Questions related to Foucault
How important would you consider reading Foucault for critical thinking development, or any other author you consider relevant.
Can anyone help with some points of confusion around the fine line that is post-structuralism and social constructionism? I am trying to settle on a theoretical position relating to constructionist epistemological perspectives of voice hearer experiences without going off on a subjectivist ontological tangent. According to MIcheal Crotty subjectivism and constructionism are distinct in thier ontological explanations of reality but does this neccessarily have to lead to distinct methodological approaches? I am interest in exploring the social discourses surrounding lived experiences of mental illness so it seems logical to settle on discursive psychology or critical discourse as it considers the social context of such experiences. According to the mentioned author however, I could be confusing my ontologies ? Am I overthinking this?
Thoughts greatly appreciated!
Horkheimer and Adorno and Foucault see progress as a kind of trap in which we ensnare ourselves. Can this have any relation to the modern contradiction/condition? And if so, what have the postmodernists said about it?
I want to see how women’s performance of gender is shaped by neoliberalism, postfeminism and technology -- how dominant neoliberal and postfeminist discourses have informed doing femininity in online sexual economies (like Bumble and Tinder)
I am interested in Gill and Scharff (2011) characterization of the resonance between neoliberalism and postfeminism, and the extension of Foucault's idea of governmentally to understand how the pervasiveness of neoliberal ideas has potentially impacted gender logic for women
I am trying to find a way to operationalize this intersection with dating apps and was thinking of utilizing a scale for female users of dating apps that assess on neoliberal ideas?
Would appreciate any leads or feedback! Thanks so much!
I am wondering whether there is any ontological and epistemological conflict of using Weber's 'social stratification' and Foucault's 'discipline and punish' to explore domination and control of wage labor. Can I use it in a study? Thank you.
It strikes me as if discourse analysis is concerned with all that is taking place or is implicated in discourse; that is, all that ‘lies hidden’, as Michel Foucault would say, in the depths and in fact all levels of discourse, to enable it ‘to emerge and become clearly visible’. In this case, discourse analysis is to proceed in two stages: exploration, for example by means of philology, and secondly by description. But quite other tools and procedures than these are probably called for in approaches to discourse where the guiding principle is to point out the item of communication, whether intended or not, which is received consciously or subliminally, showing how the transmission and reception are achieved. Which of these two approaches describes adequately the task of discourse analysis; or should we rather be searching for a practice that combines the explanation of all that is going on in discourse with focus on information content that is passed across or garnered?
Hi precious researchers,
I Am working on Michel Foucault's subjectivity idea and I am working also him late era works.
I want to contact with ones who works on same project with mine for sharing data.
Can you reach me for that?
1. From where does the ideal speaking subject speak? Where is the locus of ideal speaking subject? What is about the history (childhood configuration, neurotic elements) of such ideal speaking subject? Does the outside influence information of inside (a physical organ, LAD)? What happens to transcendental Cogito (as postulated in Cartesian Linguistics) or the competence of creating infinite sets of sentences, when it is subjected to the outside sociality (threat, violence etc.)? (Here I am inkling towards Psychoanalysis-to the construct of "psyche" rather than that of cogito as I am emphasizing on the society-psyche interface).
2. Chomsky, out of his Cartesian anxiety, considers body as a machine. He deploys technical metaphors ((e.g., The terms like "Computation", 'array" "interface", "parser" etc., or operations like "COMMAND", "SATISFY", "SPELL OUT") for explaining human body. These are not metaphors or case of displacement only, but a case of metonymic transformation of human body as these technical metaphors condense the scope of human (linguistic) potentiality. Does human body follow algorithm only at the moment of speaking? Do we not have extra-/non-algorithmic cognitive ability? (My point is that Cognitive Domain is not algorithmic only.)
3. Chomskian syntax analyzes the algorithm of "normal" "well-formed" sentences only. Apart from the exclusion of institution-body corre(a)lation in the Chomskian hypothesis, this very construction of "natural language" (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences) mercilessly marginalizes the language of so-called non-"natural" madness or folly. How do we know the differences between normal way of speaking and abnormal way of speaking? This question was initiated by Foucault (1968) to beg the premise of Cartesian cogito. Chomsky, who is like an old-fashioned physicist, is interested only in VIBGYOR. However, in the domain of Art (where infinite sets of colors are illuminating) and literature, there is a proliferation of "deviations" from so-called "normal standard" (as constructed by the Ideological State Apparatuses) and without such "deviations" no work of art or literature or any paradigm shift is possible. Is this domain of Art and Literature, a domain of unreason or madness or is it un-"scientific"?
Technical Report CHOMSKIAN LINGUISTIC CREATIVITY, CRIPPLED CREATIVITY AND PSI...
Technical Report CAN COMPUTER SPEAK? LANGUAGE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Je suis français et je m'intéresse depuis très longtemps à Canguilhem et Foucault, entre autres (Merleau-Ponty particulièrement). Cela est lié à ma formation philosophique et psychologique, mais aussi (et peut-être surtout) à des raison d'histoire familiale, histoire intellectuelle et privée. Or, je constate que des chercheurs non français s'intéressent presque davantage à ces auteurs que des chercheurs français... Pourquoi?
Merci de votre réponse.
Clément Rizet, PhD.
Recently, my director wishes me to hand a piece of work of explaining the text of Michel Foucault, which I have no idea of how to accomplish it, given my poor academic training. Any suggestions about how to pick a text, how to explain it in a right way and anything to avoid ?
Thanks in advance.
Telling the truth is not a dictate from one person to another, but a relation based on trust from both sides where both sides are willing to tell the truth. Rules have to be made in such a truth-telling context to guarantee the function of the conversation and solve the problems when necessary.that's when Gibbard comes to help. One of the advantages of using norm-expressivism is that the rules are already made and correspond perfectly to the truth-telling situation we are facing here.
In his Río conferences in 1973 (La vérité et les formes juridiques), Michel Foucault chastises, without mentioning any specific author, a so-called "academic Marxism" according to which the appeal to sociohistorical explanations of discourse would only be possible in the case of "ideology", understood as "error", but not for truth itself; "external history" would not possibly account for true statements, only for "distorted" ones. But, does any actual Marxist fit that description? I thought of Althusser as a plausible candidate, but I haven't found in his writings any commitment to the idea that "external" social relations only bring about false, distorted statements.
It seems the Foucault Pendulum experiment hasn't been changed much after it was firstly introduced in 1851 as a simple proof of Earth's self-rotation.
So, I was pondering whether modern science could do something to perfect this beautiful experiment. As many Museum has electromagnetic incorporated to keep the bob swinging, I'm considering why not just let the bob statically float above that magnetic base instead of swinging around? Magnetic Levitation is a way to realize it.
The idea is pretty simple: The bob floating above the magnetic base rotating with Earth could have a relative movement with the Earth, also proving the self-rotation of Earth.
Many videos about this experiment could be found on youtube, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4lW7xydnH8
But I also have a concern: Would the rotating magnetic field (produced from levitation base) affect the suspended object above it if that magnetic field is inhomogeneous, which could produce force by cutting through the inhomogeneous magnetic force lines?
Foucault points out that, even though there are many discussions on the idea of "Author", none of the current theories try to understand how the concept of "opus"/ "literary work" operates in different literary systems. I'm trying to find authors that deal with this concept in a theoretical level. Could you recommend me some?
Especially if it (even remotely) relates to the notion of expertise? To contextualize, the text is supposed to feed into a debate on the proliferation of the so-called experts in international organizations. Thank you so much for any clues!
My research is a qualitative research where I want to modify Karl Mannheim's theory of Sociology of Knowledge with similar theories such as Peter Berger' and Michel Foucault's theory mainly about knowledge.
Seeing if research has been conducted where Foucault's use of Bentham's Panopticon as a visual tool of control, has been considered by other senses.
first of all I'm trying to figure out if dispositive analysis is a useful perspective for geographical research. Furthermore I think about doing further research on creative cities using this perspective. Why are there just a few geographers using the dispositive, introduced by Michel Foucault, although it allows for adressing material and immaterial aspects of ("creative") urbanism for instance? Are there disciplinary, theoretical reasons, path dependencies in geographical thinking with Foucault? I'm looking forward to your critical input!
The Invention of Africa, and the Idea of Africa are books by Mudimbe, an African scholar that is becoming popular. On learning that his work takes the postmodern perspective of Michel Foucault, a great French scholar, I have felt the need to ask if a work inform by such perspective can provide the much needed insights to resolve Africa's crisis conditions in the realm of political, social and economic development.
I am reviewing the concept transdisciplinarity by doing an intellectual history. I am only familiar with Foucault's work - a history of the present. Are there any other contemporary methodologies worth exploring?
Foucault's thoughts on subjectivities refer mainly to consumer governmentality. Does anyone know any scholars working more broadly on subjectivation/subjectification or objectification practices?
Foucault defined heterotopia as "places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted" (1986, 3). I am working about the theatrical space as an heterotopia in which narratives of identity (and contestation of identity) can be performed and I would like to now the connections with the notion of 'margins' as I understand that an heterotopia is also a 'place for Otherness' (Hetherington 1997)
In his earlier works Foucault described two disciplinary technologies of the body that associated power and knowledge (within institutions such as the school, prison and hospital). The ‘gaze’ produced power by observing subjects, while the ‘archive’ created a repository of these observations, organised in terms of constructed categories (for instance, of diseases, bodies, genders, crimes etc) that allowed power to be exercised strategically and differentially. These together also provide the foundation of modernist research and science.
His later works turned to technologies of the self, and is replete with examples such as the confessional or codes of sexual behaviour, along with the broader process of ‘responsibilism’ (making subjects responsible for their actions) that is a feature of (neo) liberal society.
The secondary Foucauldian literature on disciplinary body technologies seems simply to offer further examples of the gaze and/or archive. My question is, are there other (as yet) unidentified technologies of bodies (as opposed to the self)?
Are there any Foucault scholars out there? I'm hoping someone can explain what the word "discible" means. Foucault uses this word in the following sentence: "The Visible was neither Dicible nor Discible"(Birth of the Clinic, p. 60). The original French reads: "Le Visible n'etait pas Dicible, ni Discible". Dicible seems to mean "speakable" or perhaps "able to be put into words". There is a nuance here I suspect, but can anyone help with the translation of "discible"?
I'm currently researching technological automation in British agriculture and I am failing to see why the theories of "mechanisms of power" or an "iron cage" don't correlate with the high amounts of techno-optimism expressed by farmers? Is it false consciousness or false sociology?
Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault appealed to Kant's latest writings in order to ground their idea of modernity as an attitude as well as the human possibility of thinking without universal patterns that ordered judgments about human events. The Aufklarung is meant to be at Kant's writings" What is Auflarung" and "Crirtique of Judgement" the beginning of a particular political thought which was discontinued during XiX th. and half of XX th century
To understand this notion better, I am trying to show that while there are shifts in his career, one still can find a continuity. This continuity for me is the relation between four elements Visibility, Articulation, Subject, History. In archaeological period the convergence of relations is Articulation, in Genealogical period Visible and in Ethical period Subject. I would be very grateful to hear about any ideas you have about this relation.
1st: Is here someone, who has currently access to the French edition of Foucaults "Dits et Écrits" (Tome IV, Gallimard: Paris, 1994 or Tome II from the 2001 paperback edition)
and could tell me please, what is the French title and the first and last page of the interview, which is published in German as:
++ Freiheit und Selbstsorge. Gespräch mit Michel Foucault am 20. Januar 1984, in: idem, Freiheit und Selbstsorge. Interview 1984 und Vorlesung 1982 ed. by Helmut Becker / Lothar Wolfstetter / Alfred Gomez-Muller / Raúl Fornet-Betancourt, Materialis: Frankfurt am Main, 1993: 2nd ed. [1985: 1st ed.], 7 - 28
++ idem, Schriften. Bd. 4, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, 2005, 875 - 902.
In the French edition from 1994 the pages 723 - 726 are part of that interview.
2nd: I would appreciate, if the admins would a allow to all members of the group to start new topics within the discussion board.
« Ce sont tous ces phénomènes de rapport entre les sciences ou entre les différents discours dans les divers secteurs scientifiques qui constituent ce que j’appelle épistémè d’une époque »
Am I the only one to be forcibly reminded of Kuhn? Were Kuhn and Foucault seperated at birth? WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!!
His general account seems acceptable to that general position both Haris and I would accept. Nonetheless, Foucault betrays a very nineteenth century vision of Science (even more than Kuhn, who seems blocked in the early 20th century).
To my eyes, Foucault's error is his "engagement", which is made manifest in his thinking in a most unlovely tendency towards prescription rather than description... "améliorisme", as we say in France (or as we SHOULD say).
So, my first comment - is social engagement a reprehensible trait in a philosopher?