Because I'm a fool and a sadist [as galvagin pointed out, that should say *masochist.* but i think i'll leave it sadist, just to deflate my own ego by reminding me that i have a terrible vocabulary], I've joined a Foucault reading group. I mean, seriously, maybe some day I'll learn to say "no" to more commitments?
Despite my apparent lack of sense, I *am* enjoying getting to read something besides my maximum likelihood textbook and my geography textbooks (I'd forgotten just how much textbooks really do suck).
Right now, we're reading Madness and Civilization. Our plan is to do the major works (Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality Vol. I-III, The Order of Things, The Birth of the Clinic, and The Archeology of Knowledge). If we have time, we'll turn to some of the essays and collected works (like Power/Knowledge or some of his own translations). Mostly we're doing it because my colleague is writing his dissertation on the U.S. prison system and felon rights, and it's pretty clear where Foucault would fit into that.
Re-reading some of this stuff is great. I have a much different take on Foucault. I don't think Foucault disparage reason or the Enlightenment. Clearly, we can point to plenty of things we've gotten from them. Democracy and airplanes ain't all bad after all. What is insightful is that Foucault ("a pretty smart guy" - my own words) underscores so well what Nietzsche first points out: reason is *not* the only kind of knowing. Further, "reason" comes at the cost of other kinds of knowledge (and on the backs of those who fall outside the paradigm - a la "the insane").
Of course, it goes further than that. Ultimately, reason - as an *eptistemological* choice - has certain *material* consequences. Notably, this is the obsession with discipline, efficiency, and control of the body/mind. I don't know that these are inherently *bad* things for Foucault - we could see some degree of social order as good (much like Marx was in favor of industrialization). Rather, the problem is our *blindness* to the pitfalls and limitations of reason. This is what Foucault really tells us I think. Not that reason is inherently, absolutely vile. Just that it's not *perfection.*
Since I'm not brilliant, I'm not sure what the reconcilliation is. How do you get Foucault and Kant to work together? Or, to mix the metaphor some more: Habermas and NIetzsche? This was the work that Foucault was turning to just before he died ... and it's the work that no one has picked up, seemingly preferring the irreverant deconstruction to the hard work of reconciling the need for stability and the desire for progress with the sinking realization of the fragility and limitations of human endeavor. Jerks.
Despite my apparent lack of sense, I *am* enjoying getting to read something besides my maximum likelihood textbook and my geography textbooks (I'd forgotten just how much textbooks really do suck).
Right now, we're reading Madness and Civilization. Our plan is to do the major works (Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality Vol. I-III, The Order of Things, The Birth of the Clinic, and The Archeology of Knowledge). If we have time, we'll turn to some of the essays and collected works (like Power/Knowledge or some of his own translations). Mostly we're doing it because my colleague is writing his dissertation on the U.S. prison system and felon rights, and it's pretty clear where Foucault would fit into that.
Re-reading some of this stuff is great. I have a much different take on Foucault. I don't think Foucault disparage reason or the Enlightenment. Clearly, we can point to plenty of things we've gotten from them. Democracy and airplanes ain't all bad after all. What is insightful is that Foucault ("a pretty smart guy" - my own words) underscores so well what Nietzsche first points out: reason is *not* the only kind of knowing. Further, "reason" comes at the cost of other kinds of knowledge (and on the backs of those who fall outside the paradigm - a la "the insane").
Of course, it goes further than that. Ultimately, reason - as an *eptistemological* choice - has certain *material* consequences. Notably, this is the obsession with discipline, efficiency, and control of the body/mind. I don't know that these are inherently *bad* things for Foucault - we could see some degree of social order as good (much like Marx was in favor of industrialization). Rather, the problem is our *blindness* to the pitfalls and limitations of reason. This is what Foucault really tells us I think. Not that reason is inherently, absolutely vile. Just that it's not *perfection.*
Since I'm not brilliant, I'm not sure what the reconcilliation is. How do you get Foucault and Kant to work together? Or, to mix the metaphor some more: Habermas and NIetzsche? This was the work that Foucault was turning to just before he died ... and it's the work that no one has picked up, seemingly preferring the irreverant deconstruction to the hard work of reconciling the need for stability and the desire for progress with the sinking realization of the fragility and limitations of human endeavor. Jerks.
VIEW 7 of 7 COMMENTS
After that brief line above about everything being dangerous, Foucault talks about critique as "always [giving] us something to do." And, well, I think we have to accept that at some point, while Foucault had an affinity towards the Frankfurt School, he really isn't a Marcuse (thinking of Eros and Civilization in particular here).
But, you really, really, really need to look at Foucault's very brief statement on human rights from 1984. In fact, I'm scanning it to .pdf for you today at work.
You guys really have to add Rabinow's The Foucault Reader and The Essential Foucault to your list. I was nowhere near understanding Foucault (if I am now) before I came across these books. And I think in here a lot of your concerns are addressed. Great short essays and interviews abound.
Join us for the Nov. 4th Meet'n Greet, DOOD!!!