> If you want my own rudimentary thoughts on this, I guess they start from
> Anderson's observation that Foucault's "power" is actually culture. (I
> tried to find the quote online but couldn't; but I'm almost positive I'm
> quoting him accurately.) To use the word power invests the question of
> subject formation with a certain charge that would be partly defused if
> you simply said that subjects are constituted by the culture in which
> they're formed. To Foucault we may be indebted for the insight that
> culture is always on somebody's terms rather than somebody else's and
> that it therefore can be seen as a form of power. But I think some
> Foucaultians (maybe vulgar Foucaultians) end up getting carried away
> with this insight, transforming "power" into something inherently malign
> that should be fought. (Okay, maybe MF rejected that line of thinking,
> but it exists - I've seen it!)
I think that the real problem with this analysis is the term 'culture.' Culture is an abstract category in which a complex set of institutions, forms of knowledge, and disciplines are placed under. Foucault never analyzes this abstract category, instead he looks at the formation and transformation of specific institutions/discourses. For instance, Foucault looks at the formation of specific forms of knowledge, of medicine, prisons, etc.
I should note that most of Foucault's analysis focuses on the creation of 'modern power relations' (not his term, nor a very good one) that is, of the capitalist world system. It may shock you, but this involves a lot of uneven power relations, domination, and exploitation.
I'd be curious as to what work you are referring to. It isn't anything that I have seen.
> That's a problem since, as Foucault quite astutely observes in shag's
> quote, power is the setting up of shared truths to avoid a war. A
> perfect definition of culture. And frankly, if the alternative is war,
> then three cheers for power/culture. The question then becomes:
> power/culture on whose terms? Actually, I'm curious what you think MF
> would say about this. If you asked him - why should the prisoners have
> the power and not the guards? on what grounds? - what would he say?
Frankly, I don't recognize the quote, nor do I know the context. Although we are slipping fairly quickly into the language of choice.
> I'll indict myself as an archaic naive positivist by saying that my
> answer is (a) that all we have to go on is our faculties of reason and
> (b) that's not always a perfect answer. I know the next step is supposed
> to be to unmask the devastating fact that there is no autonomous
> reasoning subject, it's just an endlessly recursive loop of power (I
> mean, culture). But I'm just not very impressed by this cleverness. At a
> certain point, you have to (and do) use your reason as if you were an
> autonomous subject. In practice that's what everyone here does, no? Am I
> thinking about this in completely the wrong way?
Yes, you are thinking about this 'in completely wrong way.' I don't think that 'no autonomous reasoning subject' is a particularly devastating revelation. Our ability to engage with the world is always socially determined(not partially, but completely), although this determination is by no means total or unilateral. Our 'decisions' always exist in these social forces. This includes the analytical skills that we use when we 'reason.' Coincidentally, you don't need to read Foucault to come to this conclusion. Voloshinov makes the same claim in Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, as do many other folks. I think that it's interesting that the entire criticism of Foucault winds up resting on a commonsense notion of the liberal subject that chooses.
I feel like this response is a little ungenerous, and I apologize for that, but I find this common sense abstraction of Foucault to be more than a little frustrating and not having a lot to do with Foucault. Foucault is not a theorist of culture, nor does labeling what he is examining as 'culture' do much to understand him. It's as legitimate to critique the man as anyone or anything else, but that has to be done through an actual engagement with his work. (Coincidentally, if you are looking for a Marxist critique of Foucault, I would recommend Poulanzas' State, Power, Socialism. My anarchist Foucaultian friends hate. Almost a recommendation in itself.)
robert wood
robert wood