Nate quotes FOucault as follows:
> In short, it is a question of orienting ourselves to a conception of power
> which replaces the privledge of law with the viewpoint of the objective, the
> privledge of prohibition with the viewpoint of tactical efficiency, the
> privledge of soverignty with the analsis of a multiple and mobile field
of.....
right, i don't have the French version at-hand, but could this not be read
to mean, the viewpoint of the goal....objective-goal, not,
objective-notsubjective
it seems to me that Foucault is talking about a dynamic theory of
power/knowledge here, where he regards power as tactically deployed,
precisely where knowledge comes to be interpretable as a function of "who
benefits" --- ie, from a perspective of knowledge as strategically oriented
to a specific goal or objective.......
dunno Nate, this is how i read it anyway?
mary
-- Dr. Mary Bryson, Associate Professor, Education, UBC GenTech Project http://www.shecan.com Curriculum Vitae http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.htmlTo alter efficacy-based futility requires development of competencies and expectations of personal effectiveness. By contrast, to change outcome-based futility necessitates changes in prevailing environmental contingencies that restore the instrumental value of the competencies people already possess. Bandura-- 1977
---------- >From: "Nate" <schmolze@students.wisc.edu> >To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >Subject: RE: activity/reproduction/power >Date: Wed, Apr 26, 2000, 12:19 PM >
> > Mary, > > I'll go to the source of my comment about Foucault. On page 100 in History > of Sexuality V1, Foucault states, "to be more precise, we must not imagine a > world of discourse divided between accepted discourse and excluded > discourse, or between dominant discourse and the dominated one; but as a > multiplicity of discursive elements that can come into play in various > stategies". > > On 102, he continues, > > "We must not expect the discourses on sex to tell us, above all, what > stategy they derive from, or what moral divisions they accompany, or what > ideology - dominant or dominated - they represent; rather we must question > them o the two levels of their tactical productivity (what recipical effects > of power and knowledge they ensure) and their strategical integration (what > conjunction and what force relationship make their utilization necessary in > a given episode of the various confrontations that occur). > > In short, it is a question of orienting ourselves to a conception of power > which replaces the privledge of law with the viewpoint of the objective, the > privledge of prohibition with the viewpoint of tactical efficiency, the > privledge of soverignty with the analsis of a multiple and mobile field of > force relations..." > > Burchell comments Foucault was argueing for an objectivity of power that > could be compared to the objectivity of freedom in liberalism. A focus on > the analytics of power rather than a theory per se. > > This is where my comment came from. > > Nate > > > > Nate Schmolze > http://www.geocities.com/nate_schmolze/ > schmolze@students.wisc.edu > > > **************************************************************************** > **************** > "Overcoming the naturalistic concept of mental development calls for a > radically new approach > to the interrelation between child and society. We have been led to this > conclusion by a > special investigation of the historical emergence of role-playing. In > contrast to the view > that role playing is an eternal extra-historical phenomenon, we hypothesized > that role playing emerged at a specific stage of social development, as the > child's position in society changed > in the course of history. role-playing is an activity that is social in > origin and, > consequently, social in content." > > D. B. El'konin > **************************************************************************** > **************** > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mary bryson [mailto:brys@unixg.ubc.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:16 PM > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Re: activity/reproduction/power > > > Nate wrote: > <While I am a tad bit concerned about > Foucault's desire for objectivity - reasoning or discourse freed from the > question of who does it beneifit etc> > > I am confused (as usual)....i read this a bunch of times, and it still > strikes me that Foucault precisely is the writer who, for me, asks the > question about "who benefits" better and louder than anyone else.... Where > does this come from Nate? > > mary > -- > Dr. Mary Bryson, Associate Professor, Education, UBC > GenTech Project http://www.shecan.com > Curriculum Vitae http://www.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/cv.html > > > In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life > presents itself as an immense accumulation of "spectacles". Everything that > was directly lived has moved away into representation. > - Guy Debord, "The Society of the Spectacle" c 1967 > > ---------- >>From: "Nate" <schmolze@students.wisc.edu> >>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >>Subject: RE: activity/reproduction/power >>Date: Sat, Apr 22, 2000, 6:25 AM >> > >> Diane, >> >> Positive relations is from M Foucault to contrast a notion of power as >> soverign or repression. At one point he states those things we > characterize >> as soverign are merely byproducts. While I am a tad bit concerned about >> Foucault's desire for objectivity - reasoning or discourse freed from the >> question of who does it beneifit etc, I do think the notion of positive >> relations is a useful one. >> >> So, I would not read "positive" so much as in a binary of good and bad, > but >> an attempt to analyze power utilized at various sites. The way I used it >> was similar to practice or "lived experience" in that dominant Discourse >> does not merely repress but produce. >> >> In rereading your discussion of ideology I think it points toward the >> positive element of power as when you state, >> >> "we are discussing it in an ideological context of "academic meanings," >> meaning that ideology is "out there" but not "in here" where we are >> practicing and reproducing the very structures that >> are relied upon for maintaining the kinds of shared dominance that makes >> ideology ideological in the first place - a paradox of activity, indeed." >> >> Nate >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nate Schmolze >> http://www.geocities.com/nate_schmolze/ >> schmolze@students.wisc.edu >> >> >> > **************************************************************************** >> **************** >> "Overcoming the naturalistic concept of mental development calls for a >> radically new approach >> to the interrelation between child and society. We have been led to this >> conclusion by a >> special investigation of the historical emergence of role-playing. In >> contrast to the view >> that role playing is an eternal extra-historical phenomenon, we > hypothesized >> that role playing emerged at a specific stage of social development, as > the >> child's position in society changed >> in the course of history. role-playing is an activity that is social in >> origin and, >> consequently, social in content." >> >> D. B. El'konin >> > **************************************************************************** >> **************** >> >> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:18 PDT