Reply With Quote
I'm more than slightly alive to "critiques" of progress and the theraputic/managerial state, which Foucault does have some insight into, but he rubbishes it with jargon and bad style. You probably love him for that, though . . .
lol, yah.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lVJ...opower&f=false
starts at the bottom of 253 with "we are then ..."
I'm more than slightly alive to "critiques" of progress and the theraputic/managerial state, which Foucault does have some insight into, but he rubbishes it with jargon and bad style. You probably love him for that, though . . .
To me, he's the least worst of the post-structuralists. I think he's writing/style is ok, actually. But to each his own I suppose.
hardly elucidating, but thanks for the cite.
is there particular language you'd draw my attention to?
king of the anthill!
In terms of a snippet, no sorry.
What I had in mind was his discussion of biopower, racism, and the modern state from 253-56.
Also, the bit on how the modern state functions under a paradigm similar to Nazism on 263.
any thoughts of your own on that passage, or are you more or less content to parrot?
reductio ad Hitlerum. how original.Also, the bit on how the modern state functions under a paradigm similar to Nazism on 263.
No not really. If I did, I'd probably have gone to grad school.
squak squak
lame. you don't need a sheepskin to think for yourself, but then again, maybe diplomas are generally taken as protection against thinking: ceiling, not floor.
I find the bit about how Nazism shows racism is necessary to the function of the modern state original. Are there thinkers who came up with this notion before Foucault? I always thought he was the first to lay it out in these terms.
I don't think he's saying neo-liberal governance is fascism. I think he's saying the processes at play under a neo-liberal paradigm find their most absolute expression in Nazism.
but that might be the same thing, I dunno.
universalizing from the particular to construct an overarching theory? that's hardly original. for all I know the theory itself might be, but I tend to doubt it.
at any rate, it hardly hurts that Foucault's post-structuralist (i.e, post-Marxist) theory dovetails with the iden y politics so much in vogue these days.
squawk! squawk!
Racism is necessary to the function of the modern nation-state. Are all modern states nation-states? Are there other organizing principles available? Are there other means of oppression and exclusion available besides racism? Isn't any country with a dominant culture and subcultures falling outside that dominant subculture racist at least to some degree?
If a country is organized based upon principle x, can those who disavow principle xx be included? Or else can a country be organized without asserting any principles?
Think of a Texan accent. Is it just one accent you think of? Are any of the accents you just thought of Hispanic-sounding? If not, aren't you a racist?
Racism as understood as a cut or division of the body politic into separate groups is not unique to the nation-state. While all modern states aren't nation states (if one wants to believe diasporic communities are states, or trans-national organizations like Al-Qaeda are states), racism, as a founding disavowal of everything other, is not unique to the nation-state.
I don't think that racism is the only form of oppression/exclusion and you're right that non-conforming sub-cultures are subject to a form of racism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions