woh, this foucault biopic looks off the chain pic.twitter.com/ljiU39KjJk
— Jeremy Poxon (@JeremyPoxon) January 22, 2018
Editor’s comment: In reality Mark Strong in The Kingsman
woh, this foucault biopic looks off the chain pic.twitter.com/ljiU39KjJk
— Jeremy Poxon (@JeremyPoxon) January 22, 2018
Editor’s comment: In reality Mark Strong in The Kingsman
ABSTRACT This article theorizes the biopolitical production of embodiment through a consideration of biopolitical metaphor. It is argued that much recent theoretical work on biopower fails to provide an adequate account of embodiment, and particularly on the question of the habitualization of bodily experience. However, read through the lens of biopolitical metaphor, and drawing on the works of George Lakoff and a Mark Johnson, a dynamic account of the biopolitical shaping of bodily memory and embodied habit becomes possible. Moreover, it is argued that a theory of biopolitical metaphor provides provocative openings for thinking together the recent discursively oriented work on biopower and other approaches associated with the affective turn, specifically around the problems of mimesis and supplement. New research directions are proposed, centered on common experiences of biopolitical domination among marginalized groups drawn from shared experiences of habit and embodiment.
Kélina Gotman (2018) Foucault, Aufklärung, and the Historical ‘Scene’, Parallax, 24:1, 45-61,
DOI: 10.1080/13534645.2017.1415257
Beginning of article
No philosopher can go without examining his own participation in this us precisely because it is this us which is becoming the object of the philosopher’s own reflection.
Michel Foucault, ‘What Is Revolution?’
What does it take to imagine another world? First, perhaps, to take stock of this one: to view it, as at the theatre, as a scene – not a static, but a vibrant one, embedded in the worrying task of querying (and quarrying) one’s own situation within the scene, one’s always awkwardly vacillating standpoint at the edge, at the centre, in the wings of a scene – the scene of history, the scene within which something like the ‘present’ takes place. In a lecture given at the University of California at Berkeley 12 April, 1983 – weeks after then President of the United States Ronald Reagan first formally used the term ‘evil empire’ to describe the Soviet Union, in a notorious address now widely known as the ‘evil empire’ speech, likened to his quips about Star Wars – Michel Foucault rolled back the clock to ancient Rome.
In particular, Foucault set out a scene drawn from Lucian who, he remarks, ‘presents to us a certain Hermotime, mumbling in the street’. The scene unfolds, and we learn that this Hermotime was off to meet his teacher (or master) (‘maître’), a man named Lycinus, and that these two were engaged in the task of philosophy. What they were doing Foucault then pins to an act – a frame of mind, a stance – articulated some sixteen hundred years later, around 1784, when Immanuel Kant wrote a piece in response to a question posed by the Berlin-based newspaper, the Berlinische Monatsschrift, and to which the philosopher Moses Mendelssohn had also, two months prior, replied. Kant’s text was ‘Was ist Aufklärung?’ (‘What Is Enlightenment?’), and while Foucault saw this text as being aligned with a moment in German philosophy defined among others by the Jewish Enlightenment or Haskala, by Mendelssohn, and others, he also saw it as offering not so much a rupture, or novelty, or a departure, but an opening. Where previous attitudes rested on a querying of the present moment in relationship to the past, or offered tentative prognostics for the future, what Kant did so deftly (and radically), Foucault noted, was to ask the very question of contemporaneity. This question had no time for chronology; it did not seek to speculate about whether the present was better or worse than the past; whether the present moment was in decline, or whether the past had been less ‘enlightened’. Rather, in posing the question of Aufklärung, Kant, for Foucault, asked what it meant to be within a present moment and thus to draw a ‘historical ontology of ourselves’.2
Confluence Concourse: Call for Publication: Special Issue on “Political Genealogy after Foucault”
Prof. Dr. Michael Clifford
Guest Editor
Abdullahi Yusuf was having an identity crisis. Culturally marooned between home life with his traditional Somali parents and immersion in his everyday American school life in Minnesota, the Muslim teen gradually found his way to terrorist propaganda online.
In 2014, Yusuf was arrested before he could board a plane at Minneapolis airport, heading off to Syria to join Isis.
He had become part of a rare but not entirely unfamiliar pattern in which children of some immigrant families in North America and Europe feel alienated from society and a small but concerning few turn to jihad.
It was almost too late for Yusuf. But his story has had an unusual outcome.
In this extraordinary case, he is being integrated back into society after being sentenced to a unique “ideological rehab” program. He has spent the last year in a federal halfway house, reading philosophy, biography and literature, writing essays and poetry and reflecting on his life, his choices and his future. He was encouraged to debate with mentors and Muslim community leaders.
[…]
His ideological rehab program was devised by a not-for-profit group in Minneapolis called Heartland Democracy, which specializes in civic engagement courses, particularly for alienated youth. He read and discussed the works of Sherman Alexie, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X and the French philosopher Michel Foucault, trying to work through barriers, both mental and societal, to a sense of place in the community.
“Ideological rehab is astonishingly difficult to do in practice and requires one-on-one focus; it’s not just flicking a switch in the mind,” said John Horgan, professor of global studies and psychology at Georgia State University. “But there’s an urgent need for early intervention and alternatives to prison, because we’re losing the battle to prevent people becoming involved in terrorism.”
Stuffed corpse of philosopher Jeremy Bantham to fly to USA | Daily Mail Online
By Lara Keay, 25 February 2018
In 2018 Bentham’s body is being moved out of London for the first time – to be used as part of an exhibition at New York’s Met Breuer museum.
Jerome Bel and his amateurs test the limits of contemporary dance in Saitama show | The Japan Times
Editor’s note: old news
“Gala” runs Jan. 20 & 21 2018 at 3 p.m. at Saitama Arts Theater near Yonohonmachi Station, on the Saikyo Line from Shinjuku or Ikebukuro stations in Tokyo.
Back then, perhaps at a loss for descriptors, critics coined the term “non-dance” for Bel’s innovative work, which stood out in stark contrast from other works of the time even in the realm of contemporary dance, a form renowned for its lack of limitations.
Reflecting on that period in a 2005 interview, Bel said that, having studied the works of new-wave structuralist philosophers such as Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault and Marcel Duchamp, he realized, “Obviously, the question is what do we do and … what’s the purpose of theater?”
Then, answering that question, he said he made up his mind to depart from “dance’s elitism of showing off skills amid grand stage sets.” Instead, he said, “We decided to address things that affect everyone.”
I began 2018 with some shorter pieces to write, which took me away from the focus on The Early Foucault, even though two of them were on Foucault. First was a piece for the American Book Review, which is hosting a set of pieces on ‘Critical Lives’, edited by Robert Tally. I was asked to write something on Foucault, but while with most of the other pieces there is a new biography to review, that isn’t the case here – Miller and Macey’s biographies appeared 25 years ago, while the English translation of Eribon’s book is older still. Eribon’s biography has however appeared in two new editions in French, with additional material. I wrote a piece about how the posthumous publications by Foucault have added to the story we know of his work and, to a much lesser extent, of his life. This short piece should be out…
View original post 1,398 more words
Wendy Luna, Emancipating Intellectual Property from Proprietarianism: Drahos, Foucault, and a Quasi-Genealogy of IP, Genealogy 2018, 2(1), 6;
doi:10.3390/genealogy2010006
Abstract
This paper argues that Peter Drahos undertakes a partial Foucauldian genealogy by emancipating intellectual property (IP) from proprietarianism. He demonstrates the dominance of proprietarianism in IP by drawing sample practices from trademark, copyright, and patent laws, and then seeks to displace the proprietarian dominance with instrumentalism, which reconstitutes IP as a “liberty-intruding privilege.” Ironically, despite doing a genealogy, Drahos does not eradicate sovereignty altogether as Michel Foucault insists, but instead determines IP as a “sovereignty mechanism” that has a “sovereignty effect.” After explaining what Foucauldian genealogy is, the paper will explain how Drahos undertakes a genealogy of IP, while highlighting the limitations of Drahos’ analysis from a Foucauldian perspective.
Keywords: Michel Foucault; Peter Drahos; (quasi-)genealogy; intellectual property/IP
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
Jacques Bidet – Foucault with Marx, translated by Steven Corcoran (Zed Books, 2016, La fabrique, Paris, 2015)
In lieu of a review of Bidet’s book Foucault with Marx, we got in touch with him to discuss the way the text seems timely, now, in 2018. Here is the core of our dialogue:
SH: It seems to me that Foucault has been given a different share recently, or allotment, among ‘the left’ in Britain certainly.
JB: Foucault indeed leaves several legacies. From the perspective of my book, which confronts its topicality with that of Marx, we can see that he shows a theoretical and critical creativity which continues today to manifest its fertility/fecundity on several fields, and with different posterities.
First, on the domain of sex and gender relations, on which Marxism itself could only manifest a limited relevance because those issues remain outside of a possible grip of its…
View original post 1,557 more words
Foucault News 