File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_1996/96-07-06.052, message 181


From: <CHAMBERS-AT-POLISCI.UMN.EDU>
Date:          Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:05:53 CST6CDT
Subject:       Re: Foucault & Law




>What does everyone make of the statement:
>"Although the universal juridicism of modern society seems to fix limits 
>on the exercise of power, its universally widespread panopticism enables 
>it to operate, on the *underside of the law,* a machinery both immense 
>and minute..."(DP 223)

>Then what might this mean in connection with Michael Walzer's article on 
>"The politics of Michel Foucault?"

>Where Walzer says:
>"And so Foucault's radical abolitionism, if it is serious, is not 
>anarchist so much as nihilist."(Foucault Critical Reader page 61, ed. 
>D.C. 
>Hoy)

>Please keep in mind the first quote when responding, because it is in 
>the location of law counterposed against disciplline that I think this 
>problem emerges.  Might there be a way to counterpose law and 
>discipline, that doesn't alienate the use of law for beneficial social 
>change? I am thinking along the lines of the use of "governmentality" 
>except that  government is infused, through and through with the 
>combination of law 
and sovereignty.  

In partial response to your last question I would give a resounding yes.  
In vol. I of HoS Foucault makes it quite clear (clearer than he does in 
other places) that a space remains for BOTH juridical and disciplinary 
power.  Walzer (and often Taylor and others as well) has to assume that 
Foucault cannot account for juridical power if he is to come to the 
conclusion that Foucault is a nihilist (or an anarchist).  Focuault turns 
most of his attention to disciplinary power because of its often 
invisible and always insidious nature, but he never assumes that 
disciplinary power wholly replaces the juridical system--it does in fact 
operate on this "underside of the law."

Just a beginning,

Sam





   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005