this post was submitted on
37 points (86% like it)
44 up votes 7 down votes
all 58 comments

[–]Bob_Dylan_not_Marley 23 points24 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality part 1 are great places to start. The general idea in D&P is that systems of constraint have changed over history; the body was once the location of punishment, now your very personhood is. It traces the rise of "correctional" institutes and asks whether these make us adopt and come to love totalitarian powers being exercised upon us. Its bloody brilliant. If i wasnt on mobile Id write way more.

Also panopticon.

[–]Calcipher 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And in case the title History of Sexuality is a turn off (pardon the pun), the important part of the work have little to do with sex.

As an aside, if you can find them, you might enjoy the Foucault vs. Chomsky debates. I've had a hard time finding anything other that small portions of it online, but your lucky may be better.

[–]ThenISawTheUsername 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Calcipher 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for the transcript link. I would, however, like the videos. There is something fascinating about watching these two go at it.

[–]ThenISawTheUsername 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Definitely agree with you (and I definitely know who I think "won"), they both have such strong presences that match perfectly with everything they've left behind in words. Unfortunately I can only find the same snippets of video you can.

EDIT: Son of a bitch, I found the whole transcript f'free on the Chomsky website. It'll help you locate the video fragments in the entirety of the debate, and you can fill in the holes where you need to with the text.

[–]Calcipher 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice find!

[–]properal 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Excerpt of one of the debates.

[–]Calcipher 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, those the the ones I always see. A really good 10 minutes of two giants talking past each other.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is what I always think when I watch this video. I always wonder if Chomsky's French isn't good enough to really understand Foucault.

Also, it always amuses me to hear a tenured professor talk about the great freedom we would have without restrictive institutions.

[–]Calcipher 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I always wonder if Chomsky's French isn't good enough to really understand Foucault.

I think that may be the case because it is quite clear that Foucault understands Chomsky.

[–]swinebone[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

B&N has a copy of the Foucault-Chomsky debates, at least the one that I was at.

[–]Renholder86 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The french Quatuore of Derrida/ Merleau-Ponty/ Foucault /Deleuze will pretty much ruin your life. Everytime you think you have an original idea about anything of importance in your life, society, language, history or psychology, these guys probably thought of it first.

Readers beware.

[–]hugh_person 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

aka, Just because you have an idea, it doesn't mean it's yours.

[–]swinebone[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've heard that Derrida, Foucault, etc. should be avoided by beginners to philosophy. Will I be getting in over my head with Foucault, or do I just need to go ahead and bite the bullet?

[–]Renholder86 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm a pretty big Derridian, i can't help recommend him enough.. just don't start with Of Grammatology. That will make you hate your puny graduate mind. His later essays are a good starting point. His essay " L'animal que donc je suis" - on human beings and animality- and " Rogues" - on politics and sovereignity are absolutely brilliant and fairly accessible.

Deleuze is the one guy I would recommend to hold back on. He was a brilliant historian and essayist and his work on Nietzsche, Spinoza or amazing... but unless you have a firm grasp on the kinds of topics and thinkers he's cataloguing, expanding upon, and critiquing, you'll be quite lost.

Foucault is stuningly insightful and concise compared to the other frenchmen. His short essay on the Penopticon should be part of the canon budding philsopher-undergrads with interest in 20th century continental philosophy ought to start off with.

[–]CottonEyeJoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I started reading philosophy so I could work up to the postmodernists. I feel like I'll never understand something like Of Grammatology unless I understand all the rest. I feel like there's something super intriguing about Derrida/Foucault. At the same time I've read lots of people saying it's a bunch of bullshit.

[–]Renholder86 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Those people are entitled to their moronic opinion. OF grammatology is pretty much critiquing the whole metaphysics of the west from ancient greece to now , so it does take some ancillary knowledge of the positions Derrida is arguing against but you don't have to be a philosophy scholar to get the book as well.

[–]selfabortion 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think with Foucault it varies in terms of accessibility. I'd agree with someone above who said Discipline and Punish or History of Sexuality are good places to start, and steer clear of Archaeology of Knowledge until later or never. There is also an interesting book called "I, Pierre Riviera, having slain my mother..." or something to that effect, and it's a case study of a murderer that Foucault wrote some of the ancillary materials on. I studied that in some class in grad. school, can't remember which.

[–]ruffletuffle 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'd also recommend the transcript of his speech "Of Other Spaces", as its pretty relevant to OP's career choice.

[–]Either-Or 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I started reading Foucault with Discipline and Punish, and I loved it! However I know from other cases that English translations often seem to make philosophers seem more impenetrable (I think this is why so many native English speakers seem to be having a lot of trouble with Kant, Heidegger, etc. By all means: they are not simple philosophers, but they're not as obscure as it would seem from a lot of comments from English or American people). If possible, try to get a hold of the book in French, or in some other language that you speak.

It should also be noted that I had a lot of experience with philosophy, and was kind of prepared for the way of thinking that Foucault uses, so you may benefit from some sort of introduction. Other than that, I can only recommend the principle of charity: If you read something and think "what the fuck is this," try reading it again, and ask yourself if there are other ways you might understand what he's writing.

[–]chingsue 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're always in a little deep with Foucault. Sooner or later you'll realize that you're using Foucault to explain everything in the visible universe (and not). At least I did. And it hasn't failed me yet!

[–]swinebone[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for that. Your comment made me laugh and gives me hope for the future.

I came into grad school disliking theory and macro level work, but the deeper I get into the subjects I'm interested in the more I am drawn towards the systems behind what I'm actually researching. For example, I've recently been drawn towards thinking about why we have jails and prisons in the first place and the moral arguments for and against them.

I am starting to believe that I am really going to enjoy Foucault. Upboats for everyone, r/philosophy!

[–]somnambulistrex 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've recently been drawn towards thinking about why we have jails and prisons in the first place

Then you definitely want to read Discipline and Punish.

Edit: Also, Madness and Civilization

[–]ThenISawTheUsername 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree - if you read D&P first, or only read that one, you might walk away with too much of a "The Man" vibe. Reading Madness & Civ will give you armor against, in D&P, overemphasizing the invisible hand of the institution (sarcastic spooky ghost sounds) or having a stereotypical understanding of things like the Panopticon model.

[–]bigavz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you should also consider Rawls on justice and fairness, and also utilitarianism's justifications for punishment. If you haven't yet, try Stanford's online encyclopedia of philosophy to round out your knowledge of punishment and social philosophy.

[–]_mischief_ 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Rawls offers a recipe for totalitarian:

No one really deserves anything they attain, because if we look at their lives closely enough we'll discover they were given one "unfair" advantage or another by the natural lottery; therefore the primary role of government should be adjusting this "unfairness" by robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

You really support this thesis?

[–]bigavz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I support it because he is espousing socialism. His ideas of fairness necessarily stem from his ideas of what justice is, metaphysically, as influenced by Kant. Indeed, Rawls's system more supports the ideas of (infinitely ideal) democracy; this follows from his 'veil of ignorance.'

But notions of correct interpretations of Rawls aside, he is still a valuable philosopher because he brings Kant's titanic ideas to the political and social sphere.

[–]Circlewave 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Foucault has some interesting ideas, but once I finish reading, rarely can I muster anything besides "Cool story, bro." Discipline and Punish has some really wonderful critiques of the penal system, but I think he pushes his analysis so far as to make it irrelevant - everything supports the Carceral, we're bred to love it, we actually all enforce it, it's unstoppable, blah blah blah....so, so what? Why should I care about a system that I can do nothing about, and probably kind of enjoy? Besides just "knowing" about it, it doesn't seem to offer much potential for social hope or change.

[–]districtdabs 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why should I care about a system that I can do nothing about...

Foucault's argument isn't that you can't do anything about the system. He says its futile for "universal intellectuals" to make grand statements and try to challenge the system as a totality, but he encourages the individual to actively identify abusive instances of biopower and contest them. The "specific intellectual" he describes can challenge biopolitics in almost an infinite number of narrowly defined sites.

[–]Circlewave 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I admit my knowledge of Foucault is limited to D&P, so I concede that you may fully be right, but your point is not really as I understood it in that work, at least. in the Carceral section, as I read it, he suggests that everybody is either an oppressor or becomes an inmate - it seems to me you're either meat fed into the system, or a tooth which chews on the meat. And since he paints a portrait of ever-increasing "carceral-ness" in society, and the fact that we're all programmed to love, need, and see it as legitimate, what really CAN we do?

*note: I do admit that some of my understanding of Foucault is colored by Richard Rorty's assessment in "Achieving Our Country" since I read Rorty first - his run-down of Foucault and post-structuralism in general was not favorable; I try to read with an open mind, but it's hard for me to escape the initial bias.

[–]macshot7m 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

what really CAN we do?

I think this is Foucault's only 'agenda': to have his readers ask this question. He isn't for putting forward a positive program to be implemented (because this would simply reinforce systems of oppression). But through his writing/teaching he wants the public to become aware of these manipulative measures enforced by the state, and permeated to the level of micro-politics, micro-policing. In this debate with Chomsky you see his hesitancy for imagining what form of politics is best. My explanation for all this is Foucault does not see himself as the Lenin or MLK of a movement, but the 'vanishing mediator,' the one who asks the right questions at the right time to get the entire public questioning the anti-democratic, authoritarian structures in place.

Contemporary parallel: OWS. No singularity emerges, but the 'right' questions are being asked. Foucault's work can be used to raise awareness about the systems of oppression and their invisible nature (invisible at least at the level of phenomenon), granted his texts need to be 'trans-literated' to our current circumstance, but the form seems to remain the same.

[–]Circlewave 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

so, we either admit that the movement does not have any real solid policy ideas, or we have to rethink foucault's conclusion, which i assume a lot of people (though not necessarily you) would criticize, or be loath to do.

it seems like foucault's line of thinking contributes to the paralysis of the left in this country, simply because nothing gets done. people want to toss up totalizing systems and ideas (the carceral, marxism, libertarianism) and expect things to somehow sort themselves out using this divine template. maybe i've just got john dewey tattooed in my brain, but i think foucault sacrifices the pragmatic realities of political and social life in favor of this theoretical rabbit hole

[–]macshot7m 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i think foucault sacrifices the pragmatic realities of political and social life in favor of this theoretical rabbit hole

Legitimate critique. But that 'theoretical rabbit hole' begins to see the pragmatic as merely another instantiation of the current power relations, therefore the 'critical left's' praxis is in doing what is unconventional. I would even go so far as to say that removing oneself from the field of pragmatic solutions and 'well we have to act now or else everything is going to be ruined' is a valid form of critical praxis. In an age where every advert demands that you 'Act Now', perhaps you shouldn't act, but maybe think about what a true action is and what is merely 'going with the oppressive flow'.

so, we either admit that the movement does not have any real solid policy ideas, or we have to rethink foucault's conclusion

Ah, the deadlock, the Kierkegaardian Either/Or. The history of Western Philosophy is attempt to break with such vain disjunctions. In the opening to Zizek's The Parallax View he describes a short circuit and its importance for critique. What short circuit can we form between OWS and Foucault? In Foucalt's On the Government of the Living he interrogates the legal and academic legacy which arose out of monasticism, specifically the monks' "confession" as the mode of truth. OWS reflects this element with a democratic twist by allowing anyone to speak, as well as the 'human microphone'.

it seems like foucault's line of thinking contributes to the paralysis of the left in this country, simply because nothing gets done.

*Edit: incorrect link Latency (or a coma), rather than paralysis?

[–]Circlewave 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

this would be valid, if there weren't many macro-level problems which threaten society as a whole. how does foucault's method solve for pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, economic inequality, decaying infrastructure, corrupt and hijacked democracy, etc.? Perhaps "latency" or "coma" is a better term for what I mean, but in any case, involvement and action has given way to navel-gazing and detached defeatism which might as well be apathy. the academic leftist praxis of unconventional thought and analysis doesn't really bring us any closer to social justice or functional democracy, because its tracing of monolithic power systems can only lead us to throw our hands up in defeat. meanwhile, the right poisons the public sphere with evangelism, chips away at the welfare state, and deliberately encroaches further on civil liberties and human rights. it may be a vain either/or, but when faced with action/inaction, i'm inclined to support action, because roughly 30-40 years of inaction have allowed things to get really, really fucked up.

call the pragmatic what you like - it may be an expression of power relations, but that can't change the fact that power relations have led us to the way the world is now, and that societal/governmental problems and worldwide environmental crises can't be solved or changed by analysis, but rather through coordinated efforts at a macro level. this is what i mean by losing sight of the pragmatic - Foucault seems to prefer us to be idle analyzers and cataloguers of problems instead of active agents who solve them, and i don't mean to be rude, but when the survival of the species and all the things and rights we enjoy hangs in the balance, non-action is dumb. If Foucault considers such efforts oppressive, then I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

[–]Plato_Karamazov 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

From the conversation here, it would appear that the choice is a false one from which we can never escape. Though I have never read Foucault (I am here because I do want to read him in the near future), it would appear that the dichotomy between the two possibilities (action/inaction) both lead to the same end: If one acts, he is legitimizing the present power structure, but if one does not act, he is still perpetuating the existence of the present power structure by consenting to his consumption [by the system] through his inaction.

Both of these two options result in the perpetuation of the power structure, and the option that Circlewave claims Foucault favors actually leads to rapid escalation of the extent of oppression.

[–]Circlewave 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Foucault would suggest that the two possibilities lead to the same end, and that's the real crux of my critique. I reject his notion that action always leads to the perpetuation of power structures - it is not beyond redemption, but is what we are willing to make of it, contingent on our action or apathy. Post-structuralist praxis turns away from all previous avenues of changing things, and in a way, sets up its own failure.

[–]Plato_Karamazov 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is truly a wonder to me that despite all of the great arguments accumulated by the Left, it still has great difficulty in elections, even in the face of the wanton idiocy of the Right. Popular opinion claims that it is a communication problem, but rather is this idea really the cause?

[–]swinebone[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Take this comment with a grain of salt, as I have yet to read D&P or any of Foucault's works.

According to your comment, is Foucault arguing that it is impossible to change the system at a universal level? That is, in Foucault's view, would the actions of an activist like MLK be futile?

That's probably a gross oversimplification.

[–]somnambulistrex 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My very limited understanding is that as one system of oppression exits, another always takes its place. The oppressed/oppressor dynamic doesn't go away, but the way in which it manifests can be altered.

[–]ThenISawTheUsername 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really good way to explain it. The other key points that go with this are that

  • Nobody is at the top. There are no clear, top-down hierarchies of power. (This is explained better in D&P, somewhere like p60-70 I think).

  • By marginalizing someone, you're actually empowering them (Madness & Civilization / A History of Madness makes a pretty clear case for this). So it's a little more complex - MLK's (and the civil rights movement as a whole) gained more power, not less, as it was marginalized more extremely.

[–]PrurientLuxurient 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Foucault is trying to criticize something more fundamental (or at a higher level of abstraction, depending on how you want to look at it). The issue for Foucault is how, historically, a modern conception of selfhood or "subjectivity" has emerged that internalizes the kinds of coercive force that, in a previous epoch, were once exercised by external agents like the state. Where once control was exerted by a repressive sovereign in the form of spectacles of torture and execution, modern selfhood or subjectivity is self-regulating. Power and control are not exercised from the top down but are rather diffused across the whole of society in a non-unidirectional way.

I don't think he'd object to what MLK did--biographically, he was very politically active in a whole bunch of causes, including some that might run parallel to the civil rights struggle in the U.S. That's just not really the level at which a book like Discipline and Punish is operating. Obtaining further civil rights for black people in the U.S. is not going to fundamentally alter the modern conception of selfhood. It's not futile or useless, it just doesn't address the problem that Foucault is addressing.

[–]ThenISawTheUsername 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I always thought Foucault's genius and magic lay in being able to analyze the ordinary, and I mean really, really analyze it.

What he can teach a reader in his works definitely include the problems and past trajectories of the contemporary social make-up, as well as some beautifully written prose and unique history lessons, but I don't think those are the limits of what his point is. The most valuable thing to me was how he was able to pick something, let's say (in some cases) almost at random, and he was able to peel and peel and peel at it until he could articulate how it was inflected over history and came to be in this state, what it aims to do, what it is sustained by, what the mechanisms are by which it operates, where its tendrils extend, etc.

I think it's actually not too difficult for an intelligent reader to absorb the rigor and flavor of this analytical method, and for me, it's Foucault's greatest offering. If you look at the College de France lectures, he presents every little discovery as a starting point, a topic that someone else could then go develop, etc. His concepts only have these iconic, cliché, be-all-end-all gravities because of a lack of literary imagination and interpretive ability in a widespread audience of academics.

[–]ToughAsGrapes 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm currently reading D + P and I think it's an amazing book. I'm about half way through it and im really enjoying it. I don't read much philosophy and I'm sure there are parts of it that go over my head but I've still learnt a lot from it.

[–]intangible-tangerine 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well if you're studying in a formal setting he's great because you can mispronounce his name as 'fucker' during presentations which makes the day go a lot faster.

Hrm, I think this is why wiki states he was 'the most quoted philosopher... of 2007'

[–]-Chillmode- 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Super good book. I highly recommend it. He employs a kind of genealogical method similar to Neitzsche towards the history of discipline and punishment that isnt supposed to be taken seriously, but just to highlight some of the issues of how D&P come about. From there he examines these institutions in how they relate to society around it, in which he claims these institutions arent about solving any problems, but actually creating and reinforcing the ideology they sought to avoid. A kind of self-perpetuating reciprocity.

[–]ullalume 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Foucault was a minor French intellectual who had a few good ideas about historical analysis. but Foucault's reputation as a brilliant innovator is grossly overstated, and he had a startling inability to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources, a failing that ruins History of Sexuality.

Read Merquior's Foucault in the Fontanta Modern Masters Series for more details.

[–]Iratus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If Foucault is a "minor" intellectual, I'd like to see the "mayor" ones.

[–]_mischief_ 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In terms of prominence, Foucault was obviously a major intellectual.

In terms of actual accomplishment, it's no understatement to say he was a minor intellectual. He was wrong on simple matters of factual accuracy at least as often as he was correct. The slavish devotion to everything Foucault wrote is absolutely baffling to me. In addition to the above-mentioned book by Mequior, read Merquior's From Prague to Paris about the history structuralism and post-structuralism and if you don't come away thinking Foucault was a borderline fraud you're not being honest with yourself.

To summarize by quoting another scholar:

As a philosopher sympathetic to Foucault recently remarked to me, Foucault failed in each of his major inquiries and, in desperation, went further afield from his areas of expertise. The History of Sexuality is a disaster. Page after page is sheer fantasy, unsupported by the ancient or modern historical record. ~~ Camille Paglia, "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf"

But Foucault's fanboys don't give a damn about accuracy, as the replies in this thread prove. It's all exegesis: what did Master Foucault mean by such-and-such? Rarely do they ask if he was correct; that's simply taken for granted. As a social trend it's awfully similar to fundamentalist Christians and their literalist interpretations of the Bible.

[–]energirl 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I took a course on him in college (I was a French major), and our professor thankfully suggested that we ready this book alongside the many Foucaults we were studying. It helps put everything in context and explain a bit better what he's talking about.

[–]KrazyTayl 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

D&P as well as history of sexuality are incredible.

[–]Kafke -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who the Foucault knows?

[–]ravia -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem with Foucault runs as deep as the problem of the lack of interest in philosophy in real and practiced nonviolence in many ways. For the number of years that Foucault's thought has been around at this point we can question whether there is much effective "use" of Foucault on the penal system. The discourse is full of a lot of a certain kind of intensity and, well, what to call it? Excitement? And certain ranges of philosophical power, in certain ways. Without going into it too much, let me just suggest you do some extended reading in the field of restorative justice and victim-offender mediation.

It's interesting to note that in a recent, long interview on NPR (which I can't find right now), someone in the thick of new policing techniques affirmed strongly that the mediation and restoration approach they are using is really game changing in the most difficult, gang ridden areas. I still don't see anything in Foucault to support this, while his discourse on "power" tends in a weird way to post a certain kind of power as if that is all there is, and this appears to set up a kind of orientation to posit bad guys everywhere, exerting micro-power on bodies and what not. I'm still not sure it's such a good idea to be talking about "bodies" anyhow. Whatever happened to people? A lot of this appears to be working in an academic-capitalistic register, one might say. Well, you can leave my critiques out if you like and just DTFM. Also, the University of Minnesota Center for Restorative Justice is good to look at. You might want to tack on a certificate from them if you want to really do some good.

[–]swinebone[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If I'm being honest, I have to admit that some of your sentences flew over my head.

I think I get most of what you're arguing though, which is interesting because the research with which I found references to Foucault in was in regards to retributive versus rehabilitative justice systems. Very interesting topic, but I fear that my paper ended up being way more philosophical than practical. We'll see how well that turns out.

What does DTFM mean?

[–]ravia 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"do the fucking math" I don't mean you exactly, just in a general sense people aren't doing the math on this issue very well. Hope you don't take that offensively. I'm just thinking that there isn't a lot of basic 2 + 2 in this kind of issue and the prisons are overflowing, recidivism rates remain very high in many ways, etc. And all that tokens out to real and repeat crimes and so forth. It means that people aren't doing the math and looking at what really works, what's really meaningful in this stuff, etc.

[–]Danderson334 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

while his discourse on "power" tends in a weird way to post a certain kind of power as if that is all there is, and this appears to set up a kind of orientation to posit bad guys everywhere, exerting micro-power on bodies and what not. I'm still not sure it's such a good idea to be talking about "bodies" anyhow. Whatever happened to people?

I'd like to clarify a few nuances about Foucault's writing that might help explain some of your critiques. First, rather than the word power (which is present in English translations), Foucault uses the French word pouvoir which best translates into "to be able to." So power relations are all that there is, because power is that which allows one to do something, and as such, is not inherently negative, until it is used to oppress, etc. Second, Foucault uses the term bodies because he wants to reject Cartesian dualism and emphasize that we are embodied subjects, and that action on the body are actions on the self (which comes up in his discussion of technologies of the self). I hope this helps!

[–]ravia 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe, good to mull that over (pouvoir). Potentiality. Merleau-Ponty's "I can". I don't like the "power relations is all there is" idea. I realize there is the rejection of Cartesian dualism thing going on, but I don't think we are subjects nor, really, "embodied". I don't think it is so terribly good to talk about "actions on the body". What he's doing is dropping Descartes while "bringing him along", after a fashion. I'm not sure that's such a good thing, either. I think there is something terribly wrong there.

Somehow there is a Foucauldian mise en scene of "what is what", some ontological preliminaries upon which his discourse is based, and it obviously arises out of a certain tradition of inquiry and a kind of "first-mind setup". This kind of preliminary setup appears to me to be actually not just dominating, but in a way rather beyond dominating. It almost needs a new term. Once thinking is ensconced in these terms, arranged within this mis en scene and the language is worked up, it has this strange tendency to give you the impression, or to set up the impression, really, that it is "doing it all", hitting off everything, mastering thought and directing it always and only in such and such a manner.

It just starts thus, frames things thusly, produces certain kinds of sentences, even, over others, and that's all there is to it. I find it on the one hand wonderful in a way, but at the same time, obviously quite stultifying. Again, incredibly dominating, really. And as regards to doing much of anything else, forget it. Once this language sets up shop, it is like a black hole you can't get out of. I just think there is something very wrong there but, again, it's at the level of the "mise", if I can coin a term for this. It's a Foucauldian world, and world's world. A Foucauldian world worlds Foucauldian, one might say, and I want to get it the fuck off me, even if I see a lot of value and good in it. Maybe when I think in that direction I'm not "wearing it right", but I don' think so. A Foucauldian world worlds and mises a post-Cartesian embodied subjecitivity in multiple, rich and varied relations of power-to and self as a kind of paradigm.

Thinking basically has to release itself from that wonderful crap.

EDIT: I should note that I like very much the idea of the "embedded intellectual", micro-intellectual, etc., and imagine that one could do quite a lot just be going into an institution and doing "nothing" for like four months and then write up a large critique and recommendations. At the same time, I think the division between "thought" and "action" needs to be reworked, which is different from keeping it and having a sense of appointed, self-appointed, designated or paid "intellectuals"; rather, one should begin working in what needs to be called "thoiughtaction", sort of in parallel to the term "spacetime" as an irreducible condition. One needs to think this out from the position of, say, a Foucault, but think through a conception of "thoughtaction" from the start, also as a parallel to "praxis" but with this hybrid resonance. It frees it up from the divided roles, recognizes that all sorts of people do in fact either think or very much need to do so, and disrupts the whole academie/real world distinction. I guess Foucault really was about that in a lot of ways, but somehow I obviously find him too ensconsed in certain traditional frameworks, even if his understanding is a shift out from them.

[–]segroeg -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All you need to know to understand Foucault is the guy was apparently really into BDSM.

Also, panopticon.