Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:23:08 -0500 From: "Thomas E. Bedwell" <spirit-AT-mail.cdmnet.com> Subject: Re: The Nature of Power. At 08:35 AM 8/19/96 +0000, you wrote: >Hi folks. Thomas wrote: > >> Benjamin - >> >> You bring up an excellent point here regarding what might be called the >> "co-constitution" of the subject (agent) and the object (structure). >> Actually, Benjamin wrote this: >> "But - did he really, in philosophical means, analyse *social* formation, >> not rather formations which are constitutive for what we call social? > >There's an interesting ambiguity in the word "formation" I think. >Take the term "discursive formation" for example. On the one hand, >this term is a noun, designating a "thing" - a methodological unity, >a kind of shorthand or a "title". On the other hand, the word is a >nominalization, designating not a thing but a process, as in a verb, >as in "the formation of discourse = the process of its production" >(although I realize here that the line between noun and verb is >somewhat blurry - but then, that's exactly the ambiguity). I'm not >sure what all can be made of this, but I'm quite sure that Foucault >deploys this ambiguity "consciously", so to speak. > >I guess my point is that it's perhaps not necessary to choose between >one and the other - i.e. whether Foucault analyses social formations >or formations of the social. >Approaching Foucault from one >perspective permits observations not possible from the other, and >vice versa. So perhaps it's more a question of "both/and" rather than >"either/or". > >Hmm. Any thoughts? Malcolm - My thoughts are that you are absolutely correct to distinguish the difference in "permission" which results when one chooses one epistemological or methodological position or approach over another. I used the term "privilege" because I identify the term with the distribution of value that results from rule construction and maintenance, but "permission" is equally acceptable. So it is definitely a question of "both/and" when we speak metatheoretically, but when an epistemological position is chosen and a method is exacted, the permission of observation is given to either the social formation (agency) or the formation of the social (structure), one is ontologically privileged over the other. I cannot accept your description of the term "discursive formation" because I am not certain you GROUND "methodological unity." Unity of method is not a "title" exactly, but it is much like a "shorthand." More concretely, unity of method is grounded in the rules of discourse. The formation of discourse is a process structured by rules, and its product is the structure of rules and norms which (in)form discourse. Tom
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005