>
>Earlier in the thread, you said that "F the SoK [Foucault the
>Sociologist of Knowledge] is Weberian of a high order," & Jim
>Farmelant mentioned that "In his last years, Foucault began to take
>an interest in liberal thought, and he wrote on such people as
>Hayek." While Foucault's description of instances of panopticism,
>bio politics, governmentality, etc. is compelling in the sense that
>he captures a political logic of the modern welfare state (full-blown
>especially in the era of high social democracy -- _the era that has
>already passed_), Foucault suggests that what he found offensive is
>_inherent_ either in modernity (a la Weber) or in anything more than
>the minimal state (a la Hayek). So, Foucault's theory has a
>pessimistic cast especially in his Weberian strain, for he
>practically argues that modernity represents no progress whatsoever
>over the pre-modern state of affairs & that there is no way out of
>the iron cage that he describes, only an ever-present dialectic of
>power & resistance to it. That -- substitution of modernity for
>class relations as the cause of un-freedom -- is a theoretical error.
>
>Yoshie
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com