Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:07:00 -0500 (EST) From: John Ransom <ransom-AT-dickinson.edu> Subject: Re: foucault, power and authenticity On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 brehkopf-AT-nexus.yorku.ca wrote: > > > At the risk of regenerating the entire discussion about the "uses" of > Foucault (or more specifically Foucault's *work*, for the sake of the > person who chided us all for our blase' imprecision).... > > Perhaps it is *ironic* that there resulted such a large industry of > theorising and a smaller industry applying his methods. I'm not sure > it's paradoxical, though, and I'm almost certain that such a response is > neither surprising nor unwarranted. > > Foucault proposes a fairly new "theory" (of power, the subject, > whatever), one that goes very very deep. Now, what should people do in > response? Should they accept his work, without hesitation or after > cursory and superficial examination? Or should they - and should > Foucault encourage them to - submit that work to thorough and rigorous > examination? > > Foucault was calling for nothing less than a paradigm shift, and to me a > large part of his work suggests that such paradigm shifts are not simply > the result of mere choices to believe X rather than Y. I take it that > for Foucault, X (or Y...) wasn't just an idea to Foucault, to be taken > off or put on like a shirt, but rather that X was > in some way descriptive of one's subjectivity for him. I don't recall > Foucault ever implying or suggesting explicitly that "we" are any more > capable of rising out of / above / beyond our way of thinking so easily > than was any other generation caught in these disciplines he describes. > > So, far from it being paradoxical that the bulk of scholarship that has > resulted from Foucault's work is theory rather than application, it > would be paradoxical if "we" all did what Foucault said was largely not > in our...ummmm....*power* to do. > > I don't know if this makes sense, so feel free to point out where I've > gone wrong in my argument, such as it is. (And yeah, I know, I too have > claimed to "use" Foucault in an applied context...I never claimed *I* am > not paradoxical!) > > Peace, > > Blaine Rehkopf > Philosophy > York University > CANADA > > -- > If I could second Professor Rehkopf's point about the importance of theory with regard to Foucault: His particular importance, it seems to me, is as a theorist of opposition in a post-Wall world. There is a great deal of confusion, angst, and uncertainty concerning the demise of the "Revolution" as a viable oppositional paradigm. Foucault, I think, was trying to present a new picture of the political world and a new justification for oppositional thought and practice appropriate to that world. If I may be allowed to mention it, I pursue this theme in my book, just released by Duke University Press, titled _Foucault's Discipline : The Politics of Subjectivity_. John Ransom Political Science Dickinson College, Carlisle PA ransom-AT-dickinson.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005