From: Vunch-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:19:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Foucault and pragmatism, q&a


In a message dated 4/28/01 10:14:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, porkjoy-AT-siu.edu 
writes:

> also, what is the function of a theoretical discourse (or rhetoric, in the
>  sense of burke) which relies less on persuasion and more on identification?
>  if these discourses work to create an orientation (or re-orient), can they
>  be considered negligible? how could one even measure their effect?

In most discussions of Foucault, the content is usually lost.  The essential 
questions are not why is domination exercised.  Many philosophers have 
answered this satisfactorily.  Foucault is addressing the problem of how 
domination works.
Much of what he writes about is understood as abstract technique, for 
example, his understanding of prison construction, clinical diagnostic 
procedures, etc.  But, the main idea that Foucault is always addressing is 
how the techniques work, how does power put one side above another and in 
turn form a resistance to it.  

Charles Taylor writes a wonderful criticism of Foucault where he states the 
reasons why Foucault is unacceptable.  Foucault understands the chestnut in 
the problem of sexual identity.  Heterosexual values are forced upon us and 
bisexual and homosexual values are restricted.  Perhaps, the term values is 
not exact enough - heterosexual settings are forced upon us and bisexual and 
homosexual settings are restricted.  The manner in which this occurs is local 
and therefore varies from location to location and from historical period to 
period.  Taylor levels the charge at Foucault that he claims that the enemy 
(the power) is heterosexuality and the resistance is therefore homosexuality 
and that the direction of history is the usurping of heterosexuality!  Taylor 
finds this disastrous because of the problem of the survivial of the human 
race if heterosexuality is undermined, but he also recoils at the intentional 
adoption of a homosexual attitude!

Putting the content of Foucault's project forward in terms of the 
gay-straight knot
does not explicate the myriad forms that this conflict takes where 
heterosexual settings castigate homosexuals and homosexual settings and 
functions discipline and upset heterosexuals' dispositions.  But, where 
Foucault discusses at length the notion of strategies of discipline he is 
usually referring this kind of problem.

Vunch