Jump to content
darkwielder

foucault books

Recommended Posts

what books by foucault should i read first?

Already prepping for next year, are we?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If anyone could put up Focault- Society must be defend that'll be awesome , as well to that possible anyone see Anonymous and Anonmity being a key part of the topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't see any Agamben...

Everyone knows the natural progression is Foucault and then Agamben.  And I thought you knew about security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like just wondering, is the sexuality one talking about how development of capitalism means repression

I THINK this is Marx, Foucault, Deleuze, (in that order) - then there's Hardt and Negri (<3)

 

What do you mean by "development of capitalism" - that could mean anything (i.e. the capitalism that arose during the enlightenment; the capitalism that arose during the Fordist Era; the capitalism that arose during the 70's) - all are conceptually different because of the conditions in which they arose (for example, Fordist capitalism is conceptually different than neoliberalism). Then there's Hardt and Negris "Empire" (which is basically an analysis of neoliberalism); nonetheless every form of capitalism creates alienation (semiocapitalism/the Code creates simulation) and exploitation. 

 

Foucault, i believe, writes about how capitalism meant the switch from the right to death (i.e. Sovereign Power) to the power over life (i.e. Biopower) - and the juridical power being transferred to the masses (who then creates collections of power)

 

Also, Foucault doesn't necessarily says Biopower is bad; rather it is used to regulate and maintain a healthy population - it is only when it is abused that it becomes Sovereign Power (which is bad - Agamben writes a lot about why Sovereign Power is bad). 

 

I'd also look into Forget Foucault by Jean Baudrillard once you're done with reading Foucault - he basically says power is dead and that we're seduced by it; we will Power into power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also look into Forget Foucault by Jean Baudrillard once you're done with reading Foucault - he basically says power is dead and that we're seduced by it; we will Power into power

I've never read this, but just based on what you said that sounds like a really problematic argument when drawn to its logical extreme (not dissimilar to an idea that I believe was posited by Fanon), because it would appear to argue that, for example, the black body desires its own oppression.  Not really a debate I'd want to get into

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never read this, but just based on what you said that sounds like a really problematic argument when drawn to its logical extreme (not dissimilar to an idea that I believe was posited by Fanon), because it would appear to argue that, for example, the black body desires its own oppression.  Not really a debate I'd want to get into

Libidinal investments onto transcendent signifiers turns desire on itself in which a molecular fascism(s) resonates collectively to produce a macro-fascism; this happens because investing desire onto transcendent signifiers halts the productivity of desire; desire is no longer capable of producing assemblages and thus homogeneity ensues (since desire is made to stay in one place) - this is a Deleuzoguattarin analysis though

 

Maybe this'll help you understand what Baudrillard says:

 

 

In the same way that God died at the exact time that we thought his omnipresence was the greatest, power has now died; it is now no more than an effect of our desire – we want it to continue to exist, and thus we imagine that it does.  A continued discussion of power only serves to nostalgically preserve the power-zombie.  Foucault’s discourse is merely a seduction of power – resuscitation.

Jean Baudrillard 77 (L'Autre par lui-même, or professor at, à Université de Paris-X Nanterre, “Forget Foucault”, ISBN 1-58435-041-5, p 65-67)

 

WHEN ONE TALKS SO MUCH about power, it's because it can no longer be found anywhere. The same goes for God: the stage in which he was everywhere came just before the one in which he was dead. Even the death of God no doubt came before the stage in which he was everywhere. The same goes for power, and if one speaks about it so much and so well, that's because it is deceased, a ghost, a puppet; such is also the meaning of Kafka's words: the Messiah of the day after is only a God resuscitated from among the dead, a zombie. The finesse and the microscopic nature of the analysis are themselves a "nostalgia effect." And so everywhere we see power coupled with seduction (it's almost obligatory these days) in order to give it a second existence. Power gets its fresh blood from desire. And it's no longer anything more than a sort of "desire effect" at the confines of the social, or a sort of "strategy effect" at the confines of history. It is here also that "the" powers of Foucault come into play: grafted upon the privacy of bodies, the tracing of discourses, the facilitation of gestures, in a more insinuating, more subtle, and more discursive strategy which there too takes away power from history and brings it nearer to seduction. This universal fascination with power in its exercise and its theory is so intense because it is a fascination with a dead power characterized by a simultaneous "resurrection effect," in an obscene and parodic mode, of all the forms of power already seen-exactly like sex in pornography. The imminence of the death of all the great referents (religious, sexual, political, etc.) is expressed by exacerbating the forms of violence and representation that characterized them. There is no doubt that fascism, for example, is the first obscene and pornographic form of a desperate "revival" of political power. As the violent reactivation of a form of power that despairs of its rational foundations (the form of representation that was emptied of its meaning during the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries), as the violent reactivation of the social in a society that despairs of its own rational and contractual foundation, fascism is nevertheless the only fascinating modern form of power: it is the only one since Machiavelli to assert itself as such, as a challenge, by trifling with all forms of political "truth" and it is the only one to have taken up the challenge to assume power unto death (whether its own or that of others). Besides, it is because it has taken up the challenge that fascism has benefited from this strange consent, this absence of resistance to power. Why have all the symbolic resistances failed in the face of fascism-a unique fact in history? No ideological mystification and no sexual repression a la Reich can explain it. Only challenge can arouse such a passion for responding to it, such a frenzied assent to play the game in return, and thus raise every resistance. This, moreover, remains a mystery: why does one respond to a challenge? For what reason does one accept to play better, and feel passionately compelled to answer such an arbitrary injunction? Fascist power is then the only form which was able to reenact the ritual prestige of death, but (and most importantly here) in an already posthumous and phony mode, a mode of one-upmanship and mise-en-scene, and in an aesthetic mode-as Benjamin clearly saw-that was no longer truly sacrificial. Fascism's politics is an aesthetics of death, one that already has the look of a nostalgia fad; and everything that has had this look since then must be inspired by fascism, understood as an already nostalgic obsceniry and violence, as an already reactionary scenario of power and death which is already obsolete the very moment it appears in history. Again, an eternal shift in the advent of the Messiah, as Kafka says. An eternal inner simulation of power, which is never already (jamais deja) anything but the sign of what it was. We find the same nostalgia and the same simulation characteristic of nostalgia fads when we look today at "micro" fascisms and "micro" powers. The "micro" operator can only downshift from what fascism may have been without resolving it and transform an extremely complex scenario of simulation and death into a simplified "floating signifier," "whose essential function is denunciation" (Foucault). Its function is also invocation because the memory of fascism (like the memory of power), even in the micro-form, is still the nostalgic invocation of the political, or of a form of truth for the political; and its invocation simultaneously allows us to save the hypothesis of desire, whose mere paranoiac accident power and fascism can always appear to be. IN ANY CASE, power lures us on and truth lures us on. Everything is in the lightning-quick contraction in which an entire cycle of accumulation, of power, or of truth comes to a close. There is never any inversion or any subversion: the cycle must be accomplished. But it can happen instantaneously. It is death that is at stake in this contraction.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libidinal investments onto transcendent signifiers turns desire on itself in which a molecular fascism(s) resonates collectively to produce a macro-fascism; this happens because investing desire onto transcendent signifiers halts the productivity of desire; desire is no longer capable of producing assemblages and thus homogeneity ensues (since desire is made to stay in one place) - this is a Deleuzoguattarin analysis though

Ah, quite.  Although, personally I feel that the way in which the borborygmus is superimposed upon the carpophagous indicates that there is a movement by a hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobic entity towards a form of productivity that is no longer capable of producing susurrus heterogeneity.  This is a obviously phantasmagorian analysis though

 

See, I can use big words too.  Doesn't make them mean any more though

Edited by MartyP
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, quite.  Although, personally I feel that the way in which the borborygmus is superimposed upon the carpophagous indicates that there is a movement by a hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobic entity towards a form of productivity that is no longer capable of producing susurrus heterogeneity.  This is a obviously phantasmagorian analysis though

 

See, I can use big words too.  Doesn't make them mean any more though

im just like, wtf

 

Edit: just searched up hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobic to make sure it was a real word.

Edited by darkwielder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, quite.  Although, personally I feel that the way in which the borborygmus is superimposed upon the carpophagous indicates that there is a movement by a hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobic entity towards a form of productivity that is no longer capable of producing susurrus heterogeneity.  This is a obviously phantasmagorian analysis though

 

See, I can use big words too.  Doesn't make them mean any more though

Once again, I will upvote you tomorrow for making me laugh in such a long time 

 

I'll type up an explanation once I finish cutting evidence; for now, well played sir 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im just like, wtf

 

Edit: just searched up hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobic to make sure it was a real word.

Of course it is.  It'll win you a game of scrabble, I'll tell you that much.  All those words were real though

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll type up an explanation once I finish cutting evidence; for now, well played sir 

I got you

 

Basically it says that immanent flows of machinic desire are restricted by segmentation caused by collective expressions of micro-fascisms within a social body that harmoniously attune to cause macroscopic repercussions across said collective through macropolitical institutions that align their external representations of biopolitical power with the subconscious libidinal investments of the subconscious of a population subjected to the will of this now macro-scale fascist project.

 

Better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got you

 

Basically it says that immanent flows of machinic desire are restricted by segmentation caused by collective expressions of micro-fascisms within a social body that harmoniously attune to cause macroscopic repercussions across said collective through macropolitical institutions that align their external representations of biopolitical power with the subconscious libidinal investments of the subconscious of a population subjected to the will of this now macro-scale fascist project.

 

Better?

yeah I think you really hit it with this post 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got you

 

Basically it says that immanent flows of machinic desire are restricted by segmentation caused by collective expressions of micro-fascisms within a social body that harmoniously attune to cause macroscopic repercussions across said collective through macropolitical institutions that align their external representations of biopolitical power with the subconscious libidinal investments of the subconscious of a population subjected to the will of this now macro-scale fascist project.

 

Better?

Sorry but I was actually looking for an explanation of the concept, not the song.  Easy mistake to make though.

 

EDIT: If there was a song written by Baudrillard it would definitely be to this tune

Edited by MartyP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...