Foucault suggests to engage in Parresia a type of courageous talk, which forms part of techniques of self-discipline offered by the Stoics and Romans as a way to resist the order of things and live a more rewarding life, independent of institutional coercion. I just wanted to reach out to everyone with similar interests and see if we can spark a small discussion. — Giorgi
My point is that "speaking out" or "having an impact" may be a serious political trap unless we qualify these statements. I think the U.S. in particular has an ingenious political field which can create a powerful illusion of change and radical reform, while remaining perfectly within the confines of the status quo. — Giorgi
Foucault's discourse is being appropriated and re-deployed by both governments and corporations. I see research being done in management and corporate governance, even cybersecurity where Foucaultian analysis is used to extend technologies of subjugation instead of resisting them. — Giorgi
I have often heard that criticism myself. Very common in these debates. I'm sure you know Foucault's answer, but it's good to re-iterate. Precisely because power is everywhere, there are infinite forms of resistance and ways to obtain freedom. And I might be wrong on this, but re-reading Foucault is very important. Because as Foucault notes, re-reading discursive texts (he was speaking of Marx, Freud and Nietzsche) means re-writing them. Re-reading Freud means inventing a new psychoanalysis, re-reading Marx a new critique of political economy etc. So I think we should re-read Foucault but not like Academics (i.e. elite bureaucrats), but in a way that re-creates the entire discourse. So in this sense, the answer could be closer and more obvious than it seems.if power-knowledge is omnipresent and ubiquitous, there is no place
and discourse for resistance
But I think no less than cultural trappings we should address explicit institutional trappings (perhaps this still falls within your definition of culture) — Giorgi
I think the U.S. in particular has an ingenious political field which can create a powerful illusion of change and radical reform, while remaining perfectly within the confines of the status quo. — Giorgi
My point is that "speaking out" or "having an impact" may be a serious political trap unless we qualify these statements. I think the U.S. in particular has an ingenious political field which can create a powerful illusion of change and radical reform, while remaining perfectly within the confines of the status quo. This is another important point for Foucault, the productive element of power. — Giorgi
Precisely my thinking about #MeToo (and #TimesUp), which was largely a Hollywood thing. Surface changes made, but nothing structural. The victims remained victims, nothing much changed. — Kenosha Kid
I agree that under certain circumstances reading and re-reading Foucault's texts can become an act of resistance.re-reading Foucault is very important. — Giorgi
Foucault's insistencePrecisely because power is everywhere, there are infinite forms of resistance and ways to obtain freedom. — Giorgi
phenomenology posits a theory of the subject and that offers an epistemic framework for grounding morality later on. I even demonstrate how a phenomenological attitude can lead directly to liberalism. That was Foucault's problem, in France, phenomenology was institutionalized and become another (though quite profound) technique of discipline and governance. — Giorgi
Foucault's claim would be that the experience of the body can be (is, in fact) as much a product of institutional training as any other. I think overall, phenomenology cannot escape essentialisms and that's Foucault's main bone of contention. Would you disagree? And why this privileging of Merleau-Ponty over Sartre? T — Giorgi
It looks like you try to avoid the discussion of the problem of resistance by redefining it as a way of appropriationI think the objection from the omnipresence of power can only be used as an effective argument against Foucault, if we forget that for Foucault, power is not identical to domination. Power in itself is not something we want to avoid or neutralize, but something we want to appropriate and "condense" so to speak. — Giorgi
We can only address the body in a perspectival manner through an institutional lens. — Giorgi
Power does NOT require a foundation. It operates effectively without a ground or an essence. — Giorgi
Resorting to time (or space) as originary pre-given forms or conditions of experience is just another Kantian move, and I think we've had enough of that in western philosophy — Giorgi
It has no ontology (following the Heideggerian project of the destruction of ontology and western metaphysics), — Giorgi
I do not see why we cannot reconcile Derrida with Foucault — Giorgi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.