Foucault News

Ben Golder, Foucault’s Critical (Yet Ambivalent) Affirmation: Three Figures of Rights (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

21 September 2011

Ben Golder, Foucault’s Critical (Yet Ambivalent) Affirmation: Three Figures of Rights, Social Legal Studies September 2011 vol. 20 no. 3, 2011 pp. 283-312
https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663911404857

Abstract
Michel Foucault is not often read as a theorist of human rights. On the one hand, there is a tendency to read his works of the mid-1970s — his celebrated poststructuralist genealogies of subjectivity, of discipline, of bio-politics, and so forth — as proposing a critique of rights discourse which definitively rules out any political appeal to rights. On the other hand, somewhat curiously it has to be said, there is a tendency to read his works of the late 1970s and early 1980s — his perhaps less celebrated concern with ethics and with technologies of the self — as tacitly re-introducing a liberal humanist notion of subjectivity and, with that, an embrace of orthodox rights discourse. Beginning from this curious disjunction between the rejectionist Foucault and the liberal Foucault, this article attempts to articulate a Foucauldian politics of human rights along the lines of a critical affirmation. Neither a full embrace nor a total rejection of human rights, the Foucauldian politics of human rights developed here elaborates (and attempts to connect) several disparate figures in his thought: rights as ungrounded and illimitable, rights as the strategic instrument-effect of political struggle, and rights as a performative mechanism of community.

Steven James Scott, Foucault’s Room – film (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

no comments

18 September 2011

Steven James Scott, Foucault’s Room
A short film posted on Vimeo. Video is password protected

Based on Michel Foucault’s stay in Warsaw in the late 50s, Foucault’s Room is a visual exploration of the post-war architecture of Warsaw over a text riddled with innuendos about erotic encounters under close scrutiny by the Communist authorities.

MICHEL FOUCAULT: A JUDICIALIZAÇÃO DA VIDA. COLÓQUIO(2011)

Clare O'Farrell

no comments

16 September 2011

MICHEL FOUCAULT: A JUDICIALIZAÇÃO DA VIDA PRIMEIRO COLÓQUIO INTERNACIONAL MICHEL FOUCAULT : A JUDICIALIZAÇÃO DA VIDA
Rio de Janeiro, UERJ, 5, 6 e 7 de outubro de 2011

Programação
5/10/2011 13:30 – MESA DE ABERTURA

14:00 – 16:30 JEAN FRANÇOIS BERT (Centre Michel Foucault, Institut Interdisciplinaire d’anthropologie du Contemporain/FRANÇA). Sécurité, dangerosité, biopolitique : trois versants d’une nouvelle pratique de pouvoir sur les individus

CÉSAR CANDIOTTO (PUC-PR). O governo da desordem e seus novos Dispositivos nas sociedades securitárias.

KÁTIA AGUIAR (UFF). Práticas de formação e a produção de políticas de existência Moderadora : Késia D’Almeida (FIOCRUZ, UERJ)

17:00 – 19:30
ESTELA SCHEINVAR (UERJ, UFF). Conselho tutelar e escola : a potência da lógica penal no fazer cotidiano

VERA MALAGUTI BATISTA (UERJ). Judicialização da vida e o estado de polícia

LUIS FUGANTI (Escola Nômade). A judicialização como forma da governamentalidade contemporânea : confiscar, controlar, capitalizar e gerir as forças intensivas do homem

Moderadora : Moderadora : Laila Domith Vicente (UFF)

6/10/2011
13:30 – 16:30
HELIANA CONDE (UERJ). Michel Foucault na imprensa brasileira durante a ditadura militar – Os “cães de guarda”, os “nanicos” e o jornalista radical

FLÁVIA LEMOS (UFPA). Práticas de governo das crianças e dos adolescentes propostas pelo UNICEF e pela UNESCO : inquietações a partir das ferramentas analíticas legadas por Michel Foucault

ESTHER ARANTES (UERJ, PUC-RJ). Entre a delinquência e o risco. Anotações sobre a infância no contemporâneo.

SALETE OLIVEIRA (PUC-SP). Política e novos investimentos na formação de crianças e jovens resilientes

Moderador : Rafael Coelho Rodrigues (UFF)

17:00 – 19:30
ACÁCIO AUGUSTO (PUC-SP). Juridicialização da vida e sobrevida

VERA PORTOCARRERO (UERJ). Anormalidade, doença mental e medicalização da loucura

GUILHERME CASTELO BRANCO (UFRJ). Biopolítica e Seguridade Social

Moderadora : Elisa Alcântara (UERJ)

19:30 – LANÇAMENTO DE LIVROS

07/10/2011

13:30 – 16:30
LÍLIA LOBO (UFF). O pensamento de Michel Foucault e a pesquisa em Psicologia Social

MARISA LOPES DA ROCHA (UERJ) e ANA L. C. HECKERT (UFES). A maquinaria escolar e os processos de regulamentação da vida : embates e aprisionamentos

ROSIMERI DIAS (UERJ). A produção da vida nos territórios escolares : entre universidade e escola básica

Moderadora : Giovanna Marafon (UFF)

17:00 – 19:30
MARIA LÍVIA DO NASCIMENTO (UFF). Abrigo, pobreza e negligência : percursos de judicialização

EDSON PASSETTI (PUC-SP). Governamentalidade, crianças e violências.

GRACIELA LECHUGA (UAM-X/MÉXICO). Agamben “comentarista” de Foucault

Moderadora : Eliana Olinda Alves (UFF)

Sam Binkley, Psychological Life as Enterprise: Social Practice and the Government of Neoliberal Interiority (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

no comments

15 September 2011

Sam Binkley, “Psychological Life as Enterprise: Social Practice and the Government of Neoliberal Interiority” Journal of the History of Human Sciences 24: 3 July 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695111412877

Abstract
This article theorizes the contemporary government of psychological life as neoliberal enterprise. By drawing on Foucauldian critical social theory, it is argued that the constellations of power identified with the psy-function and neoliberal governmentality can be read through the problematic of everyday practice. On a theoretical level, this is involves a reexamination of the notion of dispositif, to uncover the dynamic, ambivalent and temporal practices by which subjectification takes place. Empirically, this point is illustrated through a reflection of one case of neoliberal psychological life: life coaching.

This article was originally delivered as a seminar

Gramsci and Foucault: A Reassessment. Call for chapters (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

1 comment

14 September 2011

Gramsci and Foucault: A Reassessment

The ideas of these two towering thinkers of the 20th century, Gramsci and Foucault, have all too often fallen into opposing camps. Radhakrishnan (1987) argues that Foucault’s understanding of the subject remains philosophical, while Gramsci’s continual interrogation of the relation between the individual and the group allows for concrete political theory and action. Richard Day’s “Gramsci is Dead” (2005) meanwhile attacks the whole notion of hegemony from a Foucauldian perspective. Scott Lash (2007) argues that ‘power over’, in contemporary society, has become post-‐hegemonic, suggesting a more Foucauldian conception of ‘power from within.’ The noted neo-Gramscian Stephen Gill (Griffiths 2009), meanwhile, has drawn substantially on Foucauldian notions of panopticism to develop his new concepts of disciplinary neo-liberalism.

Are these two thinkers really as opposed as a simplistic humanist/antihumanist comparison might suggest, i.e. “the imprisoned leader of the Italian communist party and the anticommunist campaigner for reform of the penal system” (Ekers and Loftus 2008). Is it, as Barnett would have it, that “marxist and Foucauldian approaches “imply different models of the nature of explanatory concepts; different models of causality and determination; different models of social relations and agency; and different normative understandings of political power” (Barnett, 2005:8). Or is it merely that the two thinkers focused upon differing aspects of a wider picture that do not exclude each other: does Foucault’s concentration upon the micropolitics in society that adds up to and constitutes the central figure of the State undermine and discount, or complement and mirror Gramsci’s concentration on the hegemonic reach of that centre out into the minutiae of social relations?

This book sets out to deliberate in detail some of the issues, linkages, dissonances, and potential harmonies between the work of these two great thinkers, in search of tools of socio-‐political and critical analysis for the 21st century. Contexts as various as human geography, online social networking, political economy, critical theory and beyond are welcomed for a rich and lively collection.

Abstracts are invited from all interested parties towards a full proposal to Ashgate Publishing who are interested in this book. Subject to successful review, full chapters will be expected by 30th September 2012, with a view to publication by Ashgate Publishing in 2013.

Important Dates
=============

Deadline for Abstracts : 31st December 2011

Deadline for Full chapters : 30th September 2012 Publication: 2013.

Abstracts
Potential authors should send their abstracts to Dr David Kreps d.g.kreps@salford.ac.uk with a clear indication of which part of the book their abstract is aimed at, and a brief personal biog. Following review chapters will then be invited from those whose abstracts most closely coalesce into an interesting book.

Stuart Elden, How should we do the history of territory? Lectures (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

no comments

13 September 2011

Stuart Elden “How should we do the history of territory?”
Additional details

14 September 2011 – “How should we do the history of territory?” Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, USA

16 September 2011 – ”How should we do the history of territory?” School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Abstract
Foucault did not say very much about territory, and what he does is, at best, misleading. Nonetheless, Foucault is extremely helpful in beginning to think about the history of territory. The basis for these two claims is the purpose of this talk, as I offer some reflections on the work I have been doing over the past decade on the history of territory, culminating in the book The Birth of Territory. It moves through four stages. First, I discuss what Foucault does says about territory, and indicate why it is misleading. Second, I try to show what Foucault might offer to a more adequate history of territory. Third, briefly, I outline some of the other approaches I have utilised in this work, specifically looking at the German tradition of Begriffsgeschichte and the Cambridge school of contextual history. Finally, I outline some of the key elements of the account I offer in The Birth of Territory.

Naja Vucina, Claus Drejer, Peter Triantafillou, Histories and freedom of the present: Foucault and Skinner (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

1 comment

12 September 2011

Naja Vucina, Claus Drejer, Peter Triantafillou, ‘Histories and freedom of the present: Foucault and Skinner’, History of the Human Sciences August 18, 2011
https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695111415176

Abstract
This article compares the ways in which Michel Foucault’s and Quentin Skinner’s historical analyses seek to unsettle the limits on present forms of freedom. We do so by comparing their ways of analysing discourse, rationality and agency. The two authors differ significantly in the ways they deal with these three phenomena. The most significant difference lies in their ways of addressing agency and its relationship to power. Notwithstanding these differences, the historical analyses of both authors seek to problematize the ways in which past thoughts and practices limit contemporary forms of freedom. While Foucault seems to go furthest in this endeavour, a comparison may enrich both lines of historical analyses.

Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, Human Nature: Justice vs Power. The Chomsky-Foucault debate (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

no comments

10 September 2011

Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, Human Nature: Justice vs Power. The Chomsky-Foucault debate,
Edited by Fons Elders

A new edition of this work released with a new introduction by Fons Elders:

In 1971, at a time of enormous political and social change, two of the twentieth century’s most influential public intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, were invited by the Dutch philosopher Fons Elders onto Dutch television to debate the question: is there an ‘innate’ human nature independent of our experiences and external influences?

The resulting dialogue is one of the most original, provocative, and spontaneous exchanges to have occurred between contemporary philosophers, and above all serves as a concise introduction to their basic theories. What begins as a philosophical argument rooted in linguistics (Chomsky) and the theory of knowledge (Foucault) soon evolves into a broader discussion encompassing a wide range of topics, from science, history, and behaviourism to creativity, freedom, and the struggle for political justice. Both Chomsky and Foucault were also committed political activists closely associated with the promotion of ‘progressive’ causes, and it is their engagement with the wider political implications of their philosophical positions that has made this debate so influential (and as relevant today as in 1971).

This debate is still widely discussed, and it has also touched a popular nerve as over 800,000 people have watched it on youtube. Over the last three years Souvenir Press have sold translation rights for this book all over the world, from the USA to Spain and most recently China, demonstrating the continuing relevance of both Chomsky and Foucault to the concerns of the twenty-first century.

This is an intellectually exciting record of a meeting between two important philosophers that serves as an introduction to the defining themes of their individual theories, as well as being an introduction to the essential concerns and ideas of contemporary philosophy.

Noam Chomsky is one ofthe world’s most famous political activists and intellectuals (in 2005 Chomsky was voted by readers of ‘Prospect’ magazine to be the world’s leading public intellectual), while Michel Foucault’s writings on power, sexuality and knowledge are among the most influential works of the twentieth century (especially on writers in the fields of feminist and queer studies).

Ian Leask, Beyond Subjection: Notes on the later Foucault and education (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

1 comment

8 September 2011

Ian LEASK (2011), Beyond Subjection: Notes on the later Foucault and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. August.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00774.x

Abstract
This article argues against the doxa that Foucault’s analysis of education inevitably undermines self-originating ethical intention on the part of teachers or students. By attending to Foucault’s lesser known, later work—in particular, the notion of ‘biopower’ and the deepened level of materiality it entails—the article shows how the earlier Foucauldian conception of power is intensified to such an extent that it overflows its original domain, and comes to ‘infuse’ the subject that might previously have been taken as a mere effect. What emerges, accordingly, is a subject divested of ‘traditional’, substantial, formation, located wholly on an immanent plane, and yet centrally concerned with the practice of freedom and ethical resistance. In turn, what seemed to have no place at all in the earlier Foucault becomes central: in general, active subjectivization (subjectivation) as a counter to passive subjection (assujetissement); more particularly, subjects’ ongoing production and creation (via strategic decisions and localized opposition) of a new ethos, new ‘practices of self’, and new kinds of relations. With this alternative Foucauldian position outlined, the article then focuses more particularly on the practices of education: it concludes that, instead of being rendered merely the factories of obedient behaviour, schools or colleges can be the locus for a critically-informed, oppositional micro-politics. In other words: the power-relations that (quite literally) constitute education can now be regarded, on Foucault’s own terms, as being creative, ‘enabling’ and positive.

Keywords: Foucault; education; power-relations; agency; micro-politics

Arun Anantheeswaran Iyer, Knowledge and Thought in Heidegger and Foucault (2011)

Clare O'Farrell

no comments

6 September 2011

Arun Anantheeswaran Iyer, Knowledge and Thought in Heidegger and Foucault: Towards an Epistemology of Ruptures, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA PhD, Summer 2011

Download here

Abstract
This dissertation shows how Martin Heidegger and Michel Foucault, by questioning the very understanding of the subject-object relationship on which all epistemology is grounded, challenge two of its most cherished beliefs: 1. Thought and knowledge are essentially activities on the part of the subject understood anthropologically or transcendentally. 2. The history of knowledge exhibits teleological progress towards a better and more comprehensive account of its objects. In contrast to traditional epistemology, both Heidegger and Foucault show how thought and knowledge are not just acts, which can be attributed to the subject but also events which elude any such subjective characterization. They also show us how the history of knowledge exhibits ruptures when the very character of knowledge undergoes drastic transformation in the course of history. The dissertation concludes by hinting at how these new accounts of thought and knowledge have the potential to shake the very foundations of epistemology and lead us to a new framework for discussing the most basic questions of epistemology, towards an epistemology of ruptures.