Foucault

[Amphictyonis]

In your opinion was Foucault an extension/progression of western Marxism or a detriment to Marxism in general? If you're not familiar with him this may help:

http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/books/

[Kiev Communard]

In your opinion was Foucault an extension/progression of western Marxism or a detriment to Marxism in general? If you're not familiar with him this may help:

http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/books/

Actually I think Perry Anderson got it right about French "Post-Structuralism" back in 1970s, when he stated that they are merely the reactionaries denying the idea of progress and bemoaning the supposed "totalitarian" character of ANY progressive philosophy (not only Marxism), while extending friendly hand to the supporters of reactionary ideas by setting their delusions on par with scientific and revolutionary thought via "plurality of discourses' idea, thus denying the very possibility of arriving at objective truth in social sciences.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Actually I think Perry Anderson got it right about French "Post-Structuralism" back in 1970s, when he stated that they are merely the reactionaries denying the idea of progress and bemoaning the supposed "totalitarian" character of ANY progressive philosophy (not only Marxism),

Foucault makes it very implicit that he doesn't deny the validity of 'freedom', or practices which limit systems of domination - and the unnecessary exercising of power. What he rejects is the totalizing idea that (with the exception of a few outliers), "the history of man portrays the gradual improvement/progress of man's socio-political institutions". For example, its continually argued amongst liberal historians that "mankind oversaw the dismantling of feudalism and monarchies", because man came to see the characteristic flaws and imperfections of such systems - and why modern, liberal democracy is a "vast" improvement over previous notions. Foucault argues the idea (which I'm sure many Marxists should sympathize or agree with), that, as a result of the demands for more power by the bourgeios over the aristocracy (because of the economic changes which you all probably know about...)- man shaped his ideology and morals to conform to the notion that Capitalist Democracy contains a systematic advantage over the previous aristocratic monarchies. Of course, the peasantry and oppressed also made headway towards this direction - their renunciation of the overt, oppressive, tyranny of Monarchical rule also lead to the replacement of the aristocracies power.

The other claim he relies upon for his rejection of the "theory of progress", is his observation that history does not argue for the existence of an innate, unchanging human subject. He argues that his postulation is the only analysis which allows for progress - as reactionaries who subscribe to the universal, unchanging theory of human nature, inevitably lead to arguing for the preservation of the status quo. So rather than analyze history by simply observing the human subject, one should scan history for the development of systems of practice, discourse, and ideology.

_____________ Tired, need sleep, I'll edit this later.

Also: Sonia Kurks' work 'Panopticism and Shame' really provides the synthesis of Foucault and Western Marxism that Mark Poster yearned for. It's a brief read, but it is very enlightening. http://phaidon.philo.at/~iaf/Labyrinth/Kruks.html

[kalu]

Foucault essentially was a thinker of discourses, rationalities, and new epistemic configurations that authorized the production of new knowledge and the formation of new subjects* in modern society. He did not exactly articulate a "politics" through his theory, so most people get caught simply criticizing him because they see him as a nihilist, but I find that incredibly unproductive. I don't hold each thinker up to the same checklist (do they have a politics I like? do they do this and this and this?), I look for their own unique contribution, such as critical thinking, and whether it has any value. In my mind, Foucault's is extremely useful because he essentially continues Marx's project of describing social relations, albeit from a very different angle because he's concerned to analyze how that very knowledge itself is produced, hence his constant reference back to genealogy, disciplines, epistemes, and so on.

Foucault essentially sees the modern practices of government (which cross the "state/civil society" binary) as forming new productive capacities of subjects (again, he doesn't attribute a normative value to the label "productive"), and not simply "repressing" their abilities, so he is highly critical of most variants of Freudian-Marxism. He wants to know what subjects can do, so he talks about how subjects are "acted upon their ability to act," reforming through technologies of power such as discipline (not reducible to any single institution, ie. the prison, or collective agency, ie. the prison guards). He's actually not that far a remove from other respected thinkers in the sociological tradition, such as Mauss and Durkheim, who also attempted to think about the formation of subjectivity. In Foucault's later work, he did discuss "ethics," but I think that really just continues his previous work on subject formation, albeit the possibility of the subject cultivating their own forms through, ie. confession.

At another level, he discusses the constitution of fields of objects, such as "the population" and the concept of circulation in the discipline of political economy--through a reading of French physiocrats, for example--so his discussion is as at a level remove from most of our notions of what it means to analyze social relations. But I think his work is incredibly useful in order to continually problematize our intellectual projects "to describe" and "to analyze." Foucault essentially sees shifting sets of problems--certain ones we privilege depending upon the demands of our present, thus his other term for genealogy, "history of the present"--which is why he can't be reduced to any single modern narrative, such as "progress," and which is why he is frequently lambasted by his most misunderstanding critics.

*"The subject" is a difficult term to really define in most theory, so I worry that I might be doing violence to Foucault's own use, but I'll just initially make an attempt by saying that I think it replaces the notion of a continuous human moving through history. Again, with Foucault's repeated emphasis on discontinuities, this goes hand in hand with his attempt to demonstrate the unique productive capacities of the subject under different regimes of subject formation, technologies of power and selfhood, etc. and not simply the repression or "freeing" of a universal, transhistorical set of characteristics. Thus, his theoretical "antihumanism."

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like some of his work, especially his stuff on "institutions" (schools, factories, prisons etc.), but I found a lot of his work to be really confusing when I read it.

[Amphictyonis]

I like some of his work, especially his stuff on "institutions" (schools, factories, prisons etc.), but I found a lot of his work to be really confusing when I read it.

His work on institutions could be used to form less or non oppressive forms of education but I guess communist and anarchist schools have existed in the past. I'm not sure if Foucault would've lain praise on the Young Pioneers though. Perhaps some of the non hierarchical Anarchist schools.

Discipline And Punish was good but, in the name of time, I prefer to show people Philip Zimbardo's work when dealing with conversations concerning oppressive institutions. His Stanford Prison Study and other works by various psychologists such as Stanley Milgram show us, in a rather simple manner, how hierarchy is at the root of much of our problems be it in prisons, school or society in general.

Hence the need for direct democracy and equality.

[bricolage]

I think the institutional work of Foucault is most useful in analysing the extension of social relations of domination beyond the immediately obvious confined of the traditional state apparatus (parliament, local government, police).


It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them.

This critique and this fight seem essential to me for different reasons: firstly, because political power goes much deeper than one suspects; there are centres and invisible, little-known points of support; its true resistance, its true solidity is perhaps where one doesn't expect it. Probably it's insufficient to say that behind the governments, behind the apparatus of the State, there is the dominant class; one must locate the point of activity, the places and forms in which its domination is exercised. And because this domination is not simply the expression in political terms of economic exploitation, it is its instrument and, to a large extent, the condition which makes it possible; the suppression of the one is achieved through the exhaustive discernment of the other. Well, if one fails to recognise these points of support of class power, one risks allowing them to continue to exist; and to see this class power reconstitute itself even after an apparent revolutionary process.


How can challengers make a claim when the agents of domination to whom they would appeal are multi-factorial, often not even identifiable? The state was the main concern for many early nineteenth century anarchists yet twentieth and twenty first century anarchists have attempted to expand the critique of power beyond the boundaries of the state. This is not to say that the state is no longer a site of power and domination, yet is to suggest that there are other agents/sites of domination that act in conjunction with or separately from the state. The emergence of manifest sites of power should not be seen as a problem for anarchist theory, only a growth in the challenge and the potential scope of anarchist theory.

[penguinfoot]

It's worth pointing out that there are quite clear links between Foucault on the one hand and Hardt and Negri on the other, who can broadly be considered part of the Marxist tradition - I think that the most important channel of influence is that Hardt and Negri accept the view that power structures need not have a centre and that power can exist and be wielded without there necessarily being an agent who controls the exercise of power and benefits from its usage - this differs from other theorists of power such as Lukes who say that power does need to have a user and does need to be exercised in a fairly conscious way in order for it to be considered an exercise of power at all, and you can see the influence of this view of power in Hardt and Negri's entire concept of empire, which is, after all, radically different from Lenin's theory of imperialism insofar as the two authors view the international system as one in which capital is not concentrated at any particular points or centers of control. I think that there are aspects of Foucault and postmodernism more generally that Marxists outside of the Hardt/Negri strand of thinking can draw on and that his emphasis on the integration of power and knowledge is particularly important when we are thinking about why oppressed groups such as those who are subject to national oppression articulate their struggles in the way that they do as well as the capacity of so-called sciences such as psychiatry to be used as tools of domination in spite of their claims to scientific validity, but at the end of the day Sartre's central criticisms need to be kept in mind as they tease out the key ways in which Foucault does differ from the main body of the Marxist tradition - centrally, we need to reject Foucault's view that the diversity of power structures requires the pursuit of distinct revolutions, or, as Foucault put it, "a plurality of resistances", because this view ignores the ways in which specific forms of oppression - sexism, racism, and so on - are all underpinned by a common logic in the form of the needs of bourgeois class rule and that a socialist revolution centered around the working class is the only way to eliminate them.

[Invincible Summer]

I think the institutional work of Foucault is most useful in analysing the extension of social relations of domination beyond the immediately obvious confined of the traditional state apparatus (parliament, local government, police).

Yeah, I really like the Foucaultian discourse on power. Really takes it beyond the traditional framework.

[penguinfoot]

Yeah, I really like the Foucaultian discourse on power. Really takes it beyond the traditional framework.

I'm not so sure this is fair, it's a commonly accepted but nonetheless inaccurate view that the whole of the liberal tradition has historically been concerned only with the relationship between the state and the individual citizen and that liberals have only ever understood oppression in terms of legal sanctions but if you take a close look at certain individual liberal thinkers as well as pre-Foucault thinkers who do not so easily fit into liberalism you do find that they have acknowledged the importance of spheres like the family as well as the citizen body and have paid attention to the existence and operation of power within these spheres - to take the most obvious example, J.S. Mill makes it explicit in On Liberty that the threats to autonomy can consist of social pressure and drives to conformity rather than just state intervention and he also wrote at length on the politics of arranged marriages within the Mormon community. I think that if Foucault made a contribution to the theorization of power it was through his emphasis on the links between power and knowledge rather than simply saying that private as well as public institutions are important.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not so sure this is fair, it's a commonly accepted but nonetheless inaccurate view that the whole of the liberal tradition has historically been concerned only with the relationship between the state and the individual citizen and that liberals have only ever understood oppression in terms of legal sanctions but if you take a close look at certain individual liberal thinkers as well as pre-Foucault thinkers who do not so easily fit into liberalism you do find that they have acknowledged the importance of spheres like the family as well as the citizen body and have paid attention to the existence and operation of power within these spheres - to take the most obvious example, J.S. Mill makes it explicit in On Liberty that the threats to autonomy can consist of social pressure and drives to conformity rather than just state intervention and he also wrote at length on the politics of arranged marriages within the Mormon community. I think that if Foucault made a contribution to the theorization of power it was through his emphasis on the links between power and knowledge rather than simply saying that private as well as public institutions are important.

I ran out of breath reading your post...

but that's what I was trying to say. His contributions to the discourse of power in general (not just regarding institutions), which includes the link between knowledge and power, are very important and are sometimes overlooked.

[NecroCommie]

Foucault was an asshole. Case closed.

I'm serious:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them"

- Thomas Jefferson

[blake 3:17]

I think he was often wrong, but in interesting ways. He and Althusser play similar roles in describing institutions of repression. Discipline and Punish is particularly good, and concrete. His first book on madnesshas only recently come out in its full text in English.


Actually I think Perry Anderson got it right about French "Post-Structuralism" back in 1970s, when he stated that they are merely the reactionaries denying the idea of progress and bemoaning the supposed "totalitarian" character of ANY progressive philosophy (not only Marxism), while extending friendly hand to the supporters of reactionary ideas by setting their delusions on par with scientific and revolutionary thought via "plurality of discourses' idea, thus denying the very possibility of arriving at objective truth in social sciences.

Where`s that from? Considerations on Western Marxism or its sequel? The broad smear against the post-structuralists is often unfair. A lot of thinkers and writers get lumped together without necessarily having that much in common. I`m disturbed by the tendency to dismiss non-Marxist thinkers because they aren`t Marxists. I have done that in the past, so....

[kalu]

Foucault was an asshole. Case closed.

I'm serious:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them"

- Thomas Jefferson

Please don't troll. Also, why the personal attack against Foucault? The fellow was actually quite decent, from what I hear.

[NecroCommie]

Where`s that from? Considerations on Western Marxism or its sequel? The broad smear against the post-structuralists is often unfair. A lot of thinkers and writers get lumped together without necessarily having that much in common.
They have one distinct feature in common. They are batshit insane. So I'd say it's less than they deserve.

I'm dead serious in this too. If the ideas can be lumped together, then they must have something in common. It's amazing how seriously people take ideas that contradict themselves. The denial of absolute knowledge, or knowledge all together is in itself a claim of absolute knowledge. And what is this insanity we call "post-structuralism"? If these guys have better ideas about approaching linguistics and philosophy then let them come forward with their proposals. As it happens, their entire ideas are based 100% on "negative campaigns", meaning that it is easy to deconstruct something when you don't have to replace that something with something of your own. The reality is that modern science needs, it demands structuralism and it lives on modernism. To deny these is to deny science.

All these "pos-thisandthat" philosophies are epic fucking trolls.

Besides, imagine what these people are actually doing. They are deconstructing words, by using words.

[bricolage]

The denial of absolute knowledge, or knowledge all together is in itself a claim of absolute knowledge.
I'm sorry, where has Foucault ever said this?

[Apoi_Viitor]

I think he was often wrong, but in interesting ways. He and Althusser play similar roles in describing institutions of repression. Discipline and Punish is particularly good, and concrete. His first book on madnesshas only recently come out in its full text in English.

Where/Why do you see him as being wrong?

[Raúl Duke]

The denial of absolute knowledge, or knowledge all together is in itself a claim of absolute knowledge. Source (from Foucault; if you use a post-structuralist it doesn't count) please, sounds like an unsubstantiated claim.


what is this insanity we call "post-structuralism"? First, this thread doesn't discuss Derrida and the likes; only Foucault and his analysis of power dynamics. While I heard people tie in Foucault with Derrida, Foucault is also viewed independently from post-structuralism. Particularly his analysis of power-dynamics.

Second, are you confusing post-structuralism with post-modernism? While Post-modernism did arguably come out of post-structuralism, they're not exactly the same. Also, it's post-modernism that in its logical outcome rejects knowledge/etc and sees everything as "opinion." Even than, some people and academic fields have been slightly influence by post-modernism while rejecting it's logical outcome (i.e. objective knowledge is utterly unattainable, everything is a perceptual opinion, etc.)


In your opinion was Foucault an extension/progression of western Marxism or a detriment to Marxism in general?

His discourse of power-dynamics and institutions might be of use; but anything else I really doubt it.

Someone mention Negri and Hardt and it reminds me about the Autonomists and their concept of "the social factory" (i.e. everyday lives of people and the capitalism power-dynamics which encroach on other spheres of life outside the workplace) and I think that the idea of "the social factory" in a sense is influence or can be traced back to Foucault (or vice-versa, the concept influenced Foucault's writings on power-dynamics and institutions) and even further to Gramsci.

[kalu]

They have one distinct feature in common. They are batshit insane. So I'd say it's less than they deserve.

I'm dead serious in this too. If the ideas can be lumped together, then they must have something in common. It's amazing how seriously people take ideas that contradict themselves. The denial of absolute knowledge, or knowledge all together is in itself a claim of absolute knowledge. And what is this insanity we call "post-structuralism"? If these guys have better ideas about approaching linguistics and philosophy then let them come forward with their proposals. As it happens, their entire ideas are based 100% on "negative campaigns", meaning that it is easy to deconstruct something when you don't have to replace that something with something of your own. The reality is that modern science needs, it demands structuralism and it lives on modernism. To deny these is to deny science.

All these "pos-thisandthat" philosophies are epic fucking trolls.

Besides, imagine what these people are actually doing. They are deconstructing words, by using words.

You seem to have no familiarity with any "pomo" texts. Their ideas can't just be "lumped together," you are doing that based on--I hesitate to say misreading, because I doubt you have even picked up one of the texts--some ridiculous arguments about "absolute knowledge" that have nothing to do with actual poststructuralist arguments with regard to modern disciplinary formations, basic categories of modern Western philosophy, and so on. You could either cite your arguments, or continue to ramble freely, but if you do the latter, I think most people are going to pretty easily lose their faith in your posts to communicate meaningful arguments.:lol: But seriously mate, stop trolling and contribute substantive discussion on the topic of the thread, Foucault, and on the actual ideas.

[RHIZOMES]

They have one distinct feature in common. They are batshit insane. So I'd say it's less than they deserve.

I'm dead serious in this too. If the ideas can be lumped together, then they must have something in common. It's amazing how seriously people take ideas that contradict themselves. The denial of absolute knowledge, or knowledge all together is in itself a claim of absolute knowledge. And what is this insanity we call "post-structuralism"? If these guys have better ideas about approaching linguistics and philosophy then let them come forward with their proposals. As it happens, their entire ideas are based 100% on "negative campaigns", meaning that it is easy to deconstruct something when you don't have to replace that something with something of your own. The reality is that modern science needs, it demands structuralism and it lives on modernism. To deny these is to deny science.

All these "pos-thisandthat" philosophies are epic fucking trolls.

Besides, imagine what these people are actually doing. They are deconstructing words, by using words.

You honestly have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, the deconstructionism of Derrida (which is what it sounds like you're referring to) is not all of post-structuralism (and a lot of people don't even consider deconstruction a post-structuralist philosophy). In fact, the only 100% unifying element in all post-structuralist works is that they're a response to/continuation of the intellectual movement of structuralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism) (hence the post-), based on the signifier/signified sign-systems relationship first articulated in the early 20th century by the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (and you probably have no idea who that is judging by your "science needs structuralism" comment, which completely misses the point of what structuralism is). You're also confusing post-modernism (even worse, a caricature of post-modernism) with post-structuralism. Please stick to threads in which you know what you're talking about.

[Amphictyonis]

Who said this " a sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory positions at once"? It may have been worded different, I remember reading it years back in class. Anyhow, life is full of contradictions, ever changing and different for everyone. I may even go as far as to say reality, or human consciousness, is subjective.

[Summerspeaker]

I firmly agree with the critique Foucault and others have made of claims of objective truth. Such notions are philosophically insupportable. Rationality alone means nothing. Science cannot tell us the right way to live. This deflates a lot of traditional Marxist pretensions, but those aren't necessary for revolution. I'm comfortable with overthrowing the bosses from a subjective and historically situated perspective. Socialism need not be inevitable and objectively correct to be worth striving for.

[RED DAVE]

Theses On Feuerbach



IX

The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.

X

The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.

XI

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.RED DAVE

[Invincible Summer]

Who said this " a sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory positions at once"? It may have been worded different, I remember reading it years back in class. Anyhow, life is full of contradictions, ever changing and different for everyone. I may even go as far as to say reality, or human consciousness, is subjective.


The quote is actually ""The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." and it's from F Scott Fitzgerald

[RED DAVE]

doublethink


The power of holding two contradictory believies in one's mind simultaneously and accepting both of
them.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doublethink

RED DAVE

[Omi]

The quote doesn't mention accepting nor rejecting these ideas, so I would not say that it defines as doublethink.

[bretty]

You honestly have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, the deconstructionism of Derrida (which is what it sounds like you're referring to) is not all of post-structuralism (and a lot of people don't even consider deconstruction a post-structuralist philosophy). In fact, the only 100% unifying element in all post-structuralist works is that they're a response to/continuation of the intellectual movement of structuralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism) (hence the post-), based on the signifier/signified sign-systems relationship first articulated in the early 20th century by the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (and you probably have no idea who that is judging by your "science needs structuralism" comment, which completely misses the point of what structuralism is). You're also confusing post-modernism (even worse, a caricature of post-modernism) with post-structuralism. Please stick to threads in which you know what you're talking about.

Good post, you certainly can't lump in all of these writers to post-structuralism.. particularly people like Derrida who have much different aims. It's also important to avoid assuming all of these writers have much in common, of course they borrow and work off of ideas similar to each other but also use ideas from such a broad array of other writers and certainly ones not like themselves. I think labels are ultimately an unfortunate and lazy way to categorize these writers. Also in regards to the negative campaign comment, I'd dispute that.. I think people like Foucault have contributed to quite a few fields in a positive way. An example off the top of my head is Anti-Politics machine by James Ferguson.. It's a critique of development projects and makes use of Foucault's ideas to come to a brilliant conclusion.

[RHIZOMES]

Theses On Feuerbach


RED DAVE



"Philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to realise it was missed. The summary judgement that it had merely interpreted the world, that resignation in the face of reality had crippled it in itself, becomes a defeatism of reason after the attempt to change the world miscarried." - Theodor Adorno

[Raúl Duke]

C'mon people, talk more about Foucault's discourse on power dynamics. I want to learn more than the brief skinny I got in historical methodology course.

[Meridian]

I firmly agree with the critique Foucault and others have made of claims of objective truth. Such notions are philosophically insupportable. Rationality alone means nothing. Science cannot tell us the right way to live. This deflates a lot of traditional Marxist pretensions, but those aren't necessary for revolution. I'm comfortable with overthrowing the bosses from a subjective and historically situated perspective. Socialism need not be inevitable and objectively correct to be worth striving for.
Neither the words "subjective" nor "objective" make any sense, why are people using them? Stuck in old philosophical dogma.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Neither the words "subjective" nor "objective" make any sense, why are people using them? Stuck in old philosophical dogma.

The way I read it, he was using the words "subjective" and "objective" in a context which pointed to their ambiguous/meaningless attributes...

[Meridian]

The way I read it, he was using the words "subjective" and "objective" in a context which pointed to their ambiguous/meaningless attributes...

Maybe you are right to an extent, I still see many using those words in odd ways though.

Describing anything as "objectively correct", for example, is senseless, just saying "correct" suffices without philosophical implications. Whether or not communism can be said to be correct, I would suppose, depends on what we mean to say. Can the Marxist description of the workings of a capitalist system be correct? Certainly. Can historical materialism be correct? Yes. However, communism as a classless society can be neither correct nor incorrect, just as capitalism is not correct or incorrect, because 'communism' and 'capitalism' does not involve predicating about things (this is besides possible ethical uses of "qualitative" words).

[Summerspeaker]

At least some Marxist tendencies present communism as objectively correct in the weightiest sense of the term. Under this framework, science and reason show the absolute right way to live. My earlier post came with that history in mind.

[Meridian]

At least some Marxist tendencies present communism as objectively correct in the weightiest sense of the term. Under this framework, science and reason show the absolute right way to live. My earlier post came with that history in mind.
Well, that doesn't make sense, because communism is a system, it does not predicate about things. Marx' work can obviously be correct or incorrect because it does make assertions.

Also, there is no 'absolute right way to live', just as there is no 'objectively' better music. There may be music that is more complex, or more simplistic, or louder, or quieter, but outside of the opinion of each there is no one genre that is simply better. I am not saying music is similar to a way to live, but that in this case, how we talk about music is similar.

[Summerspeaker]

I agree, but it's a present and historical tendency regardless of whether it makes sense.

[Apoi_Viitor]

C'mon people, talk more about Foucault's discourse on power dynamics. I want to learn more than the brief skinny I got in historical methodology course.

"Naive minds think that the office of kingship lodges in the king himself, in his ermine cloak and his crown, in his flesh and bones. As a matter of fact, the office of kingship is an interrelation between people. The king is king only because the interests and prejudices of millions of people are refracted through his person. When the flood of development sweeps away these interrelations, then the king appears to be only a washed-out man with a flabby lower lip. He who was once called Alfonso XIII could discourse upon this from fresh impressions." - Leon Trotsky

"Moreover, in speaking of domination I do not have in mind that solid or global kind of domination that one person exercises over others, or one group over another, but the manifold forms of domination that can be exercised within society. Not the domination of the King [that is, the state or the government] in his central position, but of his subjects [that is, the citizens or the people] in their mutual relations: not the uniform edifice of sovereignty, but the multiple forms of subjugation that have a place and function within the social organism." - Michel Foucault

"Foucault's approach to representation is that he concerned with the production of knowledge and meaning through discourse. For him, the production of knowledge is always crossed with questions of power and the body (51), and this expands the scope of what is involved in representation. Now we have traced the shift in Foucault's work from language to discourse and knowledge, and their relation to power. But there is a crucial question that we will ask: where is the 'subject'? Here Saussure tended to abolish the subject from the question of representation -- it is 'language' that speaks us. In one sense, Foucault shares this position. For him, it is discourse, not the subject which produces knowledge. Discourse is enmeshed with power, but it is not necessary to find a 'subject' like the king, the ruling class, the state -- for power/knowledge to operate..." http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/postmodernism/Barthes_Foucault.html

What are the differences between the Marxist theory of power and Foucault's?

[Thirsty Crow]

"Discourse is enmeshed with power, but it is not necessary to find a 'subject' like the king, the ruling class, the state -- for power/knowledge to operate..." http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/postmodernism/Barthes_Foucault.html

But what concrete consequences would this approach, emphasizing the "non-necessity" of locating/identifying the subject of power, bring about?
In other words - how does our aim of social transformation fit in with this viewpoint? My answer is - it does not fit in very well.
The next step would be to conclude whether our aim is misplaced or wrong then, for whatever reason. And given the fact that there remains a horrid level of poverty, that people are excluded from the power of influencing the course of events in their workplace, I'd say that our aim is definitely not misplaced or wrong.
And what does that mean when this particular viewpoint is concerned?
In my opinion, this means that this viewpoint creates a lack of ability to practically employ knowledge of power relations (that is - knowledge of which groups direct "the flow of power", to which aims they do it, how they do it etc.). This is, needless to say, a crippling disadvantage for anyone who wants to participate in the process of radical social transformation.

But, it is true, the quoted author claims that it is not necessary to find a subject, meaning that this operation can still be undertaken. Again, I think that this is of crucial importance to any revolutionary (as well as finding concrete stratifications within the subject - e.g. managerial class, cops etc.)

[blake 3:17]

In other words - how does our aim of social transformation fit in with this viewpoint? My answer is - it does not fit in very well.
The next step would be to conclude whether our aim is misplaced or wrong then, for whatever reason. And given the fact that there remains a horrid level of poverty, that people are excluded from the power of influencing the course of events in their workplace, I'd say that our aim is definitely not misplaced or wrong.


I think his critiques of institutions are brilliant. You can also do as well with the American Erving Goffman.

His take on Israel I think really reveals a profound limitation of his thought. My interest in Deleuze was raised when I read his brief writings on the Palestinians, which are basically the perspective of the left wing of the solidarity movement here.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

This is, needless to say, a crippling disadvantage for anyone who wants to participate in the process of radical social transformation.

Funny... Foucault was the one working with the prison population in France while the CP intellectuals were sitting around with their thumbs up their bums.

[black magick hustla]

I firmly agree with the critique Foucault and others have made of claims of objective truth. Such notions are philosophically insupportable. Rationality alone means nothing. Science cannot tell us the right way to live. This deflates a lot of traditional Marxist pretensions, but those aren't necessary for revolution. I'm comfortable with overthrowing the bosses from a subjective and historically situated perspective. Socialism need not be inevitable and objectively correct to be worth striving for.

I think rationalism needs to be criticized. After all it is an ideological construction of the enlightement. However, the term "objective truth" is problematic. A proposition can be true or false, period. "maldoror posted in this thread" is certainly truth beyond any philosophical consideration. To deny otherwise is to speak another language alien to most people.

[gorillafuck]

Who was Foucalt and did he advocate?:confused:

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

[cricket, crickets, crickets]

Okay, here goes.

Foucault, Michel,1926-84.

Son of a doctor, attends the Ecole Nationale Superieure, training-ground for most every major French intellectual figure. Deeply influenced by a number of Marxist philosophers, including Althusser. Central to Foucault's thought is the Marxist argument that consciousness is historically determined. Joins the French CP,1950-53, quits because of their Stalinian rigidity and hatred of homosexuality. Starts as a psychiatric intern in Ste Anne (major psychiatric hospital in Paris), ends up professor of the history of systems of thought at the College de France (highest honor for a French thinker). Dies of AIDS.

A number of useful concepts developed by Foucault center around his attempt to remove the understanding of thought and power in History from grand, metaphysical and overarching theories:

"Episteme:" a way of seeing or a cluster of ways of seeing the world at any given time. So, for instance, the concept of "the real" is not as interesting for its essential "reality" as for the way it organizes experience at any given point in history. Very close to Adorno's concept of the "constellation."

"Archeology:" the study of what makes certain systems of power and control possible at certain specific moments in History. For instance, an archeology of the "real" would show how Early Christian's need to find signs of the existence of God in their daily existence reappear under the guise of "science" in the modern period.

"Power:" a form of discourse, e.g. transactional. Conversely,all discourse, including language, is a form of power. This is the aspect of Foucault's theory that seems beyond the limits of Anglo-Saxon and/or positivist and/or stupid readers, because there is nothing intrinsically "evil" about power as Foucault describes it. (Translations of Foucault into English, like most translations of French postmodernism, are so poor as to constitute radical, occasionally deliberate inversions of Foucault's meaning). In fact, because power is available at the level of each individual consciousness, it's the process through which the individual fights back,keeps his/her balance. Think of sex, for instance, which is not the oppression of one group by another in the abstract, but on the micro-level is a back-and-forth, with each partner consenting and yielding within a socially limiting series of acceptable "rules."

Foucault's work was extremely popular among young radicals in the 'sixties. Though Foucault was not present in May '68 (he was teaching in Tunisia), he became active in the 'seventies with movements to empower prisoners, immigrants and mental patients.

"Theory does not express, translate, or serve to apply practice: it is practice." - Foucault.

"Man must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." - Marx.

[StalinFanboy]

Side note, I'm buds with one of the dudes that's worked on a lot of the translations of Foucault.

[Lucretia]

In your opinion was Foucault an extension/progression of western Marxism or a detriment to Marxism in general? If you're not familiar with him this may help:

http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/books/

Foucault, who studied under Althusser believe it or not, liked to describe himself as breaking with Marxism, but in fact most (not all) his ideas are a very important supplement to Marxist theories of what power is and how/where it operates. When Foucault bad-mouths Marxism, he is basically referring to the out-of-control Stalinist incarnation of it that was dominant politically throughout the 1950s.

[blake 3:17]

Foucault, who studied under Althusser believe it or not, liked to describe himself as breaking with Marxism, but in fact most (not all) his ideas are a very important supplement to Marxist theories of what power is and how/where it operates. When Foucault bad-mouths Marxism, he is basically referring to the out-of-control Stalinist incarnation of it that was dominant politically throughout the 1950s.

I think his break with Marxism, while obviously affected by the events of 1956, has less to do with Stalinism or the PCF, than exploring a whole different terrain. Both he and Althusser studied Bachelard.

I didn't really get either Althusser or Foucault until I went back to school (in a program that usually didn't have students like me) and got caught in bizarre institutional and bureaucratic traps. Trotsky's basic insight into the origin of bureaucracy I think stands, but how it operates and what functions it plays are issues of on going discussion and examination. I'd suggest reading Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals to understand Foucault's method.

I think Deleuze and Guattari have a superior, if sometimes elusive, take on how power functions in the production and serialization of the individual. The link below is to a fairly accessible piece that I think is truer today than 20 years ago.

Deleuze, Society of Control, 1990: http://www.nadir.org/nadir/archiv/netzkritik/societyofcontrol.html

[L.A.P.]

For example, its continually argued amongst liberal historians that "mankind oversaw the dismantling of feudalism and monarchies", because man came to see the characteristic flaws and imperfections of such systems - and why modern, liberal democracy is a "vast" improvement over previous notions. Foucault argues the idea (which I'm sure many Marxists should sympathize or agree with),

Why would Marxists agree with that statement? The idea that liberal democracy and capitalism wasn't a great improvement as opposed to the monarchies and feudalism seems to go against the core ideas of Marxism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Why would Marxists agree with that statement? The idea that liberal democracy and capitalism wasn't a great improvement as opposed to the monarchies and feudalism seems to go against the core ideas of Marxism.

I agree that it was... However, I was claiming that the progression from feudalism to capitalism wasn't because capitalism is innately more humanitarian or just, but because the bourgeios wanted power.

[GX.]

Foucault, who studied under Althusser believe it or not, liked to describe himself as breaking with Marxism, but in fact most (not all) his ideas are a very important supplement to Marxist theories of what power is and how/where it operates. When Foucault bad-mouths Marxism, he is basically referring to the out-of-control Stalinist incarnation of it that was dominant politically throughout the 1950s.

Foucault:

I often quote concepts, texts and phrases from Marx, but without feeling obliged to add the authenticating label of a footnote with a laudatory phrase to accompany the quotation. As long as one does that, one is regarded as someone who knows and reveres Marx, and will be suitably honoured in the so-called Marxist journals. But I quote Marx without saying so, without quotation marks, and because people are incapable of recognising Marx’s texts I am thought to be someone who doesn’t quote Marx. When a physicist writes a work of physics, does he feel it necessary to quote Newton and Einstein?

[L.A.P.]

I agree that it was... However, I was claiming that the progression from feudalism to capitalism wasn't because capitalism is innately more humanitarian or just, but because the bourgeios wanted power.

Of course, but the bourgeoisie were an oppressed class and wanted power in the same way a class conscious proletarian would.