Date: Fri, 19 Jan 96 13:26:52 EST From: "Joe Cronin" <croninj-AT-thomasmore.edu> Subject: Re[4]: ethics and poststructuralism To Antoine and Diane, The larger connection between Marx and Focuault, I suppose, goes through Althusser and structural Marxism. Althusser claims that any reading of Marx which holds that Marx has merely inverted the terms of the hegelian dialectic is a bourgeois reading; Marx transforms the hegelian dialectic in his 'scientific' work, in such a way that the social structure is not seen as an isomorphic reflection of an underlying base (whether that would be material or 'spiritual'), but as a complex, decentred whole. A lot of this is jargon, but the point is fairly profound. The social structure itself consists in a set of material relaionships, with each element having its own "relative autonomy." However, these autonomous elements unite around economic relations "in the last instance." The basic point is that in Marx's later "scientific" writings, in which he analyzed capital from the critical persepctive of the universal class, the proletariat, he looked at all social relationships as complex ones. He "abstracts" terms such as labor and value from hteir complex setting to understand their logic. But Althusser makes it fairly apparent that Marx was neither an essentialist, nor a humanist, nor a Hegelian. Foucault's foundational (yes, I said it) concept in hte genelogies is the truth/power relation. This is not a Nietzschean concept, so far as Focuault is cocnerned, but a Marxian one - and therefore a critical one (Zarathustra has no critical universal persepctive; the "masses" as Foucualt sometimes refers to the working class do). The truth/power relation in the classical age was representational. The body of the king lied under all power relations. Thue reform era, however, is characterized by an "economistic rationality." In modern bourgeois society, the truth/power relation is carried out in aneconomy of power relations, in which the objective qualities of subjects, gaines through "semio-techniques," form the currency of htis economy. This may sound a bit sketchy, but the basic point is htat Foucault's genelogies do operate off an axis - a Marxian one. Marx also analyzed the complex nature of social relations in capitalist societies by examining the economic relations htat characterize all apsects od the social structure. That does not mean that Marx was an "economic determinist" in the sense in which Engles interpreted him. Instead, he analyzed the economy of socail relations. There's a major difference: in Marx's case, rights, laws, morality, etc. are produced, appropriated, and distributed just as money is. There's no essential gap between economy and hte superstructure. I shall end with a quote from DP: But the body is also directly involved in a political field;power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs. this political investment of the body is bound up, in accordance with complex reciprocal relations, with its economic use; it is largely as a force of production that hte body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labour power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection (in which need is also a political instrumnet meticulously prepared, calculated and used). ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005