Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Report (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (5)
- Portuguese (1)
- Spanish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Michel Foucault (7) (remove)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (3)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (2)
- Rechtswissenschaft (2)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Cornelia Goethe Centrum für Frauenstudien und die Erforschung der Geschlechterverhältnisse (CGC) (1)
- Institut für Sozialforschung (IFS) (1)
- Philosophie (1)
Based on Foucault’s analysis of German Neoliberalism and his thesis of ambiguity, the following paper draws a two-level distinction between individual and regulatory ethics. The individual ethics level – which has received surprisingly little attention – contains the Christian foundation of values and the liberal-Kantian heritage of so called Ordoliberalism – as one variety of neoliberalism. The regulatory or formal-institutional ethics level on the contrary refers to the ordoliberal framework of a socio-economic order. By differentiating these two levels of ethics incorporated in German Neoliberalism, it is feasible to distinguish dissimilar varieties of neoliberalism and to link Ordoliberalism to modern economic ethics. Furthermore, it allows a revision of the dominant reception of Ordoliberalism which focuses solely on the formal-institutional level while mainly neglecting the individual ethics level.
Following Foucault's analysis of German Neoliberalism (Ordoliberalism) and his thesis of ambiguity, this paper introduces a two-level distinction between individual and regulatory ethics. In particular, its aim is to reassess the importance of individual ethics in the conceptual framework of Ordoliberalism. The individual ethics of Ordoliberalism is based on the heritage of Judeo-Christian values and the Kantian individual liberty and responsibility. The regulatory or formal-institutional ethics of Ordoliberalism which has so far received most attention on the contrary refers to the institutional and legal framework of a socio-economic order. By distinguishing these two dimensions of ethics incorporated in German Neoliberalism, it is feasible to distinguish different varieties of neoliberalism and to link Ordoliberalism to modern economic ethics.
En el presente trabajo abordo la interpretación que Axel Honneth realiza, en su libro Crítica del poder, de la propuesta de Michel Foucault. Honneth señala, a modo de crítica, la existencia de una contradicción entre lo que denomina la teoría del poder de Foucault y sus estudios históricos –en particular, los reunidos en Vigilar y Castigar–. Uno de mis objetivos es explicar esta contradicción y, a partir de ella, proponer una lectura alternativa. En contraposición a Honneth, para quien las instituciones disciplinarias que analiza Foucault terminarían desplazando la acción y la lucha social, intento mostrar –y este es el aporte que busco realizar en el trabajo a partir de una reconstrucción conceptual– que las disciplinas y por añadidura las instituciones disciplinarias deben considerarse tácticas que nunca alcanzan del todo su objetivo. Son tácticas que no logran bloquear, de manera definitiva, las expresiones de resistencia y conflictividad. Esta lectura alternativa que aquí propongo permitiría, en principio, ensayar al menos dos puntos de contacto entre Foucault y la teoría crítica que aún no han sido elucidados.
Este artigo elucida, em primeiro lugar, os vários significados da noção francesa de dispositif e contrasta-a com os usos de "aparelho" ("appareil"), por um lado, e "reunião" ("agencement"), por outro. A segunda parte apresenta o uso distintivo de Foucault do conceito de dispositivo. O argumento baseia-se na tese de que a noção de dispositivo de Foucault está firmemente ancorada em uma analítica do governo, na medida em que se concentra na direção e regulação de forças agenciais e processos vitais. Na última parte, proponho combinar uma analítica do governo, seguindo Foucault, com insights dos Estudos de Ciência e Tecnologia (STS). Argumento que essa síntese teórica entre STS e uma analítica do governo ajuda a corrigir os problemas de muitas análises da sociologia política e da teoria social e política ao enfrentar as transformações e mudanças nas sociedades contemporâneas.
Recombinant DNA technology is an essential area of life engineering. The main aim of research in this field is to experimentally explore the possibilities of repairing damaged human DNA, healing or enhancing future human bodies. Based on ethnographic research in a Czech biochemical laboratory, the article explores biotechnological corporealities and their specific ontology through dealings with bio-objects, the bodywork of scientists. Using the complementary concepts of utopia and heterotopia, the text addresses the situation of bodies and bio-objects in a laboratory. Embodied utopias are analyzed as material semiotic phenomena that are embodied by scientists in their visions and emotions and that are related to potential bodies and to future, not-yet-actualized embodiments. As a counterpart to this, the text explores embodied heterotopias, which are always the other spaces, like biotechnological bio-objects that are simulated in computers or stored in special solutions.
The concept of biopolitics has its origin on the Michel Foucault works developped since 1975 to 1979. In this period, the author introduced the foundations for a new approach about the modern government, based in both crescent enpowerment on individuals and the control of populations. The theme has attracted the attentions of some critical political studies, with many practical uses. However, I believe there is not enough consolidation about biopolitics as a concept and a comprehensive theory of the new political mechanisms. This uncertainness is more evident when the very role of Law is questioned in a biopolitical model, due to the archaic nature that Foucault gives to it. So the aim of the paper is to identify the theorical comprehension of biopolitics in a contemporary author as Giorgio Agamben to demonstrate his oppositions and proximities from the original idea of Michel Foucault. I propose that Agamben has the same difficulties of Foucault to deal with legal theory and Law inside biopolitics. Nevertheless, after a critical review on the works of this two authors, my conclusion is that a settlement of the concepts of Law and biopolitics depends of the surpassing of the Foucaldian version of Law as sovereignity, a clear delimitation of a common core between the authors and their differences and the research and affirmation of the concept of Law in Agamben, more well-refined than Foucault's one.
Agamben has claimed to work inside the tradition inaugurated by the archaeological method of Michel Foucault but not to fully coincide with it. “My method is archaeological and paradigmatic in a sense which is very close to that of Foucault, but not completely coincident with it. The question is, facing the dichotomies that structuralize our culture, to go beyond the exceptions that have been producing the former, however, not to find a chronologically originary state, but to be able to understand the situation in which we are. Archaeology is, in this sense, the only way to access present” (interview to Flavia Costa, trad. Susana Scramim, in Revista do Departamento de Psicologia – Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, v. 18 - n. 1, 131-136, Jan./Jun. 2006, 132, translated by the author). However, the aspects in which Agamben follows Foucault's method and the ones he does not were never very clear. This situation seems to change with the edition of Agamben's most extensive and explicit texts on method, Signatura Rerum. Sul Metodo (2008, italian edition). The goal of this article is to identify the points of intersection between their methods and some points in which they differ.