Subject: Re: [HAB:] state and lifeworld 2 [Matt]
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 06:43:54 +0000



HI Matt,

1) You ask me that “Do you agree re: Foucault & *situations*? It seems a 
radical reading of Foucault's aesthetic of self creation”. Yes I do agree 
with. There is no contradiction between Foucault’s ‘aesthetic self creation’ 
and his ‘situation’ based notion of freedom. Here my earlier distinction 
between freedom as the ontological condition of ethics and ethics as the 
deliberate [reflechie] form taken be freedom becomes relevant.  And it is 
not a radical reading of Foucault. It is pretty standard reading among 
commentators who know their Foucault.

2) You say that “over the last 30 years, that have drawn on Foucault's and 
Habermas's work, have been coopted into restrictive processes of social 
governance.”. I totally agree. But Foucault was well aware of this. Foucault 
had studied through his philosophical histories the power of modern 
capitalism to coopt and incorporate. He knew that freedom was the central 
concept of this cooptation strategy and he was well aware of this danger in 
relation to his own work. Hence his critical distance from movements he 
supported. Foucault saw postmodern social movements with great hope and 
opportunity but there was disappointment and danger related to these 
movements that haunted him in the later phase of his life. He saw the great 
danger facing these movements in their turning into what he pejoratively 
termed ‘liberation movements’ . The liberation movements in this sense are 
those movements that do not recognise the double character of freedom and 
the double bind that freedom plays in sustaining capitalist subjectivity. 
These movements simply consider freedom as a ‘way’ out, as an ‘exit’, 
without realising the formidable management potential of freedom. 
Consequently they end up being incorporated into an existing 
subjectivisation regime without realising their potential as movements 
aiming at producing a new subjectivity that can transcend the double bind of 
freedom.  To think of power [or state for that matter] as pure limit set on 
freedom leads to the notion that freedom consists in merely lifting this 
prohibition: a 'way out'. But these notions are dangerous in the context of 
the workings of modern power, which does not work by 'starving' desire but 
prospers on creating, inducing and multiplying and through ramification of 
desire. "This type of discourse", according to Foucault, is a dangerous and 
"a formidable tool of control and power. As always, it uses what people say, 
feel and hope for. It exploits their temptation to believe that to be happy, 
it is enough to cross the threshold of discourse and remove a few 
prohibitions. But in fact it ends up dispersing movements of revolt and 
liberation”. Btw in this respect there is a good piece by Zizek you might 
like to have a look at 
[http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/v30/v30n2.zizek.html].

3) I also do not disagree with your point on Habermas, Foucault, and Derrida 
being to some extent the shapers of our present. I do not use Foucault as 
uncritically. I basically ‘use’ Foucault.

4) But I do not agree with your comments that [Except for a philosopher of 
freedom he tends to underestimate the degree of *free* complicity involved 
in processes of capitalist subjection.]. I cannot see how Foucault 
underestimates the ‘free’ complicity? In fact he is a theorist who makes 
this ‘free’ complicity central to his analysis of the capitalist mode of 
governance.

5) You say “Aren't you in danger of falling into the economist fallacy: ALL 
is economics?”. But I am saying the exact opposite of it. I am saying ALL is 
NOT economics. I am going even further than this. I am saying even 
capitalism can Not be reduced to economics!! And I am claiming that this is 
Foucault’s position. And of course capitalism (and not just capitalism) is a 
contingent historical phenomena. But also ‘necessary’ to the extent that it 
is our present (Foucault’s historical a priori).

6) You say [I think part of JH's strategy is to suggest that we are NOT 
powerless against the military/industrial? political elite.]. I agree. And 
Foucault’s point was the same. However he though that this belief cannot be 
based on a "less rigorous" [rosey?] analysis of the situation. It would be 
deluding ourselves.

7) Just a brief note that ‘human nature’ among other things must be 
understood historically. I guess both Habermas and Foucault would agree on 
this.

8) And Matt I do not understand your final question!!

Regards
ali

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband



     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---