+
From: David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:05:24 +1030
Perhaps the closest thing in Marxism to what Foucault suggests here
with "experience" is Althusser's formulation (if I remember
correctly, in the essay "Marxism and Humanism" reprinted in _For
Marx_) that "ideology" constitutes a "lived relation" to our real
conditions of existence, and, as such, constitutes the "subject" *as
such*. It is much closer to that formulation that it is to the
empiricist epistemological notion of "experience" as constitutive of
the relation *between* "real objects" and "subjects of knowledge".
I'm not sure what relation it might have to the concept of
"theoretical mode of production" that Althusser developed; in any
case that entailed a movement from the abstract to the concrete,
rather than a determination of knowledge by experience in any
empiricist or spiritualist sense.
I have not read every post in this thread closely, but I help this
helps somewhat
On 06/11/2008, at 8:52 AM, Kevin Turner wrote:
Experience, for Foucault, is not a transhistorical phenomena, it is
a grid of historical intelligibility, an analytical tool for posing
questions to and thinking about certain historical processes. It
thus has no equivalence to the notion of production in Marx or for
Marxists.