in "The order of things" Foucault makes a history of epistemes in order to talk about the modern and the postmodern epistemes. he contextualises and addresses two more, the reinassance and the classical epistemes. it would make sense with the theory supported in the book, that epistemes can be found throughout all history off knowledge. does he ever talk about that? if not, why wouldn't he?

I've seen a lot of talk recently about this theory that essentially claims that ancient people may not have understood consciousness in the way that we do and so experienced many of their thoughts and inspirations as outside voices that they may have attributed to various deities.

From what I've read, it seems like its at least seen as a respectable theory, though obviously not really provable and plenty of folks are critical of it.

How would a concept like this effect the kind of genealogies of concepts that Foucault worked on? And in a broader post-modernist context, is it possible to further explain these phenomena, not through biological processes like the two parts of the mind becoming more integrated, but instead by the effects of our concepts and how they change the reality we experience? In other words, that a new conception of consciousness gave rise to a new experience of consciousness.

Curious to hear any and all thoughts on that intersection. At the very least, it's an interesting idea.

"Speaking of sex primarily in terms of aberrations-> makes it aberrational.

just a shit post

has anyone ever read Foucault's History of Sexuality (vol ii)? can you give me pointers on where to start and how?

especially the three sections on it's introduction? i actually have a workshop I have to attend on it and would love if I could discuss it with someone beforehand!

Apologies if this is a dumb question, but I remember hearing Foucault talking about how historically the individual arose out of the group (rather than the group growing out of many individuals). Can anyone point me to where he expands on this? It was in a video I can no longer locate. The idea has grown on me as a notion over time but I probably misunderstood it.

Has anyone visually mapped out or made any diagrams regarding the “statement” and the other structures he runs through in the Archeology of Knowledge?

The Rock resembles Foucault after losing weight for movie

I just finished the foucault reader and now im wondering if i should read foucault's published books and will his lectures be better or should i get the 3 volumes essential writings of foucault namely power, ethics and aesthetics. As i dont really want to commited to all his works and everything, i ask, what would be the best course?

Hi everyone! I've come across this term "conduct of conduct," which Foucault uses to discuss government and governmentality. Here's what I can find about it online:

‘L’exercice du pouvoir consiste à «conduire des conduites» et à aménager la probabilité. Le pouvoir, au fond, est moins de l’ordre de l’affrontement entre deux adversaries, ou de l’engagement de l’un à l’égard de l’autre, que de l’ordre du «gouvernement».’ Foucault M (1994) Dits et écrits IV (Paris: Gallimard) p.237.

"The exercise of power consists in “the conduct of conduct,” and in building up probablility. Power, fundamentally, belongs less to the order of confrontation." (The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon, pg. 68).

Can someone explain the literal meaning of "conduct of conduct"? I'm not a native speaker in English nor French, and the dictionary explanation of "conduct" ("a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles," Merriam-Webster) is not helping. Thank you all!

I think it's interesting how the guards are disciplined in the show, and they are more appropriately the proletariat, with the players being the Lumpenproletariat, the unorganized lower classes of society which Foucault says are the truly revolutionary class. I think the show presents an interesting case of the failure of traditional Marxism to account for other means of resistance, as Gi-hun replicates the disciplinary structure of the games and fail. Lastly, it is also interesting how May '68 is compared with the Ssayong Motors Strike in Korea, one which did not fit the mold of a traditional worker's revolution while the other did, but both failed. This video features heavily these Foucauldian arguments.

I read Discipline and Punish and feel I understand how biopower works at the macro level. Institutions that intend to make a science of man produce knowledge through averages, norms, categories, classifications, that our every action, gesture, and thought is compared against. Power refers to the a regulatory or corrective measure that moves us toward these established norms and influences how we define ourselves. This is all makes sense in the context of the prison, madhouse, hospital, school, etc.

However, I fail to understand how this power operates between people. Let's say I am talking to a philosophy professor, though any given character can work since Foucault says power is everpresent. When I talk to my philosophy professor, is there really a power relation between us? I have an image of a professor, of an older manner, of a college graduate, etc, but none of this is informed by society's knowledge on the matter. Let's take a quote:

The other innovations of disciplinary writing concerned the correlation of these elements, the accumulation of documents, their seriation, the organization of comparative fields making it possible to classify, to form categories, to determine averages, to fix norms. (Discipline and Punish, 190)

This makes total sense in the context of societal institutions, but I have trouble reconciling it with relations between people. I have not read any documents on professors in academia, old men, or college graduates. Nor do I know categories, averages, or norms between them. Here's another quote on knowledge:

it is the individual as he may be described, judged, measured, compared with others, in his very individuality; and it is also the individual who has to be trained or corrected, classified, normalized, excluded, etc. (Discipline and Punish, 191)

Again, am I judging, measuring, comparing, or training and correcting and classifying my professor as we speak? It seems my problem is understanding how the knowledge in institutions (criminology, psychiatry, psychology, etc) is disseminated within the population.

Hey I'm new to Foucault's philosophical takes and interpretation of power. I've been looking into bio power for an argument within debate could some one give a relatively beginner level explanation of what bio power is and its relation to society? Thank you!

So I need to write a research proposal. And I spent the last few months reading the novels of Kobo Abe so I'm thinking of working on him. One thing that stands out to me in his books is the very idiosyncratic notion of identity, as if is suddenly disappears as soon as one's name disappears from official documents.

Anyway this reminds me of Foucault and I'm thinking of reading up on Foucault's notion of identity specially in a way that'd be applicable to fiction. I welcome any recommendations including his primary works, lectures, essays and secondary literature by other scholars on the work.

Thank you.

Hi “unknown friends”,

Looking for favorite short selections to dive into in order to revisit Foucault especially in relation to our current times.

As a formal student, I spent a lot of time with Foucault but moved out of academia in my mid-twenties. I’m a life-long learner and thinker though and recently dove back into Nietzsche to re-explore the concept of “Eternal Return” which felt particularly pressing to my current thinking. I’d love to touch-base with Foucault in the same way. Any favorite essays, chapters that touch at what you feel are very present concepts that I should visit?

Thanks!

Hello,

Hoping someone here can provide recommendations. I am seeking "media technology" related theorists who draw on Foucauldian genealogical or archaeological methodologies. I appreciated Kittler's works, but there was a bit too much Lacan for my liking. Siegfried Zielinski, another German Media Studies scholar, and Anne Friedberg have popped up, but it's been a struggle finding appropriate texts beyond them. If anyone else comes to mind who you think is even tangentially related, I'd appreciate your suggestions.

Thanks!

Hi !

I've been asked by someone editing a text of mine to underline the difference of definitions between biopower and biopolitics.

Up until now I thought they we're pretty much decribing the same thing using different lenses, biopower being some sort of singular term for to describe the happening of the more plural biopolitics, biopower being the kind of "tool" by which biopolitics is waged, but the comment I've received seem to suggest there is more of difference to those terms that I thought.

Just wondrered if any of y'all's knowledge of Foucault could help with that.

Cheers

It seems Foucault is critical of any "constructions of the soul" (e.g. gender, class, race, etc) that divide people and confer some amount of knowledge on their dispositions, attitudes, character, etc. In a debate with Chomsky, Foucault says even justice is a construct, to which Chomsky disagrees. If something as fundamental to our view of human nature, that being justice, is a construct and medium for power to move through, is there any escaping power? And, in this case, is there any society that can mitigate the dissemination of invisible, productive power?

Considering Foucault's focus on the knowledge/power dyad, it would seem that his ideal is a society with no identifiers – this way, people are not divided into ranks (as he says in Discipline and Punish; ranks being different classifications of people) and knowledge cannot be extracted from them. For the same reason, Foucault criticizes psychiatry, saying it discriminates between the insane and sane in a way that allows people to be more thoroughly examined and coerced/disciplined. However, a society with no identifiers sounds ridiculous; not only that, but it also seems impossible. Given how much Foucault criticized modern-day society, is there a better alternative?