Power as productive

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it "excludes", it "represses", it "censors", it "abstracts", it "masks", it "conceals". In fact power, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production.

What do you think of this quote from Foucault's Discipline and Punish, I have been reading hima lot lately.

[Wenty]

its all well and good saying it produces reality and, 'domains of objects' (whatever that means) and rituals of truth but how about he explains how exactly it does that. He may be right i don't know know but the fact of the matter is that it does do those negative things. It does repress, conceals etc.

[elijahcraig]

I think Foucault is attempting leave behind moral prejudices here, I agree completely.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:07 AM
I think Foucault is attempting leave behind moral prejudices here, I agree completely.
Ok, but to do so wouldn't he also have to prove how it doesn't repress, censors, etc. and prove how it does produce reality, domains of objects, etc?

Sure saying that power is synonymous with opression is a prejudice, on the other hand of course, he hasn't argued why it isn't.

Or are you simply going on the intent of the statement?

[elijahcraig]

Have you read Discipline and Punish by Foucault? Geist didn't quote the entire work, he goes into detail in the book.

[Wenty]

i haven't read it, however, surely whatever you say it is a prejudice of some sort.

[elijahcraig]

^?

You might try the easier "Foucault Reader" if you are interested, then if you like that go read more of his full works.

[Wenty]

way to ignore my point!

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:42 AM
Have you read Discipline and Punish by Foucault? Geist didn't quote the entire work, he goes into detail in the book.
Oh ok...I thought it was just some random quote. Thanks for explaining the matter.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I wanted to post it without anybody knowing what it is to see what people would say. Also Foucault hasnt come up on this forum much, do any of you read his work. I highly recomment it.

[elijahcraig]

way to ignore my point!

That I don't give an accurate picture of the philosophy? What are you talking about?


I wanted to post it without anybody knowing what it is to see what people would say. Also Foucault hasnt come up on this forum much, do any of you read his work. I highly recomment it.

I like a lot of Foucault's stuff, but I also dislike some of his stuff in the area of literature, and all that, in the same way that Harold Bloom dislikes him.

I posted a Foucaultian interpretation of Nietzsche's genealogy at Talk Philosophy and no one responded.

[Daymare17]

Power necessarily means oppression and exclusion. How this can be squared with 'producing domains of objects' and 'rituals of truth' is anyone's guess. The only way to define truth is by free discussion among human beings. There can be no truly free discussion where one person has power over another, so in conclusion this is all a bunch of authoritarian gibberish.

[elijahcraig]

Power necessarily means oppression and exclusion. How this can be squared with 'producing domains of objects' and 'rituals of truth' is anyone's guess. The only way to define truth is by free discussion among human beings. There can be no truly free discussion where one person has power over another, so in conclusion this is all a bunch of authoritarian gibberish.

This has nothing to do with "authoritarian gibberish."

Nietzsche and Foucault agree on the issue of "power." Power being the Will behind all things (human action, etc), you either choose to accept the products of power in an affirmation of life, or you reject it in the tradition of nihilism, resentment, and devaluing of Self.

Of course I view your reply to this thread as overly and extremely simplistic, not to mention dogmatically Marxist, because I don't think you are familiar with the text, the philosophy, etc. Maybe you shouldn't judge this until you've read into it a little more.

Power does not mean "oppression" necessarily. And it is also unrealistic to think that power is a removable trait of human nature, as it operates on many different planes, psychological, material, etc etc etc.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:44 PM


I posted a Foucaultian interpretation of Nietzsche's genealogy at Talk Philosophy and no one responded.
I'm surprised I didnt see it, I'll have a look soon, Ive been busy lately reading and working.

[Lardlad95]

Giest, ELijah perhaps you could clear one thing up for me.

is he saying that power is not exclusively x but is exclusively Y

Or is he saying that it can be either x or y?

[elijahcraig]

He is saying that power is one thing: power is productive and should be looked at beyond morality.

[redstar2000]

I can't see what is to be gained by describing "power" in the abstract...divorced from material conditions, classes, consequences of its exercise, etc.

Power to do what and to whom and with what purpose are legitimate questions.

To say that it's abstractly "good" (productive) or "evil" (repressive) doesn't really say much.

In fact, it doesn't say anything.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

How can it not mean anything if we understand it, obviously we agree fundamentally that it dosent matter one bit to the masses Redstar but some of us like to think abstractly. I'm sorry but its mental masterbation, a modern discourse or whatever. You dont need to point out in every thread that we should be thinking in a purely Marxist manner.

[redstar2000]

I'm not against "abstract thinking" as such...but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the abstractions actually mean something.

In fact, as I think some others have already pointed out, the demand for specificity is just as legitimate a philosophic position as any other.

To just argue that "power is repressive" or "power is constructive" strikes me as philosophically superficial.

Is that being "too Marxist"? :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I'm not against "abstract thinking" as such...but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the abstractions actually mean something.

It means something in the way people view different subjects.


To just argue that "power is repressive" or "power is constructive" strikes me as philosophically superficial.

Why?


Is that being "too Marxist"?

You bet TAT's sweet ass it is, old timer.

[che's long lost daughter]

Maybe he didn't mean power as in authority. Power in the sense of a strong feeling. If this is so then i agree with him.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well thats kind of closer to what he means, you have to remember Foucault is heavily influenced by Nietzsche's thinking hence the genealogies of sexuality etc. micropowers.