the reason we did goﬀman, bourdieu, and althusser before foucault is to see how others were thinking about power
at the same time foucault was going to see how diﬀerently foucault approaches.
bourdieu - not macro vs micro but how the two interact
althusser - how ideological apperatuses interpellate us that we would reproduce the conditions of production
goﬀman - interaction, the rules for accomplishing every day activities. diﬀerent rules for diﬀerent people and
settings etc. very dynamic interaction order as power operates every day in microscopic daily interactions
in foucault, knowledge and power are related but they are diﬀerent
1. knowledge is knwledge: situating foucault's theory of power in his archaeological work
2. power is power: deﬁning the microphysics of power
and the third is on the power point i should not try and copy this down...
FOUCAULT, like Adorno and the Frankfurt School, is extremely critical of the enlightenment and socialism, that
the truths we can produce through science can improve our lives.
These truths we produce actually constrain us and have a sort of power over us.
Discovery does not liberate us but constrains us.
He looks at the historical speciﬁcity of discourses, not as valid truth producing organs.
How is it that we have problematized so many aspects of our selves, of our human being.
The human sciences are this predominant basis for understanding ourselves and others, for articulating society's
problems, and how we produce solutions.
Human sciences try to understand the causes of particular problems like homelessness, etc.
but he says this doesn't actually help us, it just becomes an exercise of domination. modern political government or
any form of leadership ie work and school too are all programs of domination.
you must become normal. normal is deﬁned by discourses.
THE EMERGENCE OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Looking at the major events that led to what it is we call medicine. How is it that what we know about our life is
preconditioned on our knowledge of death.
Medicine now is about 'where does it hurt'? before this it was about the humours, metaphysical processes of the
body, but the shift to modern medicine was from understanding death:
• opening corpses (autopsies), started looking and seeing what normal organs look like as opposed to pathological
organs. they did that through the operating theatre. look at the architecture. what do we look like on the inside,
mapping veins, it was all because of death..
so then he is making a major link between epidemiology and clinical medicine.
you look at the population as a whole: look at thousands of dead people's livers until you know what the individual
liver should look like. they start to understand that if you hurt here or here they know what is aﬀected.
this is how medical judgments are being shifted. the individual case is being shifted because of the population via
so now he is looking at individual medicine as posited in relation to the norms of the whole population, so these
two are not in opposition at all: what happens in the clinic as opposed to the lab are not at odds, they are a
veridical & jurdical: seeing & saying. this is how knowledge is produced in the sciences We don't have any kind of knowledge of being sick outside of the particular discourse's framing of our sickness. we
understand our sickness in relation to the whole body of discursive knowledge ie medicine, psychology, education,
We are thus interpellated (Foucault was the student of Althusser)
we were able to inspect the body by opening up a bunch of corpses. the scientiﬁc method produces ▯alid
knowledg▯ by the norms of many instances combined. we can make truthful statements about our object (the body
in medicine) by appealing to this normative way of creating knowledge.
thus objectiﬁed, we come to understand ourselves as the subjects of medicine in the terms and statements
medicine has framed us in.
we start to see ourselves as a medical body that we must produce knowledge about then do something about.
the way we make a valid diagnoses about people is in reference to population norms
- this was a new way of looking at humanity
- this gets carried over into social life...
this is a new experience of how it is we understand ourselves. we have always gotten sick and feel pain, but its when
we start to say i get sick and feel pain BECAUSE of this medical reason and this medical reason rather than some
RENE MAGRITTE'S painting, The Treachery of Images
picture of a pipe that says "this is not a pipe"
- the point is, this is not a pipe but a representation of a pipe, a drawing of a pipe, not the actual thing.
structures for combingin gthe production of the visible and articulable: see & say, VERITABLE & JURIDICAL
what is rendered visible, not to an externa▯y existing reality
we are talking about the representation of the object beign looked at
a discursive formation is like a terrain for foucault. it is a kind of ﬁeld of knowledge.
how do we see an object on this terrain, on this map.
the buildings on a map of the uofa can be understood of buildings, but we understand them as part of the
university because it is on the map of the uofa. discursive formations deﬁne the territory of what enters into and
what is left out of the ﬁeld of knowable things.
the conditions of production of being able to see the things on the map have particular structures for seeing and
saying. they are the conditions that let us say somethign that is plausibly true.
we can see our object because of the kind of knowledge functioning in the discursive structure. it makes some
when we are wandering around our house doing what we want before being watched, there is nothing to say.