défendre la société" Foucault shows a history of his own practice in french
and english historiographic practices during the XVII and XVIII th
centuries: constructing history as a warfield and truth as engaged in the
battle. Also, in the introduction of the second book of the History of
sexuality, Foucault explains the specificity of his concept of ethical
subject, that has nothing to do with the classical substantial subject nor
with the hegelian subject-object opposition. Last but not least, the
courses on parrhesia and cynical truth-telling are important as Habermas
completely ignores them, for sake, as it would ruin his argument...
Best,
Jeffrey
2011/10/2 Burak Kose <burakkose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Debate between Genealogy and
> Critical Theory (ed. by Samantha Ashenden and David Owen)
> Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (ed. by Michael
> Kelly)
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Guillermo Vega <gui_vega@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
>
> > I think that there is not a real debate between Habermas and Foucault.
> > Anyway, you can find the central area of conflict in "The Philosophical
> > Discourse of Modernity".
> > Best,
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/9/28 David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > I have to agree with this!
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28/09/2011, at 8:52 PM, ari wrote:
> > >
> > > > if you can't do that best not even try reading the stuff!
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:28:23 +0530, Amitranjan Basu wrote:
> > > >> no one is providing the full citation so that i can search!
> > > >>
> > > >> On 28 September 2011 16:17, David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I seem to remember that the little book 'Remarks on Marx' - later
> > > >>> published
> > > >>> in a different translation - had a lot in it on the critical
> > > >>> theorists
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 28/09/2011, at 7:46 PM, Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel) wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The best text of Foucault is the second part of his article The
> > > >>> Subject
> > > >>> and Power. There, he explicitly discusses his theory of
> > > >>> power/politics as
> > > >>> being different from Habermas'theory of communication.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> yours
> > > >>>> machiel karskens
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Reno" <renomich@xxxxxxx>
> > > >>>>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:43:26 PM
> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> critique and power, subtitled, recasting the Foucault-Habermas
> > > >>> debate,
> > > >>>>> has many of the primary texts
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 9/27/2011 10:35 AM, ari wrote:
> > > >>>>>> axel honneth 'critique of power' is a classic on this.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:30:24 +0100, Tee Dub wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Dear all,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I am in my fourth year at the University of Edinburgh and have
> > > >>>>>>> decided to do my dissertation on Foucault and in particular the
> > > >>>>>>> ‘debate’ that he had with Habermas over the term ‘power’. I am
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> very early stages of the project and am in need of some advice.
> > > >>>>> Would
> > > >>>>>>> anyone be able to tell me what the central area of conflict
> > > >>> between
> > > >>>>>>> the two was and know where Foucault best outlines his opinion
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>>>> power
> > > >>>>>>> and where Habermas outlines his? Also are there any secondary
> > > >>>>> sources
> > > >>>>>>> that I may find useful?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Any help is much appreciated.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Terrence
> > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
still to be staged... The difficulty is that Habermas is a systematic
thinker who adopt a transcendant perspective on things while Foucault's
perspective is unsystematic and completely rejects transcendance. That's
why Habermas completely fails to understand Foucault in his book titled The
philosophical discourse on modernity.
However, I think the last courses on governmentality and parrhesia at Le
College de France (1976-1984) are both possible responses to the critics
adressed by Jurgen Abermas after Foucault's death. For instance in "Il faut
défendre la société" Foucault shows a history of his own practice in french
and english historiographic practices during the XVII and XVIII th
centuries: constructing history as a warfield and truth as engaged in the
battle. Also, in the introduction of the second book of the History of
sexuality, Foucault explains the specificity of his concept of ethical
subject, that has nothing to do with the classical substantial subject nor
with the hegelian subject-object opposition. Last but not least, the
courses on parrhesia and cynical truth-telling are important as Habermas
completely ignores them, for sake, as it would ruin his argument...
Best,
Jeffrey
2011/10/2 Burak Kose <burakkose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Debate between Genealogy and
> Critical Theory (ed. by Samantha Ashenden and David Owen)
> Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (ed. by Michael
> Kelly)
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Guillermo Vega <gui_vega@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
>
> > I think that there is not a real debate between Habermas and Foucault.
> > Anyway, you can find the central area of conflict in "The Philosophical
> > Discourse of Modernity".
> > Best,
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/9/28 David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > I have to agree with this!
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28/09/2011, at 8:52 PM, ari wrote:
> > >
> > > > if you can't do that best not even try reading the stuff!
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:28:23 +0530, Amitranjan Basu wrote:
> > > >> no one is providing the full citation so that i can search!
> > > >>
> > > >> On 28 September 2011 16:17, David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I seem to remember that the little book 'Remarks on Marx' - later
> > > >>> published
> > > >>> in a different translation - had a lot in it on the critical
> > > >>> theorists
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 28/09/2011, at 7:46 PM, Karskens, M.L.J. (Machiel) wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The best text of Foucault is the second part of his article The
> > > >>> Subject
> > > >>> and Power. There, he explicitly discusses his theory of
> > > >>> power/politics as
> > > >>> being different from Habermas'theory of communication.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> yours
> > > >>>> machiel karskens
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Reno" <renomich@xxxxxxx>
> > > >>>>> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:43:26 PM
> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> critique and power, subtitled, recasting the Foucault-Habermas
> > > >>> debate,
> > > >>>>> has many of the primary texts
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 9/27/2011 10:35 AM, ari wrote:
> > > >>>>>> axel honneth 'critique of power' is a classic on this.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:30:24 +0100, Tee Dub wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Dear all,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I am in my fourth year at the University of Edinburgh and have
> > > >>>>>>> decided to do my dissertation on Foucault and in particular the
> > > >>>>>>> ‘debate’ that he had with Habermas over the term ‘power’. I am
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> very early stages of the project and am in need of some advice.
> > > >>>>> Would
> > > >>>>>>> anyone be able to tell me what the central area of conflict
> > > >>> between
> > > >>>>>>> the two was and know where Foucault best outlines his opinion
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>>>> power
> > > >>>>>>> and where Habermas outlines his? Also are there any secondary
> > > >>>>> sources
> > > >>>>>>> that I may find useful?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Any help is much appreciated.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Terrence
> > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >>>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list