From: "Dickinson College -- Bologna" <fonddc_a-AT-iperbole.bologna.it> Subject: Re: The ahistoric body & Foucault Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:48:41 +0200 I talk about this explicitly in _Philospohy and Social History_ in the article, "Foucault and Lebensphilosophie." Deleuze also makes this wrong reading of Foucault as does Connolly. If anyone's interested I'll be happy to send a text version of the article via e-mail. --john ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Purdy <dp31-AT-columbia.edu> To: <foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 1999 8:09 PM Subject: Re: The ahistoric body & Foucault > > > As far as Judith Butler's argument on Foucault's notion of the body: I > assume you are refering to the passage in Gender Trouble where she does a > reading of F's comments on hermaphrodites. It seemed to me that Butler's > argument was quite simply unfair. She really based it on a single > essay by F. and did not extend her argument to F's major works. > In the"Psychic Life of Power" Butler makes a very different > argument against Foucault. I think that the earlier argument about F's > ahistorical conceptof the body is discreetly abandoned by Butler in favor of an argument > that really is at the heart of her own theoretical interests: to what > extentdo psychoanalytic models of sexual desire provide a means of > understanding resistence to normative heterosexuality. > > In "The Psychic Life of Power"Butler reads D&P against HoS, v.1. She wants to > show that there is a contradiction between F's account of the subject as > being constituted within disciplinary power and his later discussion of > alternative sexualities developing from the very disciplinary regimes > which seek to control them. How is resistence possible from within a > disciplinary regime? > To answer this question, she goes back to Lacanian psychoanalysis > to reconsider ALthusser's notion of interpollation, which she argues gives > a better explanation of how resistence is formed in relationship to a > legal force, namely as a reaction to being called before the law. > Butler is certainly on to a problem in Foucault, one that > other psychoanalysts such as Joan Copjec have also noted: how can one > explain the existence of an interiorizedd subjectivity with its own moral > code. Foucault's account of disciplinary power in D&P is so > overwhelmingly determinist that there would seem to be no way of > explaining subjective feelings as anything but the direct effect of a > power regime. In other words, disciplinary power does not allow for or > acknowledge the possibility of a subject with autonomous feelings and a > moral conscience. Butler phrases this argument in terms of Foucault's > failure to explain "resistence" to power; Joan Copjec makes a similar > point also via a reading of Lacan, but she argues that Foucault's model > of disciplinary power would vitiate the autonomous moral conscience. To > the extent that resistence and a moral conscience are real, Butler and > Copjec are saying that Foucault has not fully accounted for subjectivity > and they both look to their readings of Lacanian psychoanalysis as an > alternative that makes up for Foucault's failings. And once they do that > they throw into question the F's denial of the repression model, and more. > > The answer which F does not formulate fully, but then how could he > answer his later critics, is in devloping a more geneaological account of > disciplinary power as it acquires an history. Homosexuality as an > affirmative identity is an unintended effect of nineteenth-century > sexology. I think that f one thinks about discplinary power in more > historical terms then Butler's objections could be answered. That would > require more than further archival evidence, it would mean giving a > diachronic account of disciplinary power, i.e. a history of its changing > effects and its responses to those unintended developments. > > Daniel Purdy > Columbia University >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005