Understanding Michel Foucault

[Jozanny]

I knew nothing of Michel Foucault before I started using the web and discussion groups to try to broaden my readings of philosophy. His observations about the social repression and manipulation of the physical body fascinate me, and they make him an important thinker in the disabled community, but I do not have enough understanding of his development of power-knowledge to know where he is between the poles of metaphysics and post-structuralism. I am still reading his Displine & Punish, The Birth of The Prison.

Can anyone assist me in puzzling him out a bit further?

[Drkshadow03]

I knew nothing of Michel Foucault before I started using the web and discussion groups to try to broaden my readings of philosophy. His observations about the social repression and manipulation of the physical body fascinate me, and they make him an important thinker in the disabled community, but I do not have enough understanding of his development of power-knowledge to know where he is between the poles of metaphysics and post-structuralism. I am still reading his Displine & Punish, The Birth of The Prison.

Can anyone assist me in puzzling him out a bit further?

Foucault is actually anti-Metaphysics. Almost nothing really exists for Foucault, except how we define it (all knowledge and history is contingent on society for Foucalt). Well, I'm sure literally he accepts that a chair exists, but how we think of a chair, why we named it a chair, how we developed the arts of chair-making are tied to socio-cultural historical process rooted in a particular needs of the power-knowledge relationships in society.

He is applying many of the post-structuralist principles of language to history. A word only refers to another word, which only then refers to more words is the meat and potatoes of Deconstructionism. For Foucault historical developments are equally as insular. History is vertical as opposed to linear for Foucault; he challenges the idea of the story-narrative version of history where one historical period follows another, which follows another, filled with many great individuals (Alexander the Great, Socrates, Saladin). According to the implications of his theory, history isn't a product of individual Great Men or subjectivities, or even a linear narrative where one events LOGICALLY (keyword here) follows another, rather history is a product of its discourses in a given period and society. One historical age is completely different than another historical age. You understand a historical period not by looking at the ages and societies that surrounded it or its major events, but rather turn to the archives and study the discourses both high and low. What you'll find according to Foucault is general themes to different periods that change with a given historical moment and society. You might think of them as rules that govern speech, thought, and writing. These invisible rules control what can or cannot be articulated, what a given society is capable or incapable of thinking about. They aren't to be understood as literal rules, but rather as sort of broad themes that pre-occupy a given culture at a given historical period. The reason history is vertical (one period is completely different from another) is because of these rules of discourse called the episteme. It would literally be impossible for someone from our period to completely understand the historical period of another period, and vice-versa the discourses of another period would not make sense for us because we try to project our own central concerns and rules onto previous history to make sense of it (even if we are both speaking English it'd still be like we were talking two different languages).

So in Discipline and Punishment there is an episteme centered around the body, which then shifts to the episteme centered around the soul. Foucault attempts to document this shift by looking at the historical institution of the penal system. The practices of how you run your prison for example and the institutions surrounding it will change its associate knowledge to reflect the change in the episteme. Torture is the main form of punishment when the episteme centers on the body (Foucault also points out a correlation with the given economic system at the time; he associates the body with Middle Ages and Serfdom), while the shift to the soul makes torture obsolete, replacing it with psychiatry, self-analysis, penal rules, criminology; all methods not meant to hurt the body, but to transform the soul (Foucault points out the shift correlates with the rise of Capitalism. Such a system requires control of the soul rather than physical torture).

I should add by soul Foucault doesn't mean some metaphysical pre-existing entity, hence why I said earlier than Foucault is anti-Metaphysics. Rather a person's "soul" is just a social product of power-knowledge like anything else. We literally invented the concept of the soul. All beliefs, all possible thoughts, all utterances, and discourse is a product of power-knowledge governed by the episteme of a given age. Even your original post, and my post that I am writing now is a product of power and a product of someone writing is a given point in history.

The Panopticon serves as the central metaphor that Foucault turns to describe how power works. All knowledge, even the most innocuous kind, is inherently tied with power according to Foucault. The implications of all this is that our subjectivity is basically bound to historical processes beyond our control. He uses the prison to demonstrate how power-knowledge works; a delinquent goes into prison; the law (a form knowledge bound with power) establish what constitutes delinquent behavior in the first place (it may be his or her first offense), then within the prison she or he is subjected to all sorts of techniques of power-knowledge within the prison (watch by guards, charts of progress and behavior, experts in the field of crimonology, psychiatrists, prison rules, other prisoners), he or she tries to conform to these rules and expectations (in other words she or he transforms his or her behavior to fit these various groups who produce knowledge about him), this power-knowledge transforms him or her into the very delinquent they accuse him or her of being (literally they harden these qualities of his or her identity), he or she gets to leave jail after doing their time, she or he repeats his or her crime, power-knowledge of delinquency has further proof that its truths are correct (see we have a delinquent who repeated his crimes, so he or she must be a delinquent), he or she returns to jail, the whole process begins again, and the subject sinks further into the truth about itself created by power-knowledge.

Foucault by the end suggests this not only applies to particular sub-groups like delinquents, but all people living within society in all aspects of their lives (in school, at work, in their relationships, walking down a street, going into a Dunkin Donuts, etc.).

I'd also add power is not ONLY repressive for Foucault. Since power is intimately tied with knowledge--in fact the two words are pretty much synonymous--power must also be productive. It produces knowledge, it produces human diversity, it produces all human thought, all human interaction; it isn't necessarily a bad thing, and in fact, it is impossible to ever escape power or step outside of it according to Foucault. Foucault hits on this point of power being productive more in The History of Sexuality V. 1, which attempts to challenge the Victorian notion of the Repressive Hypothesis. Power as Foucault points out doesn't only say "No." Power quite often says, "yes."

Does that help you puzzle him out a bit further?

[addictedtobooks]

This name is familiar, but i think it's another person

[Jozanny]

Foucault is actually anti-Metaphysics. Almost nothing really exists for Foucault, except how we define it (all knowledge and history is contingent on society for Foucalt). Well, I'm sure literally he accepts that a chair exists, but how we think of a chair, why we named it a chair, how we developed the arts of chair-making are tied to socio-cultural historical process rooted in a particular needs of the power-knowledge relationships in society.

He is applying many of the post-structuralist principles of language to history. A word only refers to another word, which only then refers to more words is the meat and potatoes of Deconstructionism. For Foucault historical developments are equally as insular. History is vertical as opposed to linear for Foucault; he challenges the idea of the story-narrative version of history where one historical period follows another, which follows another, filled with many great individuals (Alexander the Great, Socrates, Saladin). According to the implications of his theory, history isn't a product of individual Great Men or subjectivities, or even a linear narrative where one events LOGICALLY (keyword here) follows another, rather history is a product of its discourses in a given period and society. One historical age is completely different than another historical age. You understand a historical period not by looking at the ages and societies that surrounded it or its major events, but rather turn to the archives and study the discourses both high and low. What you'll find according to Foucault is general themes to different periods that change with a given historical moment and society. You might think of them as rules that govern speech, thought, and writing. These invisible rules control what can or cannot be articulated, what a given society is capable or incapable of thinking about. They aren't to be understood as literal rules, but rather as sort of broad themes that pre-occupy a given culture at a given historical period. The reason history is vertical (one period is completely different from another) is because of these rules of discourse called the episteme. It would literally be impossible for someone from our period to completely understand the historical period of another period, and vice-versa the discourses of another period would not make sense for us because we try to project our own central concerns and rules onto previous history to make sense of it (even if we are both speaking English it'd still be like we were talking two different languages).

So in Discipline and Punishment there is an episteme centered around the body, which then shifts to the episteme centered around the soul. Foucault attempts to document this shift by looking at the historical institution of the penal system. The practices of how you run your prison for example and the institutions surrounding it will change its associate knowledge to reflect the change in the episteme. Torture is the main form of punishment when the episteme centers on the body (Foucault also points out a correlation with the given economic system at the time; he associates the body with Middle Ages and Serfdom), while the shift to the soul makes torture obsolete, replacing it with psychiatry, self-analysis, penal rules, criminology; all methods not meant to hurt the body, but to transform the soul (Foucault points out the shift correlates with the rise of Capitalism. Such a system requires control of the soul rather than physical torture).

I should add by soul Foucault doesn't mean some metaphysical pre-existing entity, hence why I said earlier than Foucault is anti-Metaphysics. Rather a person's "soul" is just a social product of power-knowledge like anything else. We literally invented the concept of the soul. All beliefs, all possible thoughts, all utterances, and discourse is a product of power-knowledge governed by the episteme of a given age. Even your original post, and my post that I am writing now is a product of power and a product of someone writing is a given point in history.

The Panopticon serves as the central metaphor that Foucault turns to describe how power works. All knowledge, even the most innocuous kind, is inherently tied with power according to Foucault. The implications of all this is that our subjectivity is basically bound to historical processes beyond our control. He uses the prison to demonstrate how power-knowledge works; a delinquent goes into prison; the law (a form knowledge bound with power) establish what constitutes delinquent behavior in the first place (it may be his or her first offense), then within the prison she or he is subjected to all sorts of techniques of power-knowledge within the prison (watch by guards, charts of progress and behavior, experts in the field of crimonology, psychiatrists, prison rules, other prisoners), he or she tries to conform to these rules and expectations (in other words she or he transforms his or her behavior to fit these various groups who produce knowledge about him), this power-knowledge transforms him or her into the very delinquent they accuse him or her of being (literally they harden these qualities of his or her identity), he or she gets to leave jail after doing their time, she or he repeats his or her crime, power-knowledge of delinquency has further proof that its truths are correct (see we have a delinquent who repeated his crimes, so he or she must be a delinquent), he or she returns to jail, the whole process begins again, and the subject sinks further into the truth about itself created by power-knowledge.

Foucault by the end suggests this not only applies to particular sub-groups like delinquents, but all people living within society in all aspects of their lives (in school, at work, in their relationships, walking down a street, going into a Dunkin Donuts, etc.).

I'd also add power is not ONLY repressive for Foucault. Since power is intimately tied with knowledge--in fact the two words are pretty much synonymous--power must also be productive. It produces knowledge, it produces human diversity, it produces all human thought, all human interaction; it isn't necessarily a bad thing, and in fact, it is impossible to ever escape power or step outside of it according to Foucault. Foucault hits on this point of power being productive more in The History of Sexuality V. 1, which attempts to challenge the Victorian notion of the Repressive Hypothesis. Power as Foucault points out doesn't only say "No." Power quite often says, "yes."

Does that help you puzzle him out a bit further?

Nice synopsis actually. I wish his translator, in the addition I have, had provided a note about power-knowledge for the lay reader. My problem with joining a Foucault forum is that I am neither post-graduate nor very well versed in the post-structuralist lexicon--but, The Literature Network forums do not have quite the depth I'd like for discussion. I have to find the right niche for myself, but at times it becomes frustrating.

I had a love hate relationship with Yahoo Reading Groups. Some of them get so concerned with their intra-spoiler rules and processes that they don't really service insights into the works selected.

But I think Foucault is important for me because disability activism, is, to put it mildly, dysfunctional--and Foucault seems to have developed a framework that I can apply in terms of what's wrong with it.

Which is somewhat different than yours and JBI's antagonism. I think it is undeserved. Derrida may now be passe, and I am not sure I will ever understand deconstruction either *in the zone* or out of it, but I don't think Foucault makes Derrida's claims.

[CognitiveArtist]

I'm rather ignorant of Foucault as well, yet from what know about him and his context in philosophy Foucault does provide some insightful views and ideas.

The thought of Foucault has been influential in contemporary politics (such as the rights of "marginal" or minority groups, e.g. homosexuals, those considered mentally ill) and the humanities and social sciences, due to his views about knowledge (especially "discourse", which emphasises that bodies of knowledge like science or alchemy are contingent, historical bodies of rules and practices. This disables the likes of a particular discourse, like science, to be "objective" or "truthful" [best thought of as perfect, accurate representation] because all discourses are by definition contingent, meaning there cannot be a priviledged discourse which can perfectly describe reality).

Foucault, like post-structuralists (I don't know if Foucault is a post-structuralist, but I can see similarities) emphasises difference or rather attacks "given" and taken for granted knowledge which is considered 'normal'.
When Foucault analyses a discourse like psychiatry or sexuality in bourgeoisie society he undermines it in the same why Nietzsche undermines conventional morality, that is good and evil. This undermining uses a genealogical method, which shows the concepts of a discourse, like conventional morality, to be contingent and not natural or accurate knowledge (Foucault has many ties to Nietzsche, he even called himself a Nietzschean but I understand he later revoked the title). Nietzsche for example said the idea of good being altruistic emphasising patience and modesty isn't the true meaning of goodness, these meanings only occurred because of Judaism and more so due to Christianity. Nietzsche has similar thoughts about knowledge with Foucault I believe, as Nietzsche thought true knowledge about the nature of reality (metaphysics) was unattainable therefore not real & false, also the idea of truth is fictitious and made up & accepted (there is no Truth, with a capital t).
I don't know Foucault's precise stance towards metaphysics, but I'm guessing he does away with metaphysics and thinks it's a foolish project. This would be the most intelligent and consistent position for someone who says we can only have discourses of knowledge, without a perfect, privileged discourse.


Drkshadow03, your post is probably the most informative I've read on this forum. It helped someone like myself who hasn't read enough of Foucault himself get fuller comprehension.
The idea of oppression or repression being productive is a smart understanding which overcomes a lot of previous (mis)understandings, especially marxist informed understandings. Why do oppressed people remain oppressed and even seem to perpetuate or allow their own oppression? This question has troubled Marx, Freud and others. Foucault is smart to state that the oppressed people get something out of being oppressed (whether it's just an identity, knowing how one is to live in the world), like some kind of masochistic joy. Masochism, to elaborate the problem of self-oppressing, is why Freud theorised the death drive. I agree with Foucault that people who are oppressed aren't simply really fooled and deluded, but in some way perpetuate their own situation. Conceptualising this downward spiral people can get into has better explanatory power than there being a vigilant, omnipresent superstructure which is always controlling & misleading people.


Derrida I think is still one of the most active forces in contemporary philosophy, although I find it hard to rank and properly consider the influence of thinkers after the plethora of mid to late 20th century thought. I'm not sure if Foucault aligns with Derrida's claims either. There is too much to know, that I don't know :)


It is near impossible to justly talk about a person's thought in entirety as it is to talk about a "school" of thought like existentialism or phenomenology. Just talking about Foucault and metaphysics alone is a vast discussion, likewise with Foucault and complicated post-structuralism (which I only have a very preliminary grasp of). I might read up a bit on Foucault and metaphysics then comeback into discussion. Thanks for the thought-provoking posts Jozanny and Drkshadow03, as it is hard to find such detailed discussion on the internet.

[Jozanny]

Drkshadow03, your post is probably the most informative I've read on this forum. It helped someone like myself who hasn't read enough of Foucault himself get fuller comprehension.
The idea of oppression or repression being productive is a smart understanding which overcomes a lot of previous (mis)understandings, especially marxist informed understandings. Why do oppressed people remain oppressed and even seem to perpetuate or allow their own oppression? This question has troubled Marx, Freud and others. Foucault is smart to state that the oppressed people get something out of being oppressed (whether it's just an identity, knowing how one is to live in the world), like some kind of masochistic joy. Masochism, to elaborate the problem of self-oppressing, is why Freud theorised the death drive. I agree with Foucault that people who are oppressed aren't simply really fooled and deluded, but in some way perpetuate their own situation. Conceptualising this downward spiral people can get into has better explanatory power than there being a vigilant, omnipresent superstructure which is always controlling & misleading people.


***

It is near impossible to justly talk about a person's thought in entirety as it is to talk about a "school" of thought like existentialism or phenomenology. Just talking about Foucault and metaphysics alone is a vast discussion, likewise with Foucault and complicated post-structuralism (which I only have a very preliminary grasp of). I might read up a bit on Foucault and metaphysics then comeback into discussion. Thanks for the thought-provoking posts Jozanny and Drkshadow03, as it is hard to find such detailed discussion on the internet.

I don't think I wrote anything relevant CA, but you are welcome. Drk seems to be critical of America's graduate school Foucaultan popularity, but that has more to do with America's starry-eyed love affair with 20th century French intellectualism than what Foucault sought to achieve, I suspect. We state siders are fascinated by how sexy French thought is, and that is why you get the blowback later:yawnb:.

I like Foucault's archaeological mining to reshape or undermine traditional Kantian concerns. It isn't an end all and be all unto itself, but I can grasp Foucault's tropes and examples easily. It is the end game that gets tricky, but I am not there yet. One book doesn't make a disciple. I like this Stanford summary better than Wiki, and I am still looking for a Foucault forum to join, at least one that will be tolerant of my lack of expertise.

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/foucault/

[Drkshadow03]

The idea of oppression or repression being productive is a smart understanding which overcomes a lot of previous (mis)understandings, especially marxist informed understandings. Why do oppressed people remain oppressed and even seem to perpetuate or allow their own oppression? This question has troubled Marx, Freud and others. Foucault is smart to state that the oppressed people get something out of being oppressed (whether it's just an identity, knowing how one is to live in the world), like some kind of masochistic joy. Masochism, to elaborate the problem of self-oppressing, is why Freud theorised the death drive. I agree with Foucault that people who are oppressed aren't simply really fooled and deluded, but in some way perpetuate their own situation. Conceptualising this downward spiral people can get into has better explanatory power than there being a vigilant, omnipresent superstructure which is always controlling & misleading people.

Yeah, Foucault is challenging or complicating Marxist theory. He also is challenging Sartre's Existentialism.

Power for Foucault might best be visualized as a pyramid. It comes from the bottom up and circulates throughout the system.

It's not so much the oppressed accept their repression because there are benifits; that to me still sits awfully close to Marxism and the idea of bougeousie propaganda, but rather the people on the top, the so-called oppressors are equally under the spell of power-knowledge. Their identities are formed out of the power circulating around them and outside them just as much as the people at the bottom. Foucault accepts that political power exists, but the power he is interested in underlies that political power, it forms the very structures of political power. It's what says, "This government shall have a king, that one a council of elders." It functions, in other words, outside of the king or the Prime Minister or rich White men. Those people's identities are equally the product of particular forms of knowledge circulating through the system as power.

[Drkshadow03]

Hmmm, Jozany, can you explain to me what you find dysfunctional about disability activism? And how you find Foucault useful to fixing it?

[Jozanny]

Hmmm, Jozany, can you explain to me what you find dysfunctional about disability activism? And how you find Foucault useful to fixing it?

I would be happy to but I am not sure if the moderator wouldn't get upset, because I would be deleving into a slice of politics. Let me see if I can catch one's attention and see what would be okay. It would not involve the current candidates, but disability activism is not yet *post-generational* the way the author of Audacity is.

Seriously, I waded into LNF thinking I was a middle-aged fuss pot who would be able to run circles around anyone with the exception of st.lukesguild, since he and I crossed swords over Don Q--- before I knew of this forum-- but you are an impressive student, if I may say so, and deflated my fuss pot sensibility down a notch or two, which is good.

I can get too conceited about my own intelligence.

[Drkshadow03]

I would be happy to but I am not sure if the moderator wouldn't get upset, because I would be deleving into a slice of politics. Let me see if I can catch one's attention and see what would be okay. It would not involve the current candidates, but disability activism is not yet *post-generational* the way the author of Audacity is.

Seriously, I waded into LNF thinking I was a middle-aged fuss pot who would be able to run circles around anyone with the exception of st.lukesguild, since he and I crossed swords over Don Q--- before I knew of this forum-- but you are an impressive student, if I may say so, and deflated my fuss pot sensibility down a notch or two, which is good.

I can get too conceited about my own intelligence.


Thanks for the compliment! Yeah St. Lukesguild is crazy well-read; his knowledge is extremely impressive.

By the way if the moderator says "no", but I can't imagine why (political philosophy is by necessity political and intersects with political issues) you could always private message me.

[Jozanny]

Thanks for the compliment! Yeah St. Lukesguild is crazy well-read; his knowledge is extremely impressive.

By the way if the moderator says "no", but I can't imagine why (political philosophy is by necessity political and intersects with political issues) you could always private message me.

Okay, since neither of them floated up out of the ether I suppose I have the benefit of the doubt. I will come at it in a day or two.

It was nice to try to reconnect with like-minded people here, in my recent burst of activity, but I have an op-ed to send to a paper and things.

BBL

[Drkshadow03]

Sounds good. I look forward to response.

[Maria Francesca]

Foucault was important in enlightening me about how the world really works. There is an interface of crime through and around every nook and cranny of my neighbourhood and I understand why I have had to duck and weave with a tiny moral compass that I sometimes feel has failed me. I grew up when I read him.

[Drkshadow03]

Foucault was important in enlightening me about how the world really works. There is an interface of crime through and around every nook and cranny of my neighbourhood and I understand why I have had to duck and weave with a tiny moral compass that I sometimes feel has failed me. I grew up when I read him.

Could you elabroate Maria? How do Foucault enlighten you? How do you think the world really works? What do you specifically mean by your "moral compass" failing you? I'm afraid to admit the way you use that metaphor was lost on me without more context. In what way did Foucault help you grow up and thus become more mature in your outlook on life?

[stlukesguild]

Jozanny... you would most certainly do well not to underestimate the posters at LitNet. Kafka's Crow, for example, has a couple of MAs with more than a goodly knowledge of Arabic/Persian/Middle-Eastern literature, French literature and lit as a whole. Petrarch's Love is a PhD. (or PhD. candidate) with a marvelous ability for inserting common sense in the most diplomatic manner into our disputes and a mastery of Italian and English Renaissance literature. JBI, who is currently vacationing in Italy (lucky schmuck!:p) is probably better read than almost anyone I have ever come across on line... and there are any number of others who certainly take their literature seriously and truly know their stuff (Darkshadow03 certainly included).

Personally I won't get into the Foucault dialog. I haven't read enough... nor wanted to read enough... to do so. I agree with your suggestion that Americans have been overly seduced by French intellectualism. Personally I have little patience with the notion of approaching a work with the idea of analyzing it from a set theory... whether that theory be based in Foucault's theories or Freud's. As a working artist I have even less patience with any theory that underplays the achievements of the individual and leans toward a concept that all is a product of social energies. Foucault, Derrida, and perhaps even more so, Jean Baudrillard, are raised again and again by art critics and even artists wishing to offer up some proof of their intellectual depth... but they often strike me as succeeding more along the line of those third-world military leaders whose chests are emblazoned with medals with which they intend to convey their sense of power, and yet outside of their own small sphere of influence, no one believes the illusion at all.

[Drkshadow03]

Jozanny... you would most certainly do well not to underestimate the posters at LitNet. Kafka's Crow, for example, has a couple of MAs with more than a goodly knowledge of Arabic/Persian/Middle-Eastern literature, French literature and lit as a whole. Petrarch's Love is a PhD. (or PhD. candidate) with a marvelous ability for inserting common sense in the most diplomatic manner into our disputes and a mastery of Italian and English Renaissance literature. JBI, who is currently vacationing in Italy (lucky schmuck!:p) is probably better read than almost anyone I have ever come across on line... and there are any number of others who certainly take their literature seriously and truly know their stuff (Darkshadow03 certainly included).

Personally I won't get into the Foucault dialog. I haven't read enough... nor wanted to read enough... to do so. I agree with your suggestion that Americans have been overly seduced by French intellectualism. Personally I have little patience with the notion of approaching a work with the idea of analyzing it from a set theory... whether that theory be based in Foucault's theories or Freud's. As a working artist I have even less patience with any theory that underplays the achievements of the individual and leans toward a concept that all is a product of social energies. Foucault, Derrida, and perhaps even more so, Jean Baudrillard, are raised again and again by art critics and even artists wishing to offer up some proof of their intellectual depth... but they often strike me as succeeding more along the line of those third-world military leaders whose chests are emblazoned with medals with which they intend to convey their sense of power, and yet outside of their own small sphere of influence, no one believes the illusion at all.

If anyone's curious about my qualifications I have a Masters in English (with a focus in American lit). I also am finishing up a second Masters in Library Science.

Your last paragraph I think sums up the Derrida/Foucault/Baudrillard culture in academia very well.

[Jozanny]

Jozanny... you would most certainly do well not to underestimate the posters at LitNet. Kafka's Crow, for example, has a couple of MAs with more than a goodly knowledge of Arabic/Persian/Middle-Eastern literature, French literature and lit as a whole. Petrarch's Love is a PhD. (or PhD. candidate) with a marvelous ability for inserting common sense in the most diplomatic manner into our disputes and a mastery of Italian and English Renaissance literature. JBI, who is currently vacationing in Italy (lucky schmuck!:p) is probably better read than almost anyone I have ever come across on line... and there are any number of others who certainly take their literature seriously and truly know their stuff (Darkshadow03 certainly included).

I never claimed to be a professional scholar. If things settle down for me and I get my pacing back with freelancing I may buy myself a graduate course or two, but a degree is mostly likely out of the question--however, I can be forgiven for any underestimation of TLN. Lots of young folk here who seem to run into trouble with their assignments.:(


Personally I won't get into the Foucault dialog. I haven't read enough... nor wanted to read enough... to do so. I agree with your suggestion that Americans have been overly seduced by French intellectualism. Personally I have little patience with the notion of approaching a work with the idea of analyzing it from a set theory... whether that theory be based in Foucault's theories or Freud's. As a working artist I have even less patience with any theory that underplays the achievements of the individual and leans toward a concept that all is a product of social energies. Foucault, Derrida, and perhaps even more so, Jean Baudrillard, are raised again and again by art critics and even artists wishing to offer up some proof of their intellectual depth... but they often strike me as succeeding more along the line of those third-world military leaders whose chests are emblazoned with medals with which they intend to convey their sense of power, and yet outside of their own small sphere of influence, no one believes the illusion at all.

This is a bit harsh. I am certainly not as prescriptivist as Maria in my nascent admiration of Foucault's methods, but he, and Sartre, and Derrida were important movement thinkers, as was Levi-Strauss. Linking power-knowledge to strong-men totalitarian tactics is unfair.

[stlukesguild]

I never claimed to be a professional scholar. If things settle down for me and I get my pacing back with freelancing I may buy myself a graduate course or two, but a degree is mostly likely out of the question--

I'm no professional scholar myself... hell I teach art to grade-school students. My own field of "expertise" (and my degree) is in the visual arts... but I have long been a bibliophile/bibliomaniac if not by profession, then certainly by passion. I like to think of myself as the "common reader"... along the lines of what Virginia Woolf outlined... but I'm probably more obsessed than that.:lol:

...however, I can be forgiven for any underestimation of TLN. Lots of young folk here who seem to run into trouble with their assignments.:(

That is certainly understandable... Of course if you'll notice... a good many of those asking for help writing some essay (usually due tomorrow:sick:) have only 1 or 2 posts under their name, proving that they merely joined LitNet with the intention of getting someone to do their homework for them. In most cases they could get a good deal of the info they are looking for simply by using Google... or even Wiki. I've been known to lose my patience a few time and tell them to go do their own damn homework.

[Jozanny]

Darkshadow:
I spent some time thinking about how to answer your question on this topic. I opened my wordprocessor and started to write something out, but I need to read a few more titles from Foucault and critical analysis before I can offer anything more than a thumbnail sketch, however--

In the disability movement, once the battle for de-institutionalization had been joined, and legally codified to some degree under Title II statue and the 504 rehab laws, (which have been seriously eroded under the Americans With Disabilities Act), new systems arose which allowed for new state controls. Foucault touches upon some of this here, in an interview he gave which is one of the first things I read about his work:


And what about the Republic, 'one and visible'?

That's a formula that was imposed against the Girondins and the idea of an American-style federalism. But it never operated in the same manner as the King's body under the monarchy. On the contrary, it's the body of society which becomes the new principle in the nineteenth century. It is this social body which needs to be protected, in a quasi-medical sense. In place of the rituals that served to restore the corporal integrity of the monarch, remedies and therapeutic devices are employed such as the segregation of the sick, the monitoring of contagions, the exclusion of delinquents. The elimination of hostile elements by the supplice (public torture and execution) is thus replaced by the method of asepsis - criminology, eugenics and the quarantining of 'degenerates'....

Is there a fantasy body corresponding to different types of institution?

I believe the great fantasy is the idea of a social body constituted by the universality of wills. Now the phenomenon of the social body is the effect not of a consensus but of the materiality of power operating on the very bodies of individuals.

And:


Your studies of madness and the prisons enable us to retrace the constitution of an ever more disciplinary form of society. This historical process seems to follow an almost inexorable logic.

I have attempted to analyse how, at the initial stages of industril societies, a particular punitive apparatus was set up together with a system for separating the normal and the abnormal. To follow this up, it will be necessary to construct a history of what happens in the nineteenth century and how the present highly=complex relation of forces - the current outline of the battle - has been arrived at through a succession of offensives and counter-offensives, effects and counter-effects. The coherence of such a history does not derive from the revelation of a project but from a logic of opposing strategies. The archaeology of the human science has to be established through studying the mechanisms of power which have invested human bodies, acts and forms of behaviour. And this investigation enables us to rediscover one of the conditions of of the emergence of the human sciences: the great nineteenth-century effort in discipline and normalisation. Freud was well aware of all this. He was aware of the superior strength of his position in the matter of normalisation. So why this sacrilising modesty (pudeur) that insists on denying that psychoanalysis has anything to do with normalisation?

http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/bodypower.htm

To me, he is getting at *why* the legal codification of disability in the US has been a failure, and why the activists, some of whom also bring gender and race discrimination as a relevant analogy to disability discrimination, are barking up the wrong tree and will never be able to create a society which supports broken bodies to such a degree as to make them innocuous.

Maybe when I am ready to do an indepth paper/article (or two) you can critique, but I am not satisfied with my own thought processes just yet. Hopefully I'll get there while I have the energy to complete a thoughtful study.:)

[Drkshadow03]

Darkshadow:
I spent some time thinking about how to answer your question on this topic. I opened my wordprocessor and started to write something out, but I need to read a few more titles from Foucault and critical analysis before I can offer anything more than a thumbnail sketch, however--

In the disability movement, once the battle for de-institutionalization had been joined, and legally codified to some degree under Title II statue and the 504 rehab laws, (which have been seriously eroded under the Americans With Disabilities Act), new systems arose which allowed for new state controls. Foucault touches upon some of this here, in an interview he gave which is one of the first things I read about his work:



And:



http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/bodypower.htm

To me, he is getting at *why* the legal codification of disability in the US has been a failure, and why the activists, some of whom also bring gender and race discrimination as a relevant analogy to disability discrimination, are barking up the wrong tree and will never be able to create a society which supports broken bodies to such a degree as to make them innocuous.

Maybe when I am ready to do an indepth paper/article (or two) you can critique, but I am not satisfied with my own thought processes just yet. Hopefully I'll get there while I have the energy to complete a thoughtful study.:)

Thank you for sharing. By the way, what do you personally find inadequate/problematic about The Americans for Disability Act?

[Jozanny]

Thank you for sharing. By the way, what do you personally find inadequate/problematic about The Americans for Disability Act?

504 recognized the imbalance and allowed for resources to be available for groups like me. The ADA, although heavily based on 504, and fairly redunant in my estimation, was co-opted by the State. If claims of a level playing field are made, then resources are taken away.

For me personally, life has gotten much harder since transportation has restricted special services. I could go on, but my anger is best reserved for getting a mainstream article accepted by a publication like The New Republic, which I used to respect, though I think the blogosphere has watered down their contributors rigor somewhat. They are one of the few magazines out there which actually motivated me to apply for an internship with them. I didn't get it, but they have always been polite and told me to go ahead and send them something. Fear stopped me the first time and the idea is dead now--but still, an ADA deconstruction is a policy matter and I need to aim for something akin to TNR--not that TNR likes the ADA, but I am starting to see why.

[Jozanny]

Kant's great epistemological innovation was to maintain that the same critique that revealed the limits of our knowing powers could also reveal necessary conditions for their exercise. What might have seemed just contingent features of human cognition (for example, the spatial and temporal character of its objects) turn out to be necessary truths. Foucault, however, suggests the need to invert this Kantian move. Rather than asking what, in the apparently contingent, is actually necessary, he suggests asking what, in the apparently necessary, might be contingent. The focus of his questioning is the modern human sciences (biological, psychological, social).

jgweed, can you do me a favor and help me parse what Foucault is reversing in Kant's innovation? The passage is from Stanford and I have looked up the logical definition five times.

I wasn't very good in logic as an undergraduate, though I got A's in other philosophy courses.

I know I have to do a lot more reading. Do both Kant and Foucault mean possible?

[jgweed]

I am quite flattered that you should ask me for some perspectives about that passage, but I have to admit that I have not yet had the opportunity to work through Foucault to the point where I can offer anything meaningful in a comparison between Kant (which I think I understand) and Foucault (which I only know by cursory reading and second-hand discussion).

I think it means (maybe and very tentatively on my part) that Kant argues that truth is dependent (or is guaranteed) on its ability to be structured by us. For Foucault, on the other hand, this very structure (and here he seems to be considering more the structure provided by society and language in providing "always already" meaning) gets "in the way" of finding truth.

Cheers,
John

[Jozanny]

I am quite flattered that you should ask me for some perspectives about that passage, but I have to admit that I have not yet had the opportunity to work through Foucault to the point where I can offer anything meaningful in a comparison between Kant (which I think I understand) and Foucault (which I only know by cursory reading and second-hand discussion).

I think it means (maybe and very tentatively on my part) that Kant argues that truth is dependent (or is guaranteed) on its ability to be structured by us. For Foucault, on the other hand, this very structure (and here he seems to be considering more the structure provided by society and language in providing "always already" meaning) gets "in the way" of finding truth.

Cheers,
John

Thank you for trying. Your attempt is more sound than any summation I can produce.

I have only a very cursory understanding of Kant, and dismissed him when I was 19 as a Protestant trying to find a metaphysical justification for Christian doctrine--I am not attempting to deflate his intellectual tour de force, just describe my youthful impatience. I became more attracted to Nietzsche later, but have never made it through his flights of fancy with Zarathustra, and the poor fellow lost his mind. But the Nietzschean streak no doubt attracted me to Foucault, because I think much of human social intercourse is about power and exploitation.

As I mentioned earlier, such intellectual import as the disability movement has, these thinkers are attracted to Foucault as well, for a variety of reasons.

Now, I do not know how understanding Foucault will help me in the end, but I determine, at least, to try to follow through.

Obviously I have to be a good girl and penetrate Kant as well... (sigh), and do it for more than getting at Foucaultan power-knowledge dialectic.

I'm not going to live this long:D :(

[jgweed]

You might be better off reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and his Geneology of Morals, since Foucault admits FWN's influence on his own philosophy. One might view F's project as an attempt at FWN's "geneological method" to show that the "will to power" is more operative than we would think, or at least operates not only in the sphere of the individual Self.

Ars longa, vita breve
John

[~Sado]

'Man has become an object of study for man since automobiles have become harder to sell than manufacture'
- Baudrillard

For me, personally, this is an example of what may be contingent within the apparently necessary, especially in relation to the modern human sciences. They, much like their age-old companion religion, only emerged out of a need to dominate. The question here is, I think, whether it is a coincidence that psychology and sociology emerged at the onset of the industrial revolution, or plain inevitability. Technological determinism seems to be breathing down our necks, especially when taking into consideration Paul Virilio, who suggests that the invention of rails also means to invention of the crash - or, more importantly, that the industrial revolution could only result in Auschwitz. The irony is that, with the gradual fading of true critical thought in the popular masses (and the inability to any longer seduce them), it is exactly this trend which continues, and this, in my opinion, is the great contribution of Foucault: to show that Auschwitz is still ever-present, but that it has been normalized, and thus, like the fish that can't perceive the ocean, we are unable to any longer deal with it effectively. The best example of Auschwitz is the slaughterhouse (Adorno said that Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: 'they're only animals'), but Auschwitzianism continues all the way down into education and the modern factory.

(Edit: just a note in relation to Foucault's reading of the body and his reading of the soul - Auschwitz was a residue of the premodern, in that in the camps, one was concerned with the extermination of the body, while in our postmodern Auschwitz, one is concerned with the extermination of the soul. Consider doing a google search for 'Baudrillard Disneyland' for a good example of this.)

I apologise for the shocking content if anyone was offended by this.

[PeterL]

Although I have heard of Foucault in other regards, I have only read The Order of Things, and I found major problems with that. The first chapter, which appears to have been intended to show point of view and is a discussion of Las Meninas by Velasquez gives an inaccurate description of the paining. Some of the other parts of the book demonstrate ignorance about history and economics. It appeared that he distorted facts to try to make his points, but he damaged his credibility so much that his points weren't made at all.

[~Sado]

It appeared that he distorted facts to try to make his points, but he damaged his credibility so much that his points weren't made at all.

What's funny in this regard is that popphilosopher Zizek openly admits that he doesnt even watch some of the videos he theorises on, out of fear that doing so will shatter his theory. The history of philosophy is filled which such reality-bending, beginning with Plato; perhaps the moment of death for philosophy is when it can no longer lie about the obvious.

[PeterL]

What's funny in this regard is that popphilosopher Zizek openly admits that he doesnt even watch some of the videos he theorises on, out of fear that doing so will shatter his theory. The history of philosophy is filled which such reality-bending, beginning with Plato; perhaps the moment of death for philosophy is when it can no longer lie about the obvious.

That's roughly what happened with me. I noticed those obvious lies a long time ago and fell back onto non-obvious lies. In the common parlance, 'philosopher' is synonymous with bull slinger.

[Drkshadow03]

For me, personally, this is an example of what may be contingent within the apparently necessary, especially in relation to the modern human sciences. They, much like their age-old companion religion, only emerged out of a need to dominate.

A) I don't think this is a good understanding of why religion formed. A bit of a strawman actually. In fact, depending on how you look at it, it could be convincingly argued I think, putting divine revelations aside, that almost all the Abrahamic religions began as systems to prevent subordinate groups from being dominated--a cultural defense mechanism if you will.

B) Even more importantly than point A, I think this fails to capture what Foucault is really driving at. When he says what is apparently necessary is really contingent, well, he means almost everything in our reality is in fact contingent; history, our intellectual disciplines, our relationships to our body, our sexuality, our relationships to others. No structure in society has to be the way it has to be. In other words, I think Foucault would say there is no natural NEED to dominate since there is no underlying human nature. The very belief in a particular human nature whether as inherently good, bad, needing to dominate, altruistic, inherently selfish, etc., is all a contingent illusion based off your historical circumstances and what the current episteme would have you believe. I also should use the word, "illusion" hesitantly. Foucault is not denying that human beings act a certain way once historical circumstances create and formed that human being as a subject through power-knowledge.

I think your metaphor of a factory is apropros. It is a factory of the social-historical-power system that pumps out new human beings as subjects of their individual society.

I think where you seem to be misunderstanding Foucault is in your commencts that still seem to hint at an underlying human nature, which for Foucault doesn't exist. And your comments that seem to suggest Foucault specifically is only talking about our modern age and when the episteme shifted onto the soul rather than the body.

Foucault in the later part of his writing goes all the way back to the Greeks and puts his analysis to them. There is NO such thing according to Foucault as a society outside of power with particular power relations. There is no such thing as a non-contingent subject for Foucault (with some minor exceptions). You are always the product of power-knowledge whether you are an Ancient Greek, a modern person in the episteme of the soul, or even the pre-modern man who lived under the episteme of the body. The only difference is in the techniques and the formation of the power relations.

Foucault later offers an ethics that he takes from the Ancient Greeks as a way of working within, not escaping, power relations so that you have room for a certain amount of self-formation and experimentation.

Also, the episteme of the soul does NOT want to exterminate the soul. Foucault is very clear in his belief that power is productive. It doesn't just say no; it's not just "thou shalt not." Power-knowledge CREATES the soul. It forms individuals. Every urge, desire, and thought you could possibly have was formed by your society's current power-knowledge relations, not just big things, but even the tiny little things like the conversation we are having right now. The very idea of a "soul" is contingent. Foucault most likely thought that no such real entity called a soul with a true metaphysical existence whether you believe in it or not, actually exists. In many ways it functions more as a metaphor for the psyche.

Therefore, I'm not sure your society-wide Auschwitz metaphor works because power-knowledge is doing the complete opposite; it isn't trying to crush the soul, but in fact create it. The implication of course is that your entire individuality is a product of your society that helps serve a particular function within your society and maintain the status quo of power-knowledge.

[~Sado]

First of all, I'd like to take a brief sentence to point out that I usually mix ideas, so that I don't really paraphrase any philosopher on any particular subject -- my personal writings have of course minimal relation as to what Foucault really wishes to say. I'm sure 75% of that is beyond my current grasp, to begin with!


A) I don't think this is a good understanding of why religion formed. A bit of a strawman actually. In fact, depending on how you look at it, it could be convincingly argued I think, putting divine revelations aside, that almost all the Abrahamic religions began as systems to prevent subordinate groups from being dominated--a cultural defense mechanism if you will.

I certainly agree that mine is the easy reading of why such a thing as religion exists. Many more factors are most likely involved. What I was trying to point out was that, like the human sciences, religion ended up serving those with the strongest means. So, as you might suggest, religion may have started off being quite innocent, or as a cultural defense mechanism, etc, but in our days, it is clearly something which is propelled by those who have the best means of propelling it forward to begin with. As such, in a kind of Marxist reading perhaps, everything becomes slave to an overarching paradigm; psychology, sociology, religion, etc, become hopelessly corrupted by economic forces. Here, I think, is where the contingent becomes transparent: rather than having a certain pure fixed 'essence', if you will, the human sciences are modified by the subject that uses them to study himself, which causes the uncertainty that is meant by contingency. I'd say our current understanding of the human psyche only holds true under capitalism (or whatever you wish to call our current economic paradigm); it breaks down after this. So, the contingent then becomes the unpredictable aspect of where the human sciences eventually end up going, since the future itself is radically uncertain, and we cannot know whatever economic principle will rule the future (Unless you're one of those people who claim history has ended and 'this is it').


B) Even more importantly than point A, I think this fails to capture what Foucault is really driving at. When he says what is apparently necessary is really contingent, well, he means almost everything in our reality is in fact contingent; history, our intellectual disciplines, our relationships to our body, our sexuality, our relationships to others. No structure in society has to be the way it has to be. In other words, I think Foucault would say there is no natural NEED to dominate since there is no underlying human nature.

This is a good correction; indeed, with Foucault, there would be no basis to build on. Domination, then, is the result of religion, not its prime drive. It just so happens to be that as time passes religion becomes a means of control... but it didn't start out as such.


The very belief in a particular human nature whether as inherently good, bad, needing to dominate, altruistic, inherently selfish, etc., is all a contingent illusion based off your historical circumstances and what the current episteme would have you believe.

Indeed.


I also should use the word, "illusion" hesitantly. Foucault is not denying that human beings act a certain way once historical circumstances create and formed that human being as a subject through power-knowledge.

Most certainly; without adding this, Foucault would undermine his own thesis.


I think your metaphor of a factory is apropros. It is a factory of the social-historical-power system that pumps out new human beings as subjects of their individual society.

I think where you seem to be misunderstanding Foucault is in your commencts that still seem to hint at an underlying human nature, which for Foucault doesn't exist. And your comments that seem to suggest Foucault specifically is only talking about our modern age and when the episteme shifted onto the soul rather than the body.

This is because I treat Foucault as a reaction to other philosophers of his time. Foucault can only talk about our modern age, since he is hopelessly trapped within it -- there can never be any transgression to another age. Our current understanding of previous ages is inevitably tainted by present trends in thinking - exactly Foucault's point. If I hint at underlying human nature, then it is perhaps because human nature cannot be eradicated once one treats it as merely an illusion. It is a vital illusion.


Foucault in the later part of his writing goes all the way back to the Greeks and puts his analysis to them. There is NO such thing according to Foucault as a society outside of power with particular power relations. There is no such thing as a non-contingent subject for Foucault (with some minor exceptions). You are always the product of power-knowledge whether you are an Ancient Greek, a modern person in the episteme of the soul, or even the pre-modern man who lived under the episteme of the body. The only difference is in the techniques and the formation of the power relations.

I'd have to agree, of course, and perhaps point out that here we might stumble over something we might call human nature, but of course, the representation of such a thing as human nature cannot possibly match with its raw actuality. Neither can defining all things in terms of power-relations. Foucault here merely stumbles over what any philosopher has done before him and which Nietzsche (and Im sure someone before Nietzsche) would define as 'every x is actually y'-kind of thinking. The ultimate irony of the French philosophers that tried to 'fight' off capitalist ideology's tightening grasp on our society is that they are ultimately serving it. This holds true for Foucault's ideas as well... And shatters any hopes for a truly contingent state of affairs, I'd say. Perhaps this is part of your 'minor exceptions'?


Foucault later offers an ethics that he takes from the Ancient Greeks as a way of working within, not escaping, power relations so that you have room for a certain amount of self-formation and experimentation.

Typical French existentialist optimism.


Also, the episteme of the soul does NOT want to exterminate the soul. Foucault is very clear in his belief that power is productive. It doesn't just say no; it's not just "thou shalt not." Power-knowledge CREATES the soul.

Death is transformative; power-knowledge doesn't just create; it replaces the obsolete.


It forms individuals. Every urge, desire, and thought you could possibly have was formed by your society's current power-knowledge relations, not just big things, but even the tiny little things like the conversation we are having right now.

And my soul shall never be the same; my older soul's state has perished in favour of the new one. The extermination of the soul in our modern world I wish to point out: by hammering individuals with heaps of one-sided information, the soul is extinguished and instead the serial number that once merely differentiated between souls now becomes pure essence itself. You ARE a number, rather than you just having one. Eduction, the factory, etc, all serve to induce monism, in the sense that they attempt to create doubles of a certain model.


The very idea of a "soul" is contingent.

But of course; it is merely a word. But I'd say the why of the word is not merely contingency, but necessity. The word is a tool of power, a means to get what one wants. This conversation, too, revolves around this, even though we attempt to remain 'civilized'. It's not that we actually want to dominate each other, but rather, that a certain fantasy drives us to have this discussion; it's all about self-fulfillment, no?


Foucault most likely thought that no such real entity called a soul with a true metaphysical existence whether you believe in it or not, actually exists. In many ways it functions more as a metaphor for the psyche.

And I agree with him on that.


Therefore, I'm not sure your society-wide Auschwitz metaphor works because power-knowledge is doing the complete opposite; it isn't trying to crush the soul, but in fact create it. The implication of course is that your entire individuality is a product of your society that helps serve a particular function within your society and maintain the status quo of power-knowledge.

What our society produces is corpses... Not even these, it creates undead, that is to say, negative 'life'... I'd say the power of the internet is, for example, to gain a soul to begin with. Our society's institutions these days seem to produce only the opposite of what they originally were created for... The church creates atheists, schools create the silent masses, factories the consumers, etc. It is meaningless to talk about my individuality when I'm in a traffic jam together with others stuck in our iron cells on wheels!

[Drkshadow03]

What our society produces is corpses... Not even these, it creates undead, that is to say, negative 'life'... I'd say the power of the internet is, for example, to gain a soul to begin with. Our society's institutions these days seem to produce only the opposite of what they originally were created for... The church creates atheists, schools create the silent masses, factories the consumers, etc. It is meaningless to talk about my individuality when I'm in a traffic jam together with others stuck in our iron cells on wheels!

I should point out that although I think I have a strong understanding of Foucault, I don't necessarily agree with anything he says. By the way, your Youtube lecture on Baudrillard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18YTn0Fpm2c) amused me, especially when you pointed out the affectation of the books behind you and a person's hairstyle. I need to read Baudrillard some day he sounds interesting; although it also sounds like yet another philosopher I'll inevitably disagree with.

I personally find the world to be an enjoyable wonderful place for the most part, despite it's obvious warts.

[~Sado]

I should point out that although I think I have a strong understanding of Foucault, I don't necessarily agree with anything he says.

You're in a good spot then - I don't necessarily agree with anything I myself say!


By the way, your Youtube lecture on Baudrillard amused me, especially when you pointed out the affectation of the books behind you and a person's hairstyle.

I'm happy this bit amused you, since it was the whole point of the video to begin with. McLuhan's 'the medium is the message' gains a whole new meaning on youtube: I am the meaning, I am the medium. Even a person with hair tied up, using white backgrounds, etc, is merely exaggerating his/her profession of minimalism, in the hope anyone will notice. I most certainly catch myself having this motivation many a times. This is perhaps the isolation that is inherent to being human, especially a human in the media age - we're connected by mutual isolation.


I need to read Baudrillard some day he sounds interesting; although it also sounds like yet another philosopher I'll inevitably disagree with.

Baudrillard represents what everybody hates about French philosophy: he is dense, impossible to read... But full of wit and funny remarks, for the one who dares to try. Kind of like the philosophical equivalent of, say, Joyce or Pynchon.


I personally find the world to be an enjoyable wonderful place for the most part, despite it's obvious warts.

The world is very enjoyable and wonderful; this is why philosophy to me is so important. To discover the truly enjoyable; the truly wonderful; things which seem to fade. How can it be that I'm mostly enjoying myself while on holidays, and rarely at home?

[EricP]

Reading Eric Paras' (not me...I swear!) "Foucault 2.0: Beyond Power and Knowledge" is a great way of understanding how Foucault's focus on and understanding of certain important concepts (especially "subjectivity") shifted and evolved throughout his life. It is a quick and interesting read.

[Drkshadow03]

Reading Eric Paras' (not me...I swear!) "Foucault 2.0: Beyond Power and Knowledge" is a great way of understanding how Foucault's focus on and understanding of certain important concepts (especially "subjectivity") shifted and evolved throughout his life. It is a quick and interesting read.

I skimmed Eric Paras' Foucault 2.0 after my teacher recommended it. I think his argument boils down that Foucault basically abandons his earlier phases and adapts a kind of Sartrean existentialism. According to my professor who recommended the book and other reviews, it is NOT the mainstream view of Foucault's thinking.

Better books for an overview and gloss of Foucault's thinking and major ideas would be:

Foucault: A Very Short Introduction by Gary Gutting (http://www.amazon.com/Foucault-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192805576) and Philosophy of Foucault by Todd May (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Foucault-Continental-European/dp/0773531688/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218594167&sr=1-1)*

* If you click on the link you'll notice the Philosophy of Foucault book is extremely expensive. You might be better off finding it in your library than purchasing it, but it's a really good book, which puts Foucault's philosophy theory into real world examples.

[Jozanny]

I have just started Paul Rabinow's The Foucault Reader, which I suspect I should have started before Discipline and Punish, and I cannot say much yet, as I am only in the introduction, but I like how Rabinow frames Foucault against universalist concerns, pitting him against Chomsky and Chomsky's innate grammar theory as leading to abstractions like, "Does human nature exist?" to Foucault's "How has the concept of human nature functioned in our society?"

I actually understand this distinction!:p

I have always been a little leery of Kantian universalist concerns, even if Levi-Strauss does a persuasive job, through The Raw and The Cooked, of showing how applicable they are. I prefer the observation of concrete phenomena, even if I am impatient with Flaubert's nihilism which his observation of daily life led him to. As I've read in one student thesis, perhaps I'm looking for a *third way*.

I also think Foucault is more fluid than Drk gives him credit for, but I cannot defend this, nor indicate where it takes me.

[Jozanny]

We must try to proceed with an analysis of ourselves as beings who are historically determined, to a certain extent, by the Enlightenment.
p43, The Foucault Reader

I find this a weighty claim for Rabinow to make, and I have my doubts about how true it is, despite that this was Kant's active period, that Goethe put Romanticism on the map, and that the American Revolution started the long slow process of breaking colonial economics, and the French Revolution defanged monarchy to the extent that it would never truly recover. I mean, you can say what you like, but European royalty, to the extent that it is still part of British national and cultural norm, plays the part of show pieces, much like the modern invention of the mega-star, like Tiger Woods, or Michael Jackson.

I like what he has to say about Kant, and his redefinition of Modernism is quite interesting, in that he relies heavily on Baudelaire to make his point, but to say today's multi-cultural love fest Western civilization is historically determined by the retrenchment of the 18th century feels a bit stretched to me.