Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:27:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org> Subject: Re: Zapatistas and drugs (belated reply) I'm sympathetic as well to the concern with "normalization," which Foucault developed out of Canguilhem's work (The Normal and the Pathological, etc). In general, i'm sympathetic to Foucault's complex understanding of power. Over on postanarchism, some time ago, we were exploring a bit how compatible that conception was with the natural philosophies embraced by folks like Bakunin. (Check out the early sections of the Maximoff collection - then read Kropotkin's influence Guyau for some more strangely contemporary stuff.) What i'm not sympathetic to is the attempt to make Foucault - or Nietzsche - the basis for some new moralism, or the ground on which one could claim some clear, privileged vision of what other folks "really mean." In Andrew's case, there's a strange tendency to talk about "unconscious" impulses in a somewhat moralizing tone, while, at the same time, denying for the most part that "consciousness" really exists. In this particular case, there's the charge that "discourse often operates with implicit or unstated [or unconscious] assumptions." This charge, in the context of my debate with Andrew, is either being levelled at me in a fairly noncommittal way, or it is somewhat beside the point. Either way, things can be clarified because the assumptions are "demonstrably present." I'm just calling in the cards here, trying to get some things clarified. My debate with Andrew has occasionally been about the details of the poststructuralist critique, but mostly it's been about what assumptions you make about others. If you assume others are "herd animals," without individuality and with a need for guidance, it's hard to engage with them as fellow anarchists (or citizens, or neighbors, or whatever designation pleases you most). To the extent that Foucault and the other poststructuralists emphasize that we are subjected as much as subjects, we have to see ourselves as "herded" a bit ourselves. When we see the "will to power" as something other than some internal spring of personal excellence - and i think Nietzsche left very little room for simple egoism or personalism - then we're in a very complicated situation where "willing power" may involve a sort of surrender to extra-personal forces. There's a lot to consider here, but the thing that always seems clear to me is that there isn't much room for us to get smug about any of it. There isn't anything here that authorizes holy wars. This is just more of the "clean consciences are counter-revolutionary" stuff from some time ago. -shawn On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, roger wrote: > Andrew Robison said (and Shawn replied): > > > > > I happen to think that discourse often operates with implicit or > > > unstated assumptions which may even be unconscious, but which are > > > demonstrably present in the way arguments are constructed. The > > > implicit exclusion of the"abnormal" from "community" is one such > > > unconscious implication. > > > > If there is an authoritarianism, or normalist will-to-exclude, > > that is "demonstrably present" in my position, then feel free to > > demonstrate it. So far you are just projecting your unwillingness > > or inability to imagine voluntary constraints onto an argument with > > very different premises. > > > > BTW, the appeal to "unconscious implications," as if you know > > better than your opponents what they "really mean" *always* > > indicates willingness to engage the other as less-than-equal. > > Don't be surprised if such arrogance doesn't win you any friends > > or sympathetic listeners. > > i don't ever recall having said this before, but i think foucault > could be helpful here (there, that didn't hurt as much as i thought it > might). i think that Andrew is essentially stating his thesis, at > least as i understand it. foucault noted that the institutions of > modernity have translated the "saint - sinner" dichotomy of the > pre-industrial world view into the "normal - abnormal" standard of the > modern era. since the hallmark of the modern state and economic > institutions has been to count and discriminate to an ever greater and > more sophisticated degree, then ever more graduated degrees of > "normality" have been inflicted upon us in our schools, workplaces, > etc. (Recall my point from a long ago post that if there really are > 1.6 million women in the class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, then > that means that TWO PERCENT of the entire female workforce in amerika > has worked or is working for this one megacorp. fucking amazing). > > how's that for a foucauldian paragraph? > > anyway, while i'm pretty damn sympathetic to Andrew and Michel's > point, i think that Shawn is making a more salient observation about > the more pragmatic task of building and maintaining community in this > nasty old world, what with it being full of meanies and republicans > and all. a worthy task, since we may be watching the beginning of the > breakdown of social cohesion in north american society. we've created > the most atomized, disassociated society in human history and i think > it may be capable of perversions that make the twentieth century > appear in retrospect as a golden age. so community might be a good > thing to build. > > the circle is broken, no shit, and the center ain't gonna hold. > > roger > > > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005