Hello Jeffrey,
Debates between Foucault defenders and Habermas defenders has been staged already several times.
I agree with you, that the point of the early debate was Habermas' Kantian transcendentAL position defending a general Rationality and the (transcendental) Subject, as against Foucault's position defending several rationalities and different subject positions.
That debate is still going on, but it can be restaged now - since the full edition of Foucaults lectures on the Hermeneutics of the Subject, the Courage of Truth, and of the Lectures on the Will to Knowledge (of 1970-1) - as a debate between Communicative Action and the Practice of Telling the Truth (Parrhèssia).
Then, I guess, both positions are going to overlap each other, because both make use of the same positive notion of Truth, which is in my opinion the Kantian notion of Truth. Moreover, both make use of the same notion of subject, being a human actor in a Truth game who must apply the Truth to her/himself.
yours
machiel karskens
----- "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:24:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Debates between Foucault defenders and Habermas defenders has been staged already several times.
I agree with you, that the point of the early debate was Habermas' Kantian transcendentAL position defending a general Rationality and the (transcendental) Subject, as against Foucault's position defending several rationalities and different subject positions.
That debate is still going on, but it can be restaged now - since the full edition of Foucaults lectures on the Hermeneutics of the Subject, the Courage of Truth, and of the Lectures on the Will to Knowledge (of 1970-1) - as a debate between Communicative Action and the Practice of Telling the Truth (Parrhèssia).
Then, I guess, both positions are going to overlap each other, because both make use of the same positive notion of Truth, which is in my opinion the Kantian notion of Truth. Moreover, both make use of the same notion of subject, being a human actor in a Truth game who must apply the Truth to her/himself.
yours
machiel karskens
----- "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Jeffrey Tallane" <linactuel@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:24:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault-Habermas Debate
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list