desire

my friend writes:
Desire, being a sort of crisis state, is more exiting to the ego. We know that both the ego and capitalism thrive in an environment of constant crisis. As capitalism and the individual ego became more important, so desire became more important than pleasure. This makes me think of 'the pursuit of happiness'. Individuals supposedly have the right to PURSUE happiness, but actually experiencing happiness is depicted as perverse or deviant because it is seen as static.
i write:
with the rise of what foucault calls 'pastoral power,' desire required constant interrogation for the devil could always be behind your thoughts. the sexual was one of THE hot spots for 'revealing' the truth of the self. today (and this is history of sexuality vol. 1) we still give sex that privileged spot, only now, we think that liberation means attacking the 'repression' that was brought upon our sexuality.

am i correctly using the term 'pastoral power'?

Post-class

a few more thoughts regarding history of sexuality vol. 1:
in class we started talking about how the bourgeoises distinguished themselves from the working classes via sexuality, but then that line of thinking got dropped (?). i'm still uncertain how this process operated originally and then again (in a completely different way) as sexuality was disseminated to the laboring class. first sexuality was used to enable an "aesthetics of existence" (happy, health, normal, etc.) but then what happens when the working class adopts this too? is it then that that bourgeoises brings in the notion of a repressed sexuality? hmm...

also: S&M. thoughts? might we think of these practices as experimentations in bodies and pleasures that counteract the repressive hypothesis? (roxy, can you respond to this one in term of desire.)

Foucault's "Method"

Let me say right off the bat: I love Foucault's discussion of power. (It seems his discussion of power would function well as an introduction to this program, no?) However, a few questions arise from reading the chapter "Method." Foucault defines 'power' in terms of 'force relations', but it is unclear to me how he differentiates the two terms. He writes, "[power] is the moving substrate of force relations which, by virtue of their inequality, constantly engender states of power, but the latter are always local and unstable" (p. 93). Are not both force relations and states of power 'local and unstable'? Might this be a way of paraphrasing: "In every inequitable relation (and what relation is not inequitable?) there is power. These relations are 'force relations.' Power is constituted within them, across them, and through them."?

I wonder too about power being intentional. (Which is not to say that there are individuals or groups determining how power operates.) As I understand it: though intentional, power is never dictated. (Hence power's intelligibility.) However, power does have a logic and a system. Can any of ya'll provide me with an example of a logic or system of power? (We're not talking hegemony, right?)

I wonder also if Foucault using the word 'immanence' in a way that I am unaware of. Can one say (and is Foucault saying) power and knowledge are immanent of each other?

arrggg! i'm just throwing these ideas out there...

Welcome

Having some success with the blog created for Engendering and Reframing Development last semester, I thought we might try it again. There is much to discuss, yes? I hope this will be a fruitful forum.

Best,
~ emiko