From: mcote-AT-sfu.ca Subject: Re: grid of intelligibility-dispositif Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:26:59 -0700 i have been very interested by the exchange on foucault’s use of grid of intelligibility and even more so regarding the ill-understood concept of the dispositif. respectfully, i would have to disagree with colin gordon’s assertion that foucault had little “intellectual investment in the term 'dispositif'” although he is undoubtedly right that “The point was the kinds of phenomena he wanted to use it to identify and describe.” those ‘phenomena’ tended to coalesce around power and foucault endeavoured to take his analysis beyond conceptualizations of power as either residing in the state and juridical forms or as determined by the mode of production. hence the importance of david mcinerney’s comment: the dispositif must be understood as a concept. briefly, i would argue that the ‘dispositif’ is in fact a key foucaultian concept, and one that has been literally ‘lost in translation’ for english-language interlocutors. i am in the midst of writing my doctoral dissertation and the ‘dispositif’ is central in my attempt to move beyond the western marxist grid of ‘ideology’ in the discipline of communication. of course, to date the most compelling case made for the importance of the dispositif is made by gilles deleuze in his article ‘what is a dispositif?’. the dispositif facilitates an “‘analytics’ of power” that understands power as expressive and productive, as opposed to that which represses or mystifies—‘a power to say no’. in short, for an analysis of power which ‘cuts off the king’s head.’ ‘history of sexuality v1’ marked foucault’s first widespread deployment of the dispositif. he did so not only to analyse the emerging form of biopower, but “to show how deployments of power (disposotifs de pouvoir) are directly connected to the body.” the dispositif marks a conceptual shift away from the thoroughly discursive ‘episteme.’ simply stated by foucault, the dispositif is a “thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble” of discursive and material elements, including “discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions” among myriad others. conceptually, the dispositif places us in the middle of what deleuze calls “a multilinear ensemble composed of heterogeneous lines” with power, knowledge and subjectivity comprising the major variables. it is the complex set of relations of these dispositifs which allows us to see and speak, establishing grids of intelligibility, and, in the process not producing ‘ideology’ but their own ‘truths’. to paraphrase michael hardt, ‘dispositifs constitute the horizon of the world (the limits of our thought and action) expressing the weight, corporeality and power of being’. yet it is important to remember that the dispositif arose from a conceptual crisis for foucault—to break out of the conceptual trap of power as domination. thus the dispositif rejects ‘unbreakable and definitive contours’ which hermetically contain subjectivities to which we are interpellated tout court. instead dispositifs always leak; processes of subjectification therein can be lines of flight; and one is not beholden to the ‘truth’ produced. thus, for me at least, the dispositif can be read in affinity with italian autonomist marxists, for whom, within power-knowledge relations, resistance always comes first. if this notion seems interesting to anyone, i have a related published article on ‘the italian foucault’ at (http://aspen.conncoll.edu/politicsandculture/page.cfm?key=259). i think the dispositif offers new possibilities for both a political reading of foucault and conjunctural analysis. others seemingly think so as well. for example, jason read’s new book ‘the micropolitics of capital’ utilizes the dispositif. as well, i have a paper on the dispositif under journal review that i would be happy to forward to anyone interested. as a postscript, in regards to kevin’s question on ‘society must be defended’, in the original ‘il faut défendre la société’ it is ‘grille de intelligibilité;’. in the original, ‘dispositif’ is employed by foucault, on pp. 13-4 , and on p. 39; in smbd, this is translated respectively on pp. 13 & 45 as ‘power-apparatuses’ (dispositifs de pouvoir) and ‘apparatuses of domination’ (dispositifs de domination). ciao, mark coté school of communication simon fraser university vancouver, bc On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 05:27:03 -0400 foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU wrote: > > As a small suggestion, when in doubt it is always useful with Foucault > to look at the specific context or contexts and the working practice > in which a term is used and deployed. > The word dispositif in F is used in different places in relation to > sexuality and also to security - and has troubled translators in both > cases. > I don't personally think there is much sign he had any particular > intellectual investment in the term 'dispositif'. The point was the > kinds of phenomena he wanted to use it to identify and describe. >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005