From: "Ali Rizvi" <ali_m_rizvi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Il faut defendre Foucault
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:37:42 





Nathan

Thanks for your response. It is all very sensible and very intelligible of 
course.

But there are few points I would like to add.

I think you are still not sufficiently differentiating between ‘force’ and 
‘power’ in Foucault. Again much of his study is not regarding power per se, 
(he denies developing any theory of power) he is mainly interested in modern 
form of power which he term as bio/disciplinary power, power of 
subjectivisation etc.

In this context your following statement seems to me problematic
“domination does not operate at the level of constitution of identity 
--identity is constituted by strife-ridden power relations, domination 
occurs at the level of the interaction of already defined identities 
(although these
definitions are always already unstable)”.

Your statement is complex and I do not intend to take it lightly but for 
understanding sake let me consider few possible options. By saying that 
‘domination does not operate at the level of constitution of identity” are 
you implying that at the level of the formation of identity asymmetric 
relations do not exist? Do not you think that Foucault differentiates 
between the ways of subjectivisation, which are libratory and the ways of 
subjectivisation, which are subjecting/subjugating?

In the context of your above comments what you think of the following 
comments in Discipline and punish?:

“. . .[the modern ‘soul’] is produced permanently around, on, within the 
body by functioning of a power that is exercised on those punished- and, in 
a more general way, on those one supervises, trains and corrects, over 
madmen, children at home and school, the colonized, over those who are stuck 
at a machine and supervised for the rest of life. This is the historical 
reality of this soul . . . On this reality reference, various concepts have 
been constructed and domains of analysis carved out: psyche, subjectivity, 
personality, consciousness, etc . . . The man described for us, whom we are 
invited to free, is already in himself the effect of a subjection much more 
profound than himself”.

Of course Foucault has emphasized again and again that modern forms of 
discipline are conditioned upon the possibility of self discipline but this 
does not mean that we deny that the self which is surrendering itself 
‘voluntary’ to certain procedures and ideals is not itself a product and 
effect of power regime.

My point is that to suggest that for Foucault
something like nationalism could be invented in the (hermetically sealed?)
west and then forced unilaterally on the (hermetically sealed) rest of the
world is a joke.

I have intentionally kept aloof from this debate about the west and the rest 
because so much sensibilities are involved. Having said that I will concur 
with the point you make above. But this does not prove for me that 
imperialism did not exist or that after the end of colonial period neo 
imperialism has ceased to exist (I am not implying that you are saying 
this). France might have left Algeria in 1968 but it still activity thwart 
establishment of anti imperialist regime that. Many people would deny that, 
but I think that would be ultimately untenable, at least for us who see this 
intervention on the daily basis. Let me finish this with a quote from 
Foucault which might shed some further light on issues being discussed here”

“I do not mean to say that liberation or such and such a form of liberation 
does not exist. When a colonial people tries to free itself of its 
colonizer, that is truly an act of liberation, in the strict sense of the 
word. But we also know that . . . this act of liberation is not sufficient 
to establish the practice of liberty that later on will be necessary for 
this people, this society and this individual to decide upon receivable and 
acceptable forms of their existence or political society’

Negative liberty is not sufficient and positive practice of liberty on the 
perpetual basis is necessary because we live under the sway of an order 
which never ceases producing and reproducing its effect on, within and 
around us. Hence active resistance is necessary at each and every moment. 
That at least seems to me to be the crux of Foucault message.

regards
ali


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp