[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freenet-philosophy
Subject:    [Freenet-philosophy] Re: [Freenet-chat] Control and Policy/the 'solution' of
From:       Jonathan Broad <jonathan.broad () doit ! wisc ! edu>
Date:       2000-07-28 17:19:20
[Download RAW message or body]

Warning: lots of philosophy follows.  To colbyd: I'm afraid I might come
off as too critical of your post.  I want you to know upfront that I
appreciate the comment, that you obviously struck fairly close to a nerve,
and that I hope you want to continue this thread in the spirit of
democratic conversation you exhibit.

And now for something completely different:

At 10:02 AM 07/28/2000 , you wrote:
>I've followed this intellectually intractable thread with some interest.
>I'd only add that for those who cultivate an interest in the myriad
>approaches to political anarchism should read Marx's polemic against
>Proudhon: The Poverty of Philosophy.

I'll admit I haven't read it.  But I've debated enough Marxists who've
referenced it that I feel comfortable with Marx's position on anarchism.  I
don't think it's terribly relevant to most modern anarchisms (of any
sophistication) though.  Proudhon and Stirner are of only historical
interest for anarchisms (I'd like to emphasize the plural) today.

>
>Also, the work of Foucault is relevant to the debate. Systems of power

Foucault is relevant, as is Bataille, Derrida, Levinas (my fav), Heidegger,
Althusser, Benjamin (second fav, sometimes fav), and Baudrillard, to name
only the best known (ha) and twentieth century figures.  It's hard to
introduce these people into this kind of debate, however, because their
language is embedded in a three-century old conversation about the nature
of life, the universe, and language.  I'll unpack some of your comments
(which I take very seriously, by the way) for those of use who a) believe
anything worth saying is worth saying in words of anglo-saxon derivation b)
haven't spent the better part of a decade studying 'Continental' philosophy.

>Also, the work of Foucault is relevant to the debate. Systems of power

>(maintained and extended by 'discursive practices') are outcomes of

Discursive practices: the implicit rules by which institutional actions and
language are formed.  Example: the SATs in America.  They're required to
enter college.  Any assumptions or implicit knowlege required to excel at
the test therefore serves to filter those who have access to higher
eduction.  It's a handy reformulation of the concept of hegemony
(introduced by the Italian Marxist Gramsci) that is used to explain how
power structures maintain their control without explicit violence and
domination.

>Also, the work of Foucault is relevant to the debate. Systems of power
>(maintained and extended by 'discursive practices') are outcomes of

>historical methods of appropriating factors of production ('social

No one is born in a vacuum.  We emerge into the world constrained by our
social situation.  This situation is very multifaceted, but not unlimited.
The forces that act on our situation are not only passive circumstance but
are also active methods of control, discipline, and production.  In other
words, your background affects who you are, and not everyone is going to
grow up to be President :)

>Also, the work of Foucault is relevant to the debate. Systems of power
>(maintained and extended by 'discursive practices') are outcomes of
>historical methods of appropriating factors of production ('social

>relations'). What we are as 'subjects' depends on how we (as objects) are
>ordered and included within a discourse (discourses of law, medicine,
>nationality, ethnicity, political economy, etc.) in history. That is, who

Now it get's tricker (meaning: I don't agree with this, at least not
uncritically).  On the one hand, this last sentence is simply a restatement
of the part about 'outcomes of historical methods', extended a bit to
demonstrate the variety of discursive practices that affect ('effect?' :-/
) us.  As I said, these forces are multiple.  

Now the technical rebut: In the guise of criticizing the subject/object
split that many of these discourses encourage (usually in the guise of
binary oppositions like 'insider/outsider' where one is clearly intended to
simulate the subject) this really repeats it.  Quoting a word ironically is
not enough to insulate you from the effects of your discursive formations.
Basically, you are assuming that all discourse, post-Foucault, hasn't read
Foucault and isn't aware of these aporias.  I have, I am, and I think the
categories of subject/object are only useful analyzing discursive
formations that haven't been affected by Foucault (meaning: be careful who
you point that thing at!).
By assuming that subject/object isn't itself a historically contingent
discursive formation, you reify it.  IMHO. 

>Also, the work of Foucault is relevant to the debate. Systems of power
>(maintained and extended by 'discursive practices') are outcomes of
>historical methods of appropriating factors of production ('social
>relations'). What we are as 'subjects' depends on how we (as objects) are
>ordered and included within a discourse (discourses of law, medicine,
>nationality, ethnicity, political economy, etc.) in history. That is, who

>you 'are' utterly depends on how you are included or excluded from
>discursive formations and the content of one's subjectivity is historically

Translation: Since you are kind of thrown into your circumstances, and some
of these circumstances are rules of behavior/speech that you have no
control of, then if a 'discursive formations' designates you as an 'object'
(and we all are from one point of view or another) then there's not a damn
thing you can do about it.  What is more, every possible resistance you
might throw up to your inheritance is itself the result of your inheritance.

Rebuttal:  This is the sort of thing most people can tell is a little
suspect.  To say 'utterly' is to put you (the powerful philosopher) in
control of the discussion by assuming that 'I' aren't aware of the
problematics of my upbringing (either in an explicitly Foucauldian mode or
not).  But I am, and many other people are (even those without PhD's in
Comp Lit! : -0) in part because our culture has been sucking up the
post-structuralists like crazy for thirty years.  I'm not talking about
academics either.  I'm talking about the number of people on Madison avenue
who have done post-doc work in semiotics.  And anyone with a finer
understanding of the notion of recursion can understand that while in the
broad strokes I am indeed completely constrained by the basic facts of my
materiality and social position, these contraints become more and more
flexible the more critical attention is paid to them.  THIS IS THE POINT OF
FOUCAULT ANALYSIS, although it is easily lost in his...discourse. <g>

>Also, the work of Foucault is relevant to the debate. Systems of power
>(maintained and extended by 'discursive practices') are outcomes of
>historical methods of appropriating factors of production ('social
>relations'). What we are as 'subjects' depends on how we (as objects) are
>ordered and included within a discourse (discourses of law, medicine,
>nationality, ethnicity, political economy, etc.) in history. That is, who
>you 'are' utterly depends on how you are included or excluded from
>discursive formations and the content of one's subjectivity is historically

>variable. Hence, anarchy at some level assumes/demands subjective autonomy
>from structures of meaning/signifacation. This is the 'aporetic' problem of
>the philosophy of anarchism. It needs what is dialectically impossible: an
>essential subject freed from the constraints of structure.

To be honest, this doesn't follow at all from what you've said.  It is
almost Hegelian, not Foucaudian (who'd read enough Nietzsche to know
better).  What you say is absolutely true if applied to the 'anarchist' Max
Stirner (more an predecessor than a anarchist), who spoke explicitly in the
terms you mention.  He did indeed demand that there was a metaphysically
autonomous self that could do whatever the hell it wanted when it wanted.
I accept the concept of 'throwness' (replicated in all of French philosophy
in one guise or another, as in Foucault's idea of 'subjection') developed
by Heidegger as legitimate, which basically says that you are only free to
an extent, largely determined by 'social status' and attention-span.

The mistake you make in the last sentence is simple: why does structure
necessitate government/violence?  And why would Foucault spend his entire
life advocating for prisoner's rights if he didn't believe in the
adaptation/evolution of discipline?  You neglect the Nietzschean side of
the man. 

>
>The problem is: In order to assure there are no structural limitations on
>agency, don't we need a structure-that-limits-the-ascendence-of-structures?
>This is the philosophical conundrum of anarchism.

It's simple recursion.  While I am 'subjected' to discipline, discursive
formations, etc, even my subjected subjectivity can subject itself to
further formations!  Deleuze put it (much, much) better in his
uncharacteristically pithy sentence: "I may be fleeing, but throughout my
flight I am looking for a weapon."  That's it right there--a really useful
philosophy of creative resistance, all it a single easy to understand
sentence! <g>  Not sufficient, perhaps, but necessary.

It isn't paradoxical to imagine a subjectivity being 'nested' inside
various discursive formations and even (gasp) manipulating some of the
conditions of its existence without ceasing to be subjected to others (this
is obvious to everyone but philosophers, speaking as a philosopher).  I use
the language of comp sci deliberately, as a way of introducing a fresh
discourse whose concepts have (thus far) been relatively uncorrupted by
continental philosophy.  Call it parallax.  BTW Deleuze and Guattari
covered some of these so-called conundrums of structure already
(rhizomes...yummy), although their language is (literally) like Foucault on
drugs.


>But, all-in-all, I admit a fascination for Freenet because it promises
>'discursive mobility'! Unfortunately, we will require political and legal
>legitimation in order to have access to more 'discourses.' And this

Ahem.  Fuck legitimation!  Be creative, don't wait for the legislation!

>solution can only be delivered by democratic participation and a

Absolutely.  Although, strictly speaking, there are undemocratic ways of
'solving' the 'freenet problem' that all suck.

>transformation of the prevailing social relations of production. I'm
>inclined to think that globalizing, 'advanced' capitalism is the enemy to
>Freenet. Really, the 'free-market' ideologizes its success as a kind of
>anarchism (which, of course, is absurd), and we've seen where that leads:
>massive centralizatiion of network control. Above all else, don't let your
>'anarchism' be informed by the destructive myth of the Hidden Hand. In this

You use words too broadly.  Foucault teaches us to look at words the same
way we look at museums: as artifacts.  But, unlike museum artifacts, words
are used and words change.  The formations you speak of might have been
more true when Foucault wrote them, but what he was really advocating was a
style of inquiry that necessitates a creative use of terms.  In my opinion,
although I understand and agree with his message(s), I don't think he lived
up to it/them (he had moments of brilliant prose, but they required too
much knowledge of the history of philosophy and social theory to be really
effective).  So, from my perspective, when you say 'free-market', well--I
don't really know what you're saying, but I imagine its along the lines of

>sense, talk about anarchism only serves to vindicate the 'new economy' and
>the centripetal organization of social communications.

Only if you let it.  Fight! Fight! Fight! The centripetal organization of
social communications...Tonight!

>
><end>
 
cordially,

jb


Jonathan Broad---
jonathan@relativepath.org

Drawing on my fine command of the English language I said nothing.
---Robert Benchley

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]