Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 19:44:33 +0100 From: Anders Legarth Schmidt <legarth-AT-image.dk> Subject: truth and genealogy I'm a quite new Foucault student and I've found this debate on truth (or effects of truth) very interesting. I'm currently working on a project concerning what with a reference to Mitchel Dean might be called 'the actice society'. Our initial concern was that an active society in which employment, skills, responsibility and personal growth are some of the dominant values has as one of its effects that people who can't find themselves within this rationale risk getting marginalised, that understood as ' wrong people ' who needs intervention from the state to become like the rest of us. The techniques used for that purpose are designed to promote an active and responsible individual. We are trying to do an genealogy of these techniques to understand what kinds of truths and rationales they are part of. It seems to me that Foucault explicitly writes that the goal of genealogical work is to denaturalize what we understand as selfevident and essential, for example sexuality, in order to build up something different. Two examples of this are given at the very last page of 'history of sexuality I' (I have the danish translation and I won't get into any translation here) and in 'the subject and power', afterword in Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Dreyfuss and Rabinow, 1982, page 216: ' Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are but to refuse what we are....We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality whichhas been imposed on us for centuries [by the state]. ' Well I certainly agree. But Isn't it rather problematic to break something down in order to build up something new? Won't new understandings and categorizations allways imply new inclusions and exclusions? We are faced with the same problem in our project. Because of our initial concern with the exclusions inherent in an active society, we in a way presuppose a certain kind of truth: that we are all equal and should have equal rights and possibilities. Personally I have no problem with such an attitude, but isn't there an academic problem when we are trying to do a genealogy? To sum up: First of all what is the role of genealogy today? Just to map 'the history of our present' or to do this map in order to build up a new conception of our present? And what does that imply for the role of academic work? And then truth: What is the role of ones own presuppositions in doing genealogical work? How should one understand the truth he brings with him in his research? More general, I think what I'm trying to do is to start a discussion of the role of social science today. Best wishes, Anders Schmidt, Denmark.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005