+
From: Quetzil Castaneda <Quetzil@xxxxxx>
+
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:03:03 -0500 (CDT)
At 08:47 PM 4/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
malcolm and van leunnen, i do not want to intervene between all your
smooching -- i aint such a touchy feelly kinda guy:) -- but, can i add from
just outside the embraces;) i think that as you indicate (and i agree) that
foucault is talking about the "human condition" in a very particular way and
history and indeed then it is okay to say (i argue) this phrase here (in
relation to foucault) so long as it is understood that he WAS NOT talking
about all the world but the "euroindividual" and "humanity"-- he is
primarily critiquing the eurocentric construction of human/modernity and so
on (enlightenment and blah blah blah). thus instead of avoiding the term as
you have suggested malcolm perhaps we need to put it in quotes both
literally and discursively.
I have a question regarding the distinction between power in a good and bad
sense. I don't buy it generally nor in that it is present "in" foucault.
I dont believe that there is such a separation in foucault's texts of power
in the microphysical/disciplinary and in the sense of domination (bad
power). i sense the return use of domination and the typing of kinds of
power, authorities, force, domination as weberian, not foucaultian. [I am
anxious to hear me get corrected on that assertion.] but beyond that issue
of what the "real" M.F. said or not, can we ascribe a value to a certain
kind of power?
q./