Michel Foucault - The Subject and Power

Подписаться 24 тыс.

Просмотров 3,7 тыс.

50% 1

Join us as we delve into Michel Foucault's seminal 1982 article "The Subject and Power". This video explores the work of Paul Michel Foucault, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. From his famous book "Discipline and Punish" to his lesser-known work "The History of Sexuality", we examine the full spectrum of Foucault's ideas and theories. We focus on his examination of power, knowledge, and the relationship between the two, and how they play out in society. We also consider the importance of Foucault's contributions to the fields of philosophy, sexuality, and epistemology, and his impact on the popular imagination. Whether you're familiar with the power and knowledge dynamic in Foucault's philosophy, or just getting started, this video provides an in-depth and insightful examination of his groundbreaking ideas.
Resources:
►The Subject and Power: www.dropbox.co...
►On Constituting Oneself an Anarchist Subject: www.dropbox.co...
►On Foucualt's Biopower: • What is Biopower? | Mi...
►On Foucault's Governmentality: • What is Governmentalit...

Опубликовано:

7 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 11

@veyselbatmaz2123 12 дней назад

Very enlightening summary. But it should be noted that postmodernists wrongly interpreted the situation of capitalism through the lenses of modernism, which they were all against in one sense or another. The most famous one, Foucoult, once said that if he had read the Frankfurt School, he would not have written 90% of his works. I say in my book "Digitalism vs. Capitalism" that if he had read McLuhan, he wouldn't bother to write the remaining 10%. The real basis for their wrongness is that technology determines everything. In fact, what they refer to as social determination is nonsense. because without technological infrastructure, society could not survive. Read Harold Innis. To the question, "Where is capitalism coming and going? Going to its graveyard?" I have a hopeful answer, which is highlighted in my book: Digitalism is killing capitalism. A novel perspective, a suggestion first in the world! “Digitalism vs. Capitalism: The New Ecumenical World Order: The Dimensions of State in Digitalism” by Veysel Batmaz is available for sale on the Internet.

@nevermind342 Год назад

Huge fan of your channel because of the specifically great material you guys choose and how well you guys dive deep into it. Perhaps Bakunin’s short 19th century essay “The capitalist system” is next? Though I know you have a video about Bakunin’s quotes I think this entire essay will peak your interests.

@steviewonder417 Год назад

Bakunin burns

@lai1064 Год назад

I’m reading it nowadays.

@bethbrown8997 Год назад

Relevant @4:42 ..... power relationships are not relationships of communication, although communication does always have a way of making someone act upon something but is not always the source of power (Foucault 1982 p. 786). Would Foucault not view this lack of communication as advantageous to the analysis of power, specifically subjective individualism? Nice to see both of you!

@RevolutionandIdeology Год назад

Hi Beth! I think for Foucault, communication is a _conduit_ for power but is not power itself. I think the best metaphor I can use is that of electricity. A wire conducts electricity but it is not electricity. If we set out to analyze electricity we would fall significantly short by centering our analysis on all of the minutiae of the characteristics of wires/wiring. Of course, we need to understand wiring in order to arrive at a somewhat complete analysis of electricity. But, we wouldn't have a complete understanding of electricity merely by understanding wiring. If that makes sense. Here he's critiquing traditional structuralists who center their analysis on the meaning and delivery of language structures and symbols, i.e. communication. Power can manifest in communication relationships but they are not power directly. [I'm not sure how that relates to 4:42 though]