Michel Foucault

[bretty]

Foucault I've heard was a marxist however a mostly inactive one in France.

Has anyone studied his works or read anything by him?

I'm reading Discipline and Punish right now by Foucault and I do like it quite a bit.

-Brett

[tolstoyevski]

In Foucault I see a micro-politics philosopher who ignores macro-economy and the basic struggle which settled at the heart of capitalism.

sure some comrades can open and analyse this better but what I understand from Foucault is that we must leave our tough and fighter organisations (because revolution is not possible and they are hierarchic) for the sake of micro-politics which is, in the final analysis, a petit-bourgeois pessimism.

I cannot prove that by making quotations but as far as I understood, Foucault saw Marxism as a 19. century way of thinking (common for post-structuralists) and I think he sinks into his european centered point of view for he thinks every country around the world is living under a late capitalist bourgeois democracy.

[rouchambeau]

I've been reading a bunch of his essays. By no means am I an expert on his work, but if you wanted to discuss some of his ideas I would be glad to do so with you. I think I might have Discipline and Punish, so maybe we can give that one a go.

[Pawn Power]

Can you be more specific? He has written extensively on many topics. Would you life discuss a certain text or specific seminal Foucaudian notion?

[R_P_A_S]

right now im reading the debate on human nature.. by him and Noam Chomsky. so far so good.

[bretty]

I meant if you have read some of his work what was your opinion on it?

[rouchambeau]

right now im reading the debate on human nature.. by him and Noam Chomsky. so far so good.
I remember seeing a clip of that on video.google or youtube. Look it up if you're interested.


I meant if you have read some of his work what was your opinion on it?
I really like it. It's a little difficult to understand at first, but it's worth the effort. You would like it too if you're into history and alternative ways of looking at power.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:59 pm
Foucault I've heard was a marxist however a mostly inactive one in France.

Has anyone studied his works or read anything by him?

I'm reading Discipline and Punish right now by Foucault and I do like it quite a bit.

-Brett
He was a leftist, a bit difficult to label - but definitely an active one.

My reading has been more patchy than it should, but I've got a fair idea of his philosophy - working on an essay comparing him and Koselleck right now. Can't say I've seen much that would justify calling him a Marxist. Anarchist if anything.

He generally stops at describing the state of his subjects, rather than suggesting changes and improvements. This is part of his method of doing history, and arguably one of the more problematic ambitions of postmodernism/-structuralism. It also makes it hard to find any trace of his political activism just from reading his books.

I'd consider The Order of Things (Les Mots et Les Choses) his most important work, but I'm sure we can find someone to disagree? :)

[Pawn Power]

Here is a site with texts written by Foucault and about Foucalt.
the foucauldian (http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/)

Also, here is an article I submitted to RevLeft for Che-Lives which touches upon Foucault's position of class war as alluded to in his debate with Chomsky.
Foucault has a certain pragmatic view of social change which is grounded in his understanding of power. Power and Politics (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66387)

[bezdomni]

I have found most people I know who like Foucault to be somewhat unbearable.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:49 pm
I have found most people I know who like Foucault to be somewhat unbearable.
Does it have anything to do with their questioning of the premise of your every question?

[bezdomni]

They tend to have a pedantic and irritating nature...I'm also pretty sure they make up words.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SP, you are right, but so do all philosophers -- all use empty terms devoid of meaning.

I'd say the same of dialecticians, except, if I did, I would have to accuse myself of derailing this thread, delete this post and warn myself. :lol:

So, I won't. :P

[Sacrificed]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 06:07 pm
SP, you are right, but so do all philosophers -- all use empty terms devoid of meaning.
In Foucault's case, that's probably the point. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sacrificed:


In Foucault's case, that's probably the point

Into Hume's bonfire with it then! :P

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 07:07 pm
SP, you are right, but so do all philosophers -- all use empty terms devoid of meaning.
Well, no terms have meaning in and of themselves. If they did, wouldn't you automatically know what the word "nøff" means? :) Meaning is constructed by context and usage.

Truly empty and meaningless statements are those used in a context in which they appear as inconsistent. All statements are meaningless if taken out of their context, read trough an alien discourse, but a really meaningless statement has no context in which it belongs.

What sense does your statement make to someone who doesn't know the english language, or someone who has never encountered the term "philosopher"? "Philosophy" does not exist to be pointed to and identified, except perhaps as a curious pattern on a futuristic brain scan.

The term cuts out and separates a certain piece of reality from the rest and attaches it to a code. It is empty, in that it has no justification in mathematics or physics, but not meaningless, because it, and all other coherent statements, discourses, patterns, is an outline carved out by strategies of inclusion and exclusion. The english language, and philosophy, are in themselves labels for such strategies, a set of conditions by which statements will be accepted or rejected, differentiated, classed, transformed, or declared empty and meaningless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IM:


Well, no terms have meaning in and of themselves. If they did, wouldn't you automatically know what the word "nøff" means? :) Meaning is constructed by context and usage.

Well, it is not as simple as that or we would have to accept that the words of the Christian Trinity meant something.


Truly empty and meaningless statements are those used in a context in which they appear as inconsistent.

This can't be so or you would not be able to tell they are inconsistent.


All statements are meaningless if taken out of their context, read trough an alien discourse, but a really meaningless statement has no context in which it belongs.

Not so.

Here is an indicative sentence, with no context at all, which is not meaningless:

"The River Nile is longer than the Thames."

There are many more like it....

I am sorry, I could not really follow this:


What sense does your statement make to someone who doesn't know the english language, or someone who has never encountered the term "philosopher"? "Philosophy" does not exist to be pointed to and identified, except perhaps as a curious pattern on a futuristic brain scan.

The term cuts out and separates a certain piece of reality from the rest and attaches it to a code. It is empty, in that it has no justification in mathematics or physics, but not meaningless, because it, and all other coherent statements, discourses, patterns, is an outline carved out by strategies of inclusion and exclusion. The english language, and philosophy, are in themselves labels for such strategies, a set of conditions by which statements will be accepted or rejected, differentiated, classed, transformed, or declared empty and meaningless.

I do hope it wasn't meaningless.... :)

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31, 2007 12:25 am

All statements are meaningless if taken out of their context, read trough an alien discourse, but a really meaningless statement has no context in which it belongs.

Not so.

Here is an indicative sentence, with no context at all, which is not meaningless:

"The River Nile is longer than the Thames."

There are many more like it....
I think you misunderstand me. That sentence has plenty of context. For one thing, I have spent years learning english, without which the statement would be gibberish to me. Without english, it would be impossible to concieve of for you. I know, roughly, what defines a river, and I know which rivers you are referring to, and can be reasonably sure someone measured them to test the truth value of the sentence.

And yet, I've never seen the Nile. My idea of a "river" is constructed from a number of other terms associated with it, and having rivers pointed out to me. From this, I can make a reasonable guess at what the Nile is like, though I think it's a safe guess my imagination can't do it justice. The terms which defines a river are also defined by combined associations and impressions, as are those associations. The web of meaning never stops, and bites its own tail. The definition of river is not arbitrary, but only by social standards - the lenght is defined by a myriad of conversations, of strategic and practical needs. We don't count the mediterranean as part of the Nile, though there is no reason beyond convention and the preference of those with the power to define saying we shouldn't.

The sentence "The Thames is longer than the Nile" is untrue, and meaningless, because it contradicts the discourse it is intended to be part of, which among other things, defines a river, lenght and how it is measured.

The sentence "All eggs are ovoid, therefore these rectangular things are eggs" is meaningless not just because it's based on an unfounded generalization, but because it contradicts its own conditions, its internal discourse.

This page (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilen), on the other hand, has a linguistic context you probably haven't aquired. Therefore it won't give up its full meaning to you.

And the sequence "Drgsevsnmnn" uses the alphabet, and is posted in this conversation on this site, by me, and so still has some basic context left, and an apparent pattern. However, the letters are randomly chosen and truly empty of meaning, expressing only a phonetic pattern that is an artifact of the encoding system.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IM:


And yet, I've never seen the Nile. My idea of a "river" is constructed from a number of other terms associated with it, and having rivers pointed out to me. From this, I can make a reasonable guess at what the Nile is like, though I think it's a safe guess my imagination can't do it justice. The terms which defines a river are also defined by combined associations and impressions, as are those associations. The web of meaning never stops, and bites its own tail. The definition of river is not arbitrary, but only by social standards - the lenght is defined by a myriad of conversations, of strategic and practical needs. We don't count the mediterranean as part of the Nile, though there is no reason beyond convention and the preference of those with the power to define saying we shouldn't.

I am sorry, but I am not sure what this has to do with the point that the sentence in question is not meaningless, even though it is divorced from any context.

I am not denying language is social, or that it is complex, but the way you put things, it could never be learnt, and would certainly be useless in communication, thus undermining its social role.

One does not, for example, need a definition of 'river' to be able to use it correctly.

I have no idea what its definition is, in fact, but I know that the sentence I offered is true.


The sentence "The Thames is longer than the Nile" is untrue, and meaningless, because it contradicts the discourse it is intended to be part of, which among other things, defines a river, length and how it is measured.

How do you know it is untrue if it is meaningless?

Same with this:


The sentence "All eggs are ovoid, therefore these rectangular things are eggs" is meaningless not just because it's based on an unfounded generalization, but because it contradicts its own conditions, its internal discourse.

If something is meaningless, how can it contradict anything?

Here is a meaningless sentence:

"But five or was off meandering so."

Is it true? Or false?

Does it contradict anything?

'No' to all of these.

The sentences above are not like that.


Therefore it won't give up its full meaning to you.

I think you are being misled by an ambiguity in the word 'meaning' itself.

You are trading on a common confusion between meaning as 'personal significance', and meaning as 'linguistic meaning'.

The page you quoted certainly means something in both senses because I can read German, but had it been in Chinese, the first sense of 'meaning' would not apply to me, but that would not undermine the second sense of 'meaning'.

In fact, 'meaning' has many senses (some of which overlap):

(1) Significance or importance: as in “His Teddy Bear means a lot to him.”

(2) Evaluative import: as in “May Day means different things to different classes.”

(3) Point or purpose: as in “Life has no meaning.”

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in “‘Vixen’ means female fox.”

(5) Aim or intention: as in “They mean to win this strike.”

(6) Implication: as in “Winning that strike means the boss won’t try another wage cut again in a hurry.”

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in “Those clouds mean rain.”

(8) Reference: as in “I mean him over there.”

(9) Artistic theme: as in “The whole meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity.”

(10) Conversational focus: as in “I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?”

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in “I mean it, I really do want to go on the demonstration!”

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in “It means that the strike starts on Monday”, or “It means you have to queue here.”

(13) Interpretation: as in “You will need to read the author’s novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play.”

(14) The import of a work of art: as in “Part of the meaning of that play was to change our view of drama.”

[This is taken from an essay I will publish in the next year or so. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and probably isn't.]

You keep using the word 'code', but a code only makes sense if there is some language it can be translated into that is not itself a code.

Hence, language itself cannot be a code.

[YSR]

I loath Foucault. From the little that I've read of him, his theory seems to encourage the idea that discourse creates power. This idea sounds really good to the academics who read and teach him, and why shouldn't it? It complements them and makes them think that they are the creators of power, as it is academics who do much to shape discourse.

But of course, anyone with half a brain recognizes that it is the accumulation of capital and the divide between workers and owners that creates power. Sure, the points of understanding where one is in relation to power is important. Checking one's privilege and working to undermine it is pivotal. But I've found that an obsession with this (particularly in anarchist circles) leads to a general feeling of uselessness. "There's always someone more oppressed than I am, and any action I take seems to reinforce that oppression."

Foucauldian theory is esoteric, out of touch, and to quote Alan Sokal, who famously got a meaningless "post-modern" essay published in a serious journal, "But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class."

Bingo.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 31, 2007 05:00 pm
I loath Foucault. From the little that I've read of him, his theory seems to encourage the idea that discourse creates power. This idea sounds really good to the academics who read and teach him, and why shouldn't it? It complements them and makes them think that they are the creators of power, as it is academics who do much to shape discourse.

But of course, anyone with half a brain recognizes that it is the accumulation of capital and the divide between workers and owners that creates power.
He does indeed argue that discourse creates power. He also argues that power creates discourse, the existence of which is to maintain those relations of power which the discourse is involved with. So there is no simple causality here. Plus, for Foucault discourse is as much about practice as it is about how those practices are articulated in the abstract as knowledge.

He wouldn't necessarily deny that the accumulation of capital and the divide between owners and workers creates economic power. But he broadens the notion of power, anyway, so that it is conceived as constituent in all human relationships. There is no way, using Foucault, that we can prioritize economic power over other forms of power and this is a point of departure from Marxist notions of power which gives preeminence to the economic.

Personally, I enjoy Foucault's writing on the nature of power and find it challenging and insightful. His general outlook is antithetical to historical materialism; nevertheless Discipline & Punish and The Birth of the Clinic provide valuable insights into the psychology of bourgeois society as it emerges in the 18th and 19th centuries and attempts to transform and dominate the world around it.

[Sacrificed]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 31, 2007 04:00 pm
It complements them and makes them think that they are the creators of power, as it is academics who do much to shape discourse.
Everything is 'discourse' for Foucault.

[Soterios]

i am also reading Discipline and Punish right now. when i finish it, i will debate it with you.

[gilhyle]

I have read a bit of Foucault and I think I agree with not-so-stupid young radical. I have always found that he stands in the Nietzschean/libertarian tradition. He is meant to have gone through different phases, but I always found it a bit difficult to draaw a line between those phases.

Iwent though Madness and Civilisation, The Archaeology of Knowledge and one of the volumes on sex. I have the little book of an interview on Marx...but I never read it.

What struck me was when he was writing about something in history I knew a bit about I always found his scholarship weak. He glides over the facts using them to create a narrattive of the emergence of power with limited regard for getting the history right.

[che-Rabbi]

I just did a project in journalism. I did a recreation of the debate between him and Noam Chomsky. I put alot of emphasis on his weird mannerisms, like how he always picks at his teeth:)

[chebol]

Soterios wrote:

i am also reading Discipline and Punish right now. when i finish it, i will debate it with you.

Please don't. While I'm willing to acquiesce to Rosa, and not condemn Foucault to Hume's combustion stove, I would reallylike to suggest that if you're going to give yourself a headache reading philosophy, make it someone a little more useful and who is not entirely jargonistic.

The whole thing reminds me of "The Truth About Everything - An Irreverent History Of Philosophy (http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Everything-Irreverent-Illustrations/dp/1573921106)". If you want to read a book on 'philosophy', that's a good place to start. (It's pretentious, funny, gives Marx short shrift, and is a waste of time in 500 pages - a perfect summary of the crap that passes as philosophy)

And if you want to depress yourself with bad, circular, left-wing french literature, read Sartre.

[BreadBros]

I've only read 'Discipline and Punishment' and seen his debate with Chomsky. I thought the analysis of social institutions in 'D and P' was great. I also thought the debate over human nature with Chomsky was awesome. It seems like its one of the major questions in leftism and the two sides still show up in debates in here and other places on the left - I was originally compelled most by Foucault's arguments, but I can see how Chomsky's argument echoes some of what Marx says about democracy in 'Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right' - about democracy being internally consistent.


Foucauldian theory is esoteric, out of touch, and to quote Alan Sokal, who famously got a meaningless "post-modern" essay published in a serious journal, "But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class."

As far as I'm aware Foucault doesn't engage in deconstruction. I thought Foucault's ideas were pretty pragmatic and useful. Particularly in the debate with Chomsky where he talks about the difficulty in establishing a new societal structure without analyzing our own current institutions, as we run the danger of re-creating those institutions and re-creating the power structures that go along with them. I wanna read 'History of Sexuality' although it seems a bit long and dense, 8-o maybe in the future.

[funkmasterswede]

Foucault is definitely an interesting writer. The only problem with his work is in reality, it does not provide any sort of solution. Discourse is everywhere and a society free from skewed power relations is nearly impossible to create. The poster above me noted that in his debate with Chomsky, he warns us to analyze our institutions and the notions of justice that we have, so that this notion of justice may not skew a power relation in the same fashion as it does in our current system. But, certainly his analysis is extremely useful, I feel that the problem of our entire world cannot be boiled down entirely to the divide between wage labour and capital. This common assumption among traditional leftists presupposes a similarity in natural faculties and an almost overriding emphasis on this divide. Perhaps I am pessimistic, but as long as people are around, there will be those who are smarter and those who are dumber by quite a large degree. Now if we accept this, would social ownership of the means of production, stop domination? I highly doubt it.

But anyway like all post-modernists and post-structuralists Foucault's ideas do not derive a solution. I think this is partially on the rejection of metanarratives like Marx's idea of historical progress. However, I feel that his ideas are still useful, in order to prevent skewed power relations from occuring, we must understand how institutions and discourse affect power.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:20 am
I feel that the problem of our entire world cannot be boiled down entirely to the divide between wage labour and capital. This common assumption among traditional leftists presupposes a similarity in natural faculties and an almost overriding emphasis on this divide. Perhaps I am pessimistic, but as long as people are around, there will be those who are smarter and those who are dumber by quite a large degree. Now if we accept this, would social ownership of the means of production, stop domination? I highly doubt it.


It's unlikely that much thinking about institutions will be done- it's much easier to fantasize a one party state- but to the extent they are thought about, the Veil of Ignorance is indispensable.

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+July 01, 2007 06:19 am--> (CornetJoyce @ July 01, 2007 06:19 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 05:20 am
I feel that the problem of our entire world cannot be boiled down entirely to the divide between wage labour and capital. This common assumption among traditional leftists presupposes a similarity in natural faculties and an almost overriding emphasis on this divide. Perhaps I am pessimistic, but as long as people are around, there will be those who are smarter and those who are dumber by quite a large degree. Now if we accept this, would social ownership of the means of production, stop domination? I highly doubt it.


It's unlikely that much thinking about institutions will be done- it's much easier to fantasize a one party state- but to the extent they are thought about, the Veil of Ignorance is indispensable. [/b]
I agree with you, if you mean, that we must look at institutions without reference to our faculties, social status, race or sex. I am only really familiar with the Veil of Ignorance as Rawls used it. If I am wrong and misinterpreted you, let me know.

[Le People]

I tried to read his stuff from The Foculat reader, and it just didn't click. He's too interested in the how of philosophical questions rather than the why, which to me is the basis of philosophy.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 18, 2007 03:46 am
I tried to read his stuff from The Foculat reader, and it just didn't click. He's too interested in the how of philosophical questions rather than the why, which to me is the basis of philosophy.
The reason I like him so much is he isn't really interested in the 'why' but more so with the 'how' as you put it. I guess we're polarized opposites in this respect.

[Mariam]

ِAnyone read madness and civilization, or his book on knowledge?
Im still searching for both..libraries suck a bahrain!

[Le People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:41 pm

The reason I like him so much is he isn't really interested in the 'why' but more so with the 'how' as you put it. I guess we're polarized opposites in this respect. [/quote]
I guess so. He just comes off more like a social scientist and not a philosopher. But I guess its one's definition of those two occupations which make him that.

[praxicoide]

I would recommend What is the Enlightment for a good summation of his work, and what motivates it.

I think a Marxist reading of Foucault can be fruitul, especially with regards to power and state structures.

Looking at the micro-power schema exclusively can cause confusion, but concretely incorporated it gives a richer view of the way capital and its dominant power relations permeate all aspects of life. In To Discipline and Punish he shows how the "invisible" power structure arises together with capitalism, even though he does not place sufficient emphasis on this (for ideological reasons, I suspect).

His observations are in concordance with much of what is said by Nikos Poulantzas (rescuing it from its structuralism) on terms of ideology, especially with petit bourgois deformations of class conciousness.

As for discourse, is not analyzing something, freezing and dissecting it? giving it borders and allowing us to manipulate it? How is this not power? It is precisely ideology that which covers the material origin of discourse, and makes it seem as something inert and neutral.