Foucault News

News and resources on French thinker Michel Foucault (1926-1984)

Et si Foucault n’avait pas tort?

Du 16 décembre 2010 au 6 janvier 2011
de 18h à 20h

Séminaire organisé par l’Institut de Recherches Philosophiques de Lyon (IRPhiL).

Séminaire Foucault organisé du 16 septembre 2010 au 6 janvier 2011, sous la direction de Catherine Dekeuwer.

Peut-on donner aujourd’hui raison aux thèses de Michel Foucault concernant le pouvoir psychiatrique ?
Ce séminaire se propose d’offrir des regards croisés sur ses réflexions concernant la psychiatrie, en les confrontant aux exigences actuelles du soin psychiatrique. Chaque séance sera constituée d’une présentation d’un philosophe et d’un psychiatre à partir d’un texte.

Séances

•La méthode Foucault
Dr R. P. Boulay et C. Dekeuwer
16 septembre 2010 de 18h à 20h.
Salle : Chevreul 206, Bâtiment de la Recherche, 18 rue Chevreul – 69007 Lyon

Référence bibliographique pour préparer la séance du 16/09 :
Michel Foucault, “Foucault” in Dits et écrits, tome 2, ed. Gallimard, Quarto, p. 1450 à 1455.

•La folie
Dr N. Giloux et Cl. O. Doron
21 octobre 2010 de 18h à 20h.
Salle : salle Garraud, 15 quai Claude Bernard – 69007 Lyon

Références bibliographiques pour préparer la séance du 21/10 :
1.Les leçons du 7 novembre 73 et du 16 janvier 74 du Pouvoir psychiatrique
2.Les leçons du 5 et du 12 février 1975 des Anormaux (en particulier, pp. 118-125 et 145-152)
3.”L’évolution de la notion d’individu dangereux” in Dits et Ecrits, Gallimard, Quarto, II, pp. 443-464.

•Foucault et la psychanalyse
Dr J. Lecaux et E. Basso
4 novembre 2010 de 18h à 20h.
Salle : salle Garraud, 15 quai Claude Bernard – 69007 Lyon

Référence bibliographique pour préparer la séance du 04/11 :
Dits et Ecrits, Tome I, Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur ?, p. 817 à 849.

•La normalité
Dr F. Varagnat et R. Chvetzoff
16 décembre 2010 de 18h à 20h.
Salle : salle Paola Sandri (314), 18 rue Chevreul – 69007 Lyon

•La sécurité
Dr E. Venet et Dr A. Sourty
06 janvier 2011 de 18h à 20h

Références bibliographiques pour préparer la séance du 06/12 :
◦Dits et Ecrits II (Gallimard, Quarto) :

■Pages 443 et suivantes, “l’evolution de la notion d’individu dangereux dans la psychiatrie légale du XIX° siecle”
■Pages 383 et suivantes, “la sécurité et l’état”
■Pages 1021 et suivantes, “il faut repenser la loi et la prison”
■Pages 1455 et suivantes, “qu’appelle t’on punir ?”

dans Surveiller et Punir :
■”des institutions complètes et austères”
■”illegalismes et délinquance”

Contact
Valentina Tirloni
Coordinatrice scientifique
IRPhiL EA 4187 – Institut de Recherches Philosophiques de Lyon
18 rue Chevreul – 69007 Lyon
Tél. : 04 78 78 73 94 – Fax : 04 78 78 72 27
valentina.tirloni@univ-lyon3.fr

Eric Peyron
sc@villadesroses.fr

Renseignements pratiques : Institut de Recherches Philosophiques de Lyon

SEMINAIRE FOUCAULT
animé par Jean-François Braunstein

Les séances ont lieu de 10 h 30 à 12 h 30 à l’UFR de philosophie de la Sorbonne, escalier C, premier étage, salle Lalande.
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

Programme 2010-2011

Samedi 20 novembre 2010
Jean-François Braunstein (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, PhiCo/EXeCO)
Foucault et l’histoire des sciences

Samedi 18 décembre 2010
Ronan de Calan (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, IHPST)
L’empiriste et les signes : une relecture critique de Naissance de la clinique

Samedi 29 janvier 2011
François Delaporte (Université de Picardie Jules Verne, CHSSC)
Savoir, connaissance et épistémè

Samedi 19 février 2011
Georges Vigarello (EHESS-IUF)
Surveiller et punir, une orientation dans la réflexion sur le corps

Samedi 12 mars 2011
Jocelyn Benoist (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Archives Husserl de Paris, IUF)
Des actes de langage à l’inventaire des énoncés

Samedi 26 mars 2011
Elisabetta Basso (Max Planck Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte)
L’itinéraire méthodologique de Foucault : de la psychiatrie existentielle à l’épistémologie historique

Samedi 21 mai 2011
Arnold Davidson (Université de Chicago)
Politiques de la vérité

Sciullo, Nick J., Amos Lee’s ‘Street Corner Preacher’ Through Michel Foucault’s Critique of Scientific Knowledge: A Critique of Legal Knowledge (March 15, 2011). Critical Legal Studies Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1685997

Abstract
This article will demonstrate that although students of the law, legal scholars, and practitioners rely on a relatively narrow body of “legal scholarship,” there are in fact sundry diverse sources of legal thought that deserve to be evaluated along with currently accepted legal scholarship. It will present arguments in favor of appreciating music as a unique and important source of legal commentary through which we might understand how people relate to the law—what I have called “coming to the law.” It will demonstrate that music can be uniquely transgressive and presents a powerful alternative to what Michel Foucault called “scientific knowledge.” Ultimately, Foucault’s critique will be the road upon which we travel. I will also argue that not only is it important to accept different forms of knowledge, but that the rejection of different knowledges is a unique form of violence that acts before the law can take effect serving to strategically debase the law.

Keywords: Michel Foucault, Music, Amos Lee, Legal Knowledge, Poststructralism, Legal Theory

Picard, E. Kezia (2010) A radical relational agency: Foucault, complexity theory and environmental resistances. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.
Page with link to pdf of thesis

Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to examine a radical relational agency, applied to contemporary environmental resistances, that incorporates both the thought of Michel Foucault and complexity theory. While Foucault’s thought, following from his argument that power is a relation, implies a relational agency, it does not, however, account for the agency of nonhumans and environments. Because power is a relation and not a possession, it can no longer be viewed as an attribute of individual subjects. Similarly, a relational agency is defined as an aspect of power relations. Complexity theory, on the other hand, acknowledges that humans interact with nonhumans and environments, but does not acknowledge that all relations are relations of power. In addition to Foucault’s explanation of power relations, complexity theory explicitly describes the processes of self-organization through which individual and diverse agents interact and change can emerge. Thus, a radical relational agency is defined as an aspect of the power relationships between many diverse agents. Change, according to both Foucault and complexity theory, happens nonlinearly. As a result, it often occurs unpredictably. However, change within complex systems is also limited by previous historical emergences. In this sense, both possibility and risk are inherent in the relationships between humans, nonhumans and environments. Indeed, I argue that a radical relational agency occurs because there are both possibilities and risks generated within ecological relations and relations of power. Therefore, I argue that any environmental action must account for the unpredictability inherent to the complex interactions between humans, nonhumans and environments.

Reading Michel Foucault in the Postcolonial Present: A Symposium
Bologna, Italy, March 3-4, 2011.
Hosted by the University of Bologna

Funded by the Finnish Academy

Description
Neoliberalism is superficially understood as a theory of political economic practices proposing that human well-being can best be advanced by the development of entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty, unencumbered markets, and free trade. Less understood, however, is how its claims to be able to develop wealth and freedom became correlated with claims to develop the prosperity and security of life itself. Life, in the form of species existence, rather than human nature, has progressively emerged as a singularly important a priori for liberal political economy. Neoliberalism breaks from earlier liberalisms and traditions of political economy in so far as it pursues the development of economic profitability and prosperity not just with practices for the development of the human species, but with the life of the biosphere.

These correlations of economy, development, freedom, and life in and among neoliberal regimes of practice and representation comprise some of the foundations of its biopolitics. As this symposium will explore, we cannot understand how liberalism functions, most especially how it has gained the global hegemony that it has, without addressing how systematically the category of life has organized the correlation of its various practices of governance, as well as how important the shift in the very understanding of life, from the human to the biospheric, has been for changes in those practices.

Today it is not simply living species and habitats that are threatened with extinction, and for which we must mobilize our care, but the words and gestures of human solidarity on which resistance to biopolitical regimes of governance depends. A sense of responsibility for the survival of the life of the biosphere is not a sufficient condition for the development of a political subject capable of speaking back to neoliberalism. What is required is a subject responsible for securing incorporeal species, chiefly that of the political, currently threatened with extinction, on account of the overwrought fascination with life that has colonized the developmental as well as every other biopoliticized imaginary of the modern age.

While Foucault’s thought has been inspirational in diagnosing this condition of the postcolonial age, his works have too often failed to inspire studies of political subjectivity. Instead they have been used to stoke the myth of the inevitability of the decline of collective political subjects, describing an increasingly limited horizon of political possibilities, and provoking a disenchantment of the political itself. In contrast this symposium will excavate the importance of Foucault’s work for our capacities to recognise how this debasement of political subjectivity came about, particularly within the framework of the discourses and politics of “development”, and with particular attention to the predicaments of postcolonial peoples. Why and how it is that life in postcolonial settings has been depoliticized to such dramatic effect? And, crucially, how can we use Foucault to recover the vital capacity to think and act politically in a time when the most basic expressions of thought and human action are being targeted for new techniques of control and governance?

The immediacy of these themes will be obvious to anyone living in the South of the world. But within the academy they remain heavily under-addressed. In thinking about what it means to read Michel Foucault today this symposium will address some significant questions and problems. Not simply that of how to explain the ways in which postcolonial regimes of governance have achieved the debasements of political subjectivity they have. And certainly not that of how we might better equip them with the means to support life more fully. But that of how life itself, in its subjection to governance, can and does resist, subvert, escape and defy the imposition of modes of governance which seek to remove it of those very capacities for resistance, subversion, flight, and defiance.

This symposium will be the second in a series, the first having been held in Calcutta in September 2010, “The Biopolitics of Development: Life, Welfare and Unruly Populations”. As was established there, the formulation of and response to these questions and problems remains open. The political reception of Foucault’s thought is not monolithic and the debates provoked among the participants at the Calcutta event are far from settled. Hence the demand for a second symposium, this time in Bologna.

Confirmed speakers include Michael Dillon, Sandro Mezzadra, Julian Reid, Judith Revel, and Ranabir Samaddar. We also invite papers on this thematic from anyone else wishing to participate. Contributions analysing the topic of Foucault, political subjectivity and development from the perspective of other postcolonial locations will be particularly appreciated.

Send your abstracts to the organizing committee: Sandro Mezzadra (sandro.mezzadra@unibo.it), Julian Reid (julian.reid@ulapland.fi) and Ranabir Samaddar (ranabir@mcrg.ac.in) by December 31, 2010.

Paul Smeyers and Yusef Waghid, ‘Cosmopolitanism in Relation to the Self and the Other: From Michel Foucault to Stanley Cavell’, Educational Theory, Volume 60 Number 4 2010, pp. 449-467

Download pdf of article

Abstract
Educators, not to mention philosophers of education, find themselves in a difficult position nowadays. They are confronted with problems such as which kind of values one would want citizens to embrace, or to what extent social practices of a particular group may differ from what is generally held. In this essay, Paul Smeyers and Yusef Waghid focus on postmodern critiques, in particular on the position of Michel Foucault as it is relevant for the debate on cosmopolitanism. The authors argue that Foucault’s analysis of the self in relation to the other is somewhat contentious, as it seems to invoke an independent ethical self other than a social self. Smeyers and Waghid claim that a more nuanced position regarding this relation can be found in the work of Stanley Cavell. They conclude that encounters with the other should not be seen as a new kind of universalism or Foucauldian subjectivism, but rather as an opening that creates opportunities both for attachment and detachments, that is, for acknowledgment and avoidance.

James Wong, ‘Foucault and Autonomy’, ARSP. Archiv. für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, vol. 96, no3, 2010, pp. 277-290.

Other details

Abstract
In this paper, I argue against Mark Bevir’s contention that Foucault is committed to reject autonomy but affirms agency. I argue that Bevir’s claim is extravagant, that (a) Foucault need not reject autonomy, and (b) the rejection of autonomy flies in the face of the emphasis Foucault placed on autonomy in his late work. Central to my argument is the distinction between autonomy as self-sufficiency and autonomy as self-rule. By deploying Harry Frankfurt’s structural account of identification, I show that Foucault’s discussion of autonomy in his late work is best understood as self-rule. Such an interpretation has the virtue of not adopting the counter-intuitive view that Foucault is committed to reject autonomy. By way of conclusion, I explore how such a concept of autonomy as self-rule figures in Foucault’s project of self-formation in his late work.

Letting Go of Neo-Liberalism (with some help from Michel Foucault)
Faculty seminar

Professor Terry Flew
Professor of Media and Communication,
Creative Industries Faculty,
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia

12pm-2pm Wednesday 24th November 2010
Z2-315 CI Precinct QUT Kelvin Grove

ABSTRACT

Neo-liberalism has become one of the boom concepts of our time. From its original reference point as a descriptor of the economics of the “Chicago School” such as Milton Friedman, or authors such as Friedrich von Hayek, neo-liberalism has become an all-purpose descriptor and explanatory device for phenomena as diverse as Bollywood weddings, standardized testing in schools, violence in Australian cinema, and the digitization of content in public libraries. Moreover, it has become an entirely pejorative term: no-one refers to their own views as “neo-liberal”, but it rather refers to the erroneous views held by others, whether they acknowledge this or not. Neo-liberalism as it has come to be used, then, bears many of the hallmarks of a dominant ideology theory in the classical Marxist sense, even if it is often not explored in these terms.

This presentation will take the opportunity provided by the English language publication of Michel Foucault’s 1978-79 lectures, under the title of The Birth of Biopolitics, to consider how he used the term neo-liberalism, and how this equates with its current uses in critical social and cultural theory. It will be argued that Foucault did not understand neo-liberalism as a dominant ideology in these lectures, but rather as marking a point of inflection in the historical evolution of liberal political philosophies of government. It will also be argued that his interpretation of neo-liberalism was more nuanced and more comparative than the more recent uses of Foucault in the literature on neo-liberalism. It will also look at how Foucault develops comparative historical models of liberal capitalism in The Birth of Biopolitics, arguing that this dimension of his work has been lost in more recent interpretations, which tend to retro-fit Foucault to contemporary critiques of either U.S. neo-conservatism or the “Third Way” of Tony Blair’s New Labour in the UK.

Biographical note

Terry Flew is Professor of Media and Communication in the Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT). He is the author of New Media: An Introduction (OUP, 2008 – third edition) and Understanding Global Media (Palgrave, 2007). He has also been published in leading international academic journals such as International Journal of Cultural Policy, Television and New Media, Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, Media, Culture and Society and International Journal of Cultural Studies. He has been First Chief Investigator on an ARC Linkages-Project into citizen journalism in Australia from 2006 to 2009, with industry partners including the Special Broadcasting Service, Cisco Systems Australia, and The National Forum. He is First Chief Investigator on an ARC Discovery-Project on Creative Suburbia, with researchers from QUT and Monash University. He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, and was President of the Australian and New Zealand Communications Association during 2009-2010. His forthcoming book is The Creative Industries, Culture and Policy (Sage, 2011).

Please RSVP to Kate Simmonds kate.simmonds@qut.edu.au by Monday 22nd November 2010

Foucault, Geuss and Political Philosophy
Speaker: Mark Kelly

Wednesday 24 November 2010
17:00 until 19:00
Fulton Building 107
University of Susses
UK

Part of the series: Social and Political Thought Research Seminars

Hayden White, the eminent historian who was amongst the first serious commentators in English on Foucault remarks on his blog:

A lot of people still seem to be disturbed by the idea that the language one uses to represent one’s thought or a world external to one’ self might have some effect on the content of what one says about either. Some seem to think that language could be a neutral “container” of a message rather than part of the “contained.” This fear or anxiety over what people call the “linguistic turn” (as if writing or speaking had not always been turned towards the linguistic) shows up among defenders of particular thinkers or pundits whose work has been submitted to linguistic-literary-rhetorical analysis by “eccentrics” like me who think that the “how” of expression is just as important for understanding an utterance as the “what” expressed.

Thus, my analysis of the philosophy of history informing Michel Foucault’s Les mots et les choses (English: The Order of Things) which is about nothing if it is not about discourse,in fact, is a discourse on discourse and discursivity, including the discourse of philosophy of history, this analysis is pilloried by a number of critics because it seems to be based on belief in a kind of linguistic determinism which pre-determines both the “content” of Foucault’s work and its “form” of expression.

See Hayden White’s blog for the rest of the post