website statistics Foucault - PDF Books Online
Hot Best Seller

Foucault

Availability: Ready to download

The first analysis of Foucault’s work by a major philosopher working within the same poststructuralist tradition.


Compare

The first analysis of Foucault’s work by a major philosopher working within the same poststructuralist tradition.

30 review for Foucault

  1. 4 out of 5

    Jonfaith

    We must take quite literally the idea that man is a face drawn in the sand between two tides: he is a composition appearing between two others, a classical past that never knew him, and a future that will no longer know him. I remain leery of those who profess to "know" Foucault, all the epistemological breaks and fissures lead one to count more on a fluid awareness of Foucault's thought, rather than any fluency of sorts. This is one of the theses flashed by Deleuze. He rejects those who demarcat We must take quite literally the idea that man is a face drawn in the sand between two tides: he is a composition appearing between two others, a classical past that never knew him, and a future that will no longer know him. I remain leery of those who profess to "know" Foucault, all the epistemological breaks and fissures lead one to count more on a fluid awareness of Foucault's thought, rather than any fluency of sorts. This is one of the theses flashed by Deleuze. He rejects those who demarcate a solid position and resign Foucault to that corner exclusively. Today wasn't a smart day for me personally. I treasure those. Today, however I woke early and began clawing through this volume. Sundays are generous in this encouragement. Deleuze's Foucault is one of statements, not propositions. He archives rather than constructs. It is a process swimming with Power, Knowledge and Self. The self folds these other experiences inwards, internalizing them, letting rummy ripples sequence outwards. This isn't a question of dualities but rather multiplicities. There is no hierarchy here, just a diagram, that peerless positioning of concepts and forces. I'm not sure I have a handle on the diagram's significance, it is a slippery notion. Ultimately the foundation for Foucault's experience is the visual and the articulable. Deleuze's survey skips from the power books on the clinic, the asylum and the prison. A leap is then made to the History of Sexuality and another parallel on towards a project involving Heidegger. In truth, one thing haunts Foucault - thought. The question: 'What does thinking signify? What do we call thinking?' is the arrow first fired by Heidegger and then again by Foucault. He writes a history, but a history of thought as such. This leads us towards Deleuze's final section, the appendix which some reviewers found to redeem this whole project. The title is On the death of Man and Superman. This draws some wonky post-human thoughts into the fore and I wish there would have been more.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Maria Ferreira

    Gilles discursa sobre a obra de Foucault de quem era amigo e admirador. Este ensaio pretende dar pistas sobre o pensamento de Foucault, dos seus devaneios sobre a Luz e a Linguagem, isto é, sobre o ver e o falar e, da importância destes dois sentidos na concepção do saber, assim como da formação dos relacionamentos das forças que dá origem ao Poder. Não sendo da minha área de trabalho e estudo, confesso que me perdi um pouco no alcance destas problemáticas e não entendi parte do que Gilles refere, Gilles discursa sobre a obra de Foucault de quem era amigo e admirador. Este ensaio pretende dar pistas sobre o pensamento de Foucault, dos seus devaneios sobre a Luz e a Linguagem, isto é, sobre o ver e o falar e, da importância destes dois sentidos na concepção do saber, assim como da formação dos relacionamentos das forças que dá origem ao Poder. Não sendo da minha área de trabalho e estudo, confesso que me perdi um pouco no alcance destas problemáticas e não entendi parte do que Gilles refere, quanto Eu de-Fora e o Eu de-Dentro nem da relação com "finitude constituinte", mas valeu o esforço.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Deep

    While this book sets out to explain the work of Michel Foucault it's certainly not an introduction. Written in Deleuze's dense jargon, it demands some prior knowledge of the author's theoretical terms to parse the implied meanings and connections. Deleuze does explain these terms contextually, but I found myself flipping back and forth (and in and out of Wallerstein's excellent Swedish foreword) as earlier paragraphs suddenly became much clearer a page or two later. I'd thus recommend François While this book sets out to explain the work of Michel Foucault it's certainly not an introduction. Written in Deleuze's dense jargon, it demands some prior knowledge of the author's theoretical terms to parse the implied meanings and connections. Deleuze does explain these terms contextually, but I found myself flipping back and forth (and in and out of Wallerstein's excellent Swedish foreword) as earlier paragraphs suddenly became much clearer a page or two later. I'd thus recommend François Zourabichvili's Deleuze: A Philosophy of Event before engaging this work and The Deleuze Dictionary close at hand. This made my first attempt at this book grind to a halt midway. But now, a few Deleuze books later, I decided to give it another try. Still, expect to read a chapter or two before it 'clicks'. With this in mind 'Foucault' is an excellent and rigorous analysis of the namesake's theory (through Deleuze's characteristic 'doubling' of his own). It unpacks Foucault's theory into the many parts (statement, given light, given speech, thresholds, power, knowing and so on) which distinguishes it from earlier methodologies such as hermeneutics; how Foucault applies these to the more famed topics of 'the care of the self', history, and knowledge. A historian not of subjects, but subject formation. It's therefore, more than anything else, a book about what Foucault does. A welcome change as in my experience too many authors do not move beyond what Foucault says (reducing him to a mere 'historian of the clinic/prison/sexuality' and limiting their engagement to mere exegesis if Foucault is 'factually' correct).

  4. 4 out of 5

    Jinzhou

    It's said to be the best introduction out there to Foucault's philosophy. Without previous knowledge of Foucault I came to this book as a friend who does research under Foucault's framework highly recommends it. I've read some of Deleuze's own philosophy in difference and repetition, where he revolutionizes metaphysics of the western tradition from one to many, from static to dynamic. With this knowledge, it's not difficult for me to find deep similarities between them, although it may be the re It's said to be the best introduction out there to Foucault's philosophy. Without previous knowledge of Foucault I came to this book as a friend who does research under Foucault's framework highly recommends it. I've read some of Deleuze's own philosophy in difference and repetition, where he revolutionizes metaphysics of the western tradition from one to many, from static to dynamic. With this knowledge, it's not difficult for me to find deep similarities between them, although it may be the result of Deleuze's Deleuzian reading of Foucault. But this should not be over stressed since these two were close and admired each other when both were alive. For a deeper reason, Foucault's tremendous novelty in revealing the knowledge being, power being and thought being owes much to a metaphysics of multiplicity that Deleuze logically develops in his own works and uses in analyzing Foucault. Without such a ground Foucault's philosophy will appear not so philosophical or consistent. To be continued...

  5. 4 out of 5

    Alex Lee

    This is one of Deleuze's most abstract books. Foucault is pretty abstract to begin with. But Deleuze here, as a tribute to his friend, puts Foucault's work into perspective by showing how the formation of expressive content within discourse can be understood as a generative apparatus through external constraints. In many ways, Foucault is chasing shadows. Discourse is a reactive trace of external agencies. Foucault mines these agencies through a genealogical search of historic formation. The cha This is one of Deleuze's most abstract books. Foucault is pretty abstract to begin with. But Deleuze here, as a tribute to his friend, puts Foucault's work into perspective by showing how the formation of expressive content within discourse can be understood as a generative apparatus through external constraints. In many ways, Foucault is chasing shadows. Discourse is a reactive trace of external agencies. Foucault mines these agencies through a genealogical search of historic formation. The changes that occur to outline a formation of an episteme mark the introduction of new logical expressions of agency. Literally, the formation of content is the appearance of structure as its own principle. There are some interesting areas that can be explored, but Deleuze does not wish to create a master narrative of sorts. He is out to explicate Foucault's internal engine. And in his characteristic way, he does this well, showing how his own tool box of forms can be utilized within Foucault's search for a discursive center for human organization.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Kenny

    This book, like many of Deleuze's other works, is commendable not on the uniqueness of its contents (the theory being applied is in my eyes effectively identical to that in Difference and Repetition) but because of the small-scale variations inflicted upon these contents which unveil new potentials for their use. Unlike most of Deleuze's works, his book on Foucault provides an articulation of his broad metaphysics in the context of its implications for politics and society. These implications ar This book, like many of Deleuze's other works, is commendable not on the uniqueness of its contents (the theory being applied is in my eyes effectively identical to that in Difference and Repetition) but because of the small-scale variations inflicted upon these contents which unveil new potentials for their use. Unlike most of Deleuze's works, his book on Foucault provides an articulation of his broad metaphysics in the context of its implications for politics and society. These implications are brought about by elaborating theoretically a series of equivalences, via a readaptation of Foucault's corpus: difference/repetition=memory/forgetting, plane-of-immanence=diagram, bodies/paradoxies/events=power/desire/knowledge, corporeal/incorporeal=visible/articulable, and so on. That said, there is still much from this book that I cannot claim to have understood. A general criticism which deserves to be voiced against all of Deleuze's works on the history of philosophy is that he presumes each time that his reader has an exhaustive knowledge of his 'partner' - and I know far less Foucault than I do Deleuze. Do not approach this work expecting a critical introduction to Foucault; expect from it the creative exercise of thought for which Deleuze is best known.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Pete

    Deleuze spends most of the book translating Foucault into his own spatializing metaphors (diagrams, lines, folds), which is interesting, but he generally doesn't contribute much to my knowledge of Foucault. If anything, the Appendix is the best part, since it contains the clearest statement of what Deleuze thinks is important about Foucault's overall project. I also thought that Deleuze gives more credit to Foucault than he is actually due in terms of the seriousness of his engagement with lingui Deleuze spends most of the book translating Foucault into his own spatializing metaphors (diagrams, lines, folds), which is interesting, but he generally doesn't contribute much to my knowledge of Foucault. If anything, the Appendix is the best part, since it contains the clearest statement of what Deleuze thinks is important about Foucault's overall project. I also thought that Deleuze gives more credit to Foucault than he is actually due in terms of the seriousness of his engagement with linguistics and his treatment of 'statements'. One valuable overarching theme that I extracted was Deleuze's reframing of Foucault's early works in terms of knowledge and visibility, which I think nicely complements some current work on the history of science (e.g. Daston and Galison's Objectivity). More than anything I read it to get a taste of Deleuze's style, since I've never read him before. Think I might read his book on Nietzsche next.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Martin

    Es freut mich zu sehen, dass Deleuze anscheinend nach den an ein Delirium erinnernde Zusammenarbeit mit Guattari im Anti-Ödipus wieder in seine alte Brillanz zurückgekehrt ist (wobei der Anti-Ödipus durchaus hochinteressant ist, aus Lesersicht allerdings etwas…). Meiner Meinung nach hat man es mit diesem Buch mit einem wissenschaftlichen Werk zu tun, das als Vorbild für viele andere dienen kann. Deleuze setzt sich hier mit dem Werk seines Freundes Foucault auseinander, und zwar mit dessen Gesamtw Es freut mich zu sehen, dass Deleuze anscheinend nach den an ein Delirium erinnernde Zusammenarbeit mit Guattari im Anti-Ödipus wieder in seine alte Brillanz zurückgekehrt ist (wobei der Anti-Ödipus durchaus hochinteressant ist, aus Lesersicht allerdings etwas…). Meiner Meinung nach hat man es mit diesem Buch mit einem wissenschaftlichen Werk zu tun, das als Vorbild für viele andere dienen kann. Deleuze setzt sich hier mit dem Werk seines Freundes Foucault auseinander, und zwar mit dessen Gesamtwerk. Die Kompaktheit des Bandes ergibt sich aus der Reduktion des Foucault’schen Werkes auf die wichtigsten Kernbotschaften und Elemente. Deleuze fasst Foucault zusammen und interpretiert ihn damit gleichzeitig. Gliederungsmäßig beginnt er zunächst mit der Extraktion der Kernelemente aus der „Archäologie des Wissens“ und geht dann zu „Überwachen und Strafen“ über. Im Prinzip werden anhand dieser beiden Werke die wichtigsten Elemente Foucaults, das, wie es Deleuze nennt, Sagen (Archäologie des Wissens und Ordnung der Dinge) und das Sehen (Überwachen und Strafen, Geburt der Klinik) einmal zusammengefasst und definiert. Im zweiten Teil, der Topologie: Anders denken, setzt sich Deleuze dann mit weiteren Ebenen des Foucault’schen Werkes auseinander, dem Wissen, der Macht und der Subjektivierung. Dabei verwendet er teils eigene Konzepte wie die Faltung, was aber nicht wirklich negativ auffällt, da trotzdem immer der Fokus auf Foucaults Werken bleibt. Die Stärke dieses Werkes liegt auf mehreren Ebenen. Einerseits hat man sprachlich eine zwar hochkomplexe, aber immer wieder durch zusammenfassende Abschnitte aufgelockerte Zusammenfassung mit den Kernaussagen Foucaults (bzw. der Interpretation der Kernaussagen nach Deleuze). Andererseits ergibt sich bereits durch die Tatsache, dass Deleuze mit Foucault befreundet war, eine gewisse Gravität in den Ausführungen. Im Gegensatz etwa zu heutigen Forschern, die über Foucault schreiben, hat Deleuze mit Foucault kommuniziert. Dieser Gedankenaustausch ist natürlich hundertmal mehr wert als Archivforschung oder eine hermeneutische Auseinandersetzung mit den Werken Foucaults alleine. Alles in allem eine wirklich empfehlenswerte Lektüre zu Foucault, die mir einerseits durch ihre Klarheit sehr weitergeholfen hat, andererseits die Komplexität von Foucault noch einmal herausstreicht und dadurch mein Verständnis auch soweit erweitert hat, dass ich nun sagen kann: Ich weiß, dass ich (fast) nichts zu Foucault weiß :-)

  9. 5 out of 5

    Virga

    Deleuze'o rašomos klasikų interpretacijos skirtos dar ir dar paaiškinti paties Deleuze'o filosofiją, taip ir šita. Palaipsniui ėmė atrodyti, kad iš tikrųjų skaitau Skirtumą ir kartotę (pradžioj knygos, kur apie kalbą ir mąstymą) arba Tūkstantį plokštikalnių (į galą knygos, kur rodoma tarsi kažkas panašaus į Foucault ontologiją). Labai gera interpretacija (jokio skirtumo, ką galvojo/ galvotų pats Foucault), po jos šiek tiek kitaip (nebe sausai sociopolitiškai) atrodo galios ir jėgos santykis, kal Deleuze'o rašomos klasikų interpretacijos skirtos dar ir dar paaiškinti paties Deleuze'o filosofiją, taip ir šita. Palaipsniui ėmė atrodyti, kad iš tikrųjų skaitau Skirtumą ir kartotę (pradžioj knygos, kur apie kalbą ir mąstymą) arba Tūkstantį plokštikalnių (į galą knygos, kur rodoma tarsi kažkas panašaus į Foucault ontologiją). Labai gera interpretacija (jokio skirtumo, ką galvojo/ galvotų pats Foucault), po jos šiek tiek kitaip (nebe sausai sociopolitiškai) atrodo galios ir jėgos santykis, kalbos ir galios santykis, ir galia apskritai. Po jos norisi dar kartą skaityti ir Foucault (Daiktų tvarką pirmiausiai), ir Deleuze'ą (ir jį su Guattari). Taigi maža knygelė, ir be ypatingų tikslų ir šūkių, bet daug padaro.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Sig

    This will undoubtedly be a book that I revisit in more favourable circumstances later. Deleuze's thought in many ways is like a Moebius strip - complex and recursive with a mesmerising oasis of depth (in the sense that one can feel the depth and density of what is on display, but is ever cautious of the extent of the depth one thinks it to be - a constant game of recursive judgement). Whilst I do not think that I gained a better understanding of Foucault - it's been pointed that out bald theory This will undoubtedly be a book that I revisit in more favourable circumstances later. Deleuze's thought in many ways is like a Moebius strip - complex and recursive with a mesmerising oasis of depth (in the sense that one can feel the depth and density of what is on display, but is ever cautious of the extent of the depth one thinks it to be - a constant game of recursive judgement). Whilst I do not think that I gained a better understanding of Foucault - it's been pointed that out bald theory man is subordinated and used to illustrate Deleuzian thought - I do think that what has been discussed was an overall favourable journey. Like a comedy, full of misunderstandings, recognition, reconciliation and affirmation.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Raquel

    Uma preciosa introdução à obra de Michel Foucault, escrita por um filosófo de mérito. Indispensável enquanto introdução ao pensamento de Foucault.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Leonardo

    El pasaje de la sociedad disciplinaria a la sociedad de control no está articulado explícitamente por Foucault, pero permanece implícito en su obra. Seguimos los excelentes comentarios de Gilles Deleuze en esta interpretación. Ver: Gilles Deleuze, Foucault. Imperio Pág.23 Para una excelente explicación sobre el concepto del diagrama de Foucault, ver Gilles Deleuze, Foucault, trad. Seán Hand (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), pp. 34-37. Imperio Pág.144 El pasaje de la sociedad disciplinaria a la sociedad de control no está articulado explícitamente por Foucault, pero permanece implícito en su obra. Seguimos los excelentes comentarios de Gilles Deleuze en esta interpretación. Ver: Gilles Deleuze, Foucault. Imperio Pág.23 Para una excelente explicación sobre el concepto del diagrama de Foucault, ver Gilles Deleuze, Foucault, trad. Seán Hand (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), pp. 34-37. Imperio Pág.144

  13. 4 out of 5

    Rui Coelho

    There is a saying in my country that states: one cannot please both Greeks and Trojans. But in Foucault, you have a book that is confusing for begginers and boring for veterans, boldingly pleasing no one at all.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Hagar

    I am still a very early and amateur Foucault reader, so I found it more expedient to skim through the book in search for interesting ideas. I found many! Foucault's philosophy extends from one on logic and epistemology to power and law. I'll need this book in the future. I am still a very early and amateur Foucault reader, so I found it more expedient to skim through the book in search for interesting ideas. I found many! Foucault's philosophy extends from one on logic and epistemology to power and law. I'll need this book in the future.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Budaallmusic

    The single most important book I've ever read. Will have to come back to it. Suspect that it will be important for the rest of my life. The single most important book I've ever read. Will have to come back to it. Suspect that it will be important for the rest of my life.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Melusine Parry

    Etonnamment lisible, cette étude de six aspects de l'oeuvre de Foucault par Deleuze est très intéressante mais il faut être très calé sur Foucault. Etonnamment lisible, cette étude de six aspects de l'oeuvre de Foucault par Deleuze est très intéressante mais il faut être très calé sur Foucault.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Peter

    Deleuze was a big fan of Foucault.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Tristan Laing

    If you think Deleuze and Foucault have fundamentally divergent ontologies, Deleuze's account will challenge your assumptions. And stop reading so much Hallward! If you think Deleuze and Foucault have fundamentally divergent ontologies, Deleuze's account will challenge your assumptions. And stop reading so much Hallward!

  19. 5 out of 5

    August Denys

    This is a great book; however, do not let the title fool you because it is on much more than just Foucault. While he is the primary focal point of the book, this study, while a little on the short side, applies a plethora of other authors and researchers from the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Kant, Darwin, and more. It is because of this that I must recommend this only after one has a conception of philosophy already, and to that point a conception that realizes the faul This is a great book; however, do not let the title fool you because it is on much more than just Foucault. While he is the primary focal point of the book, this study, while a little on the short side, applies a plethora of other authors and researchers from the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Kant, Darwin, and more. It is because of this that I must recommend this only after one has a conception of philosophy already, and to that point a conception that realizes the faults and shortcomings of simply Analytic Philosophy. Yes, this work is very much in what one would consider Continental Philosophy, yet that does not mean it is gibberish or nonsense. As most other sources will tell you, including the book itself, this is one of the first forays into a Philosophical understanding of Foucault, and into the philosophy it goes. To use a euphemism this enquiry goes deep into the rabbit hole which is philosophy including such topics as Phenomenology, Ontology, and Epistemology. This is not a once and done book, this is not even a coffee table book (although that may be how I slightly treated this book). This book is of the sort that needs to be reread once you have finished it to make some connections that you may have missed just because you are not sure what these phrases may mean, and in certain aspects, it will help with the understanding of the whole. In short, I will be rereading this again at another time. Before reading this, I have not read any of Foucault's works. I am familiar with some others usage of his ideas, but one even needs to be careful of the because of the possible reductionism of other philosophers and social scientists not comprehending the full scope of his importance. Do I believe that I was missing out by not reading the works of Foucault first? Yes and no. I believe that in terms of reading Foucault's works first or this book first, I believe that either will work; however, that is only if, as stated earlier, that one has a conception of philosophy. Deleuze may first and foremost be a philosopher of Nietzsche, and he does read much of Nietzsche into this book, but he does read the others I have mentioned. However, it may be the case that Deleuze does this only because, as one would know when they read this book, that Deleuze is actually determining the "Strata or Historical Formations" of Foucault, which is the title of the third chapter of the book (this also has the subtitle of Knowledge). Deleuze also has a great knowledge of Kant's Critical philosophy and Heidegger. In regards to these two, the formation of the thoughts of Foucault was similar to that of Kant's Critical Philosophy, and Foucault draws much from the Heideggerian sense of Being. From the latter, the book focuses on the ideas of Language-Being, Knowledge-Being, and Power-Being. If one is not familiar with Heidegger's Being-in-the-world, then Deleuze will pose a problem for those unfamiliar with it. One does not need to be a Heideggerian or a Kantian, at least this is what I currently believe; rather, they need familiarity with the subject. I'm sure as I read more philosophy my opinions will change. As I just stated, only being familiar with certain aspects can get the person through the work; however, that is not very convincing if you become a part of a philosophical debate. In that sense, this book is great for understanding the Universals of the picture, but it does not, or I have not gained the sense of the implication of the particulars.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Joseph

    As with all of Deleuze's studies of other authors, it functions more as an elucidation of Deleuze's thought than of the person whose name is in the title. Paul Bové's foreword identifies one important difference between Deleuze and Foucault, namely that Foucault was never quite as unequivocal in his rejection of the negative as Deleuze and Guattari. As I was reading, I found another. In order to make his analytic schema of the discursive and the visible work across the totality of Foucault's work As with all of Deleuze's studies of other authors, it functions more as an elucidation of Deleuze's thought than of the person whose name is in the title. Paul Bové's foreword identifies one important difference between Deleuze and Foucault, namely that Foucault was never quite as unequivocal in his rejection of the negative as Deleuze and Guattari. As I was reading, I found another. In order to make his analytic schema of the discursive and the visible work across the totality of Foucault's works, Deleuze has to unreasonably expand the meaning of "visible" to include all sensoria. One might wonder why he did not just use the word "sensible" instead. It becomes clear, as the final chapter attempts to settle accounts with phenomenology, why that is, as the sensible would sound too similar to Merleau-Ponty's approach to phenomenology. That last chapter is the weakest, because Foucault's critique of phenomenology is not Deleuze's, and because it is the chapter that attempts to address the History of Sexuality. If one were to mistake Deleuze's earlier explications of his schema for a faithful rendition of Foucault's approach, then one would imagine Foucault to be a philosopher who can do all his work with his mouth, eyes, and ears, a disembodied head with its nose cut off out of spite. This image would be not unlike Deleuze himself, Husserl, or most other philosophers--and such a philosopher would never have been able to write HS, with its multiplicities of tactile and olfactory pleasures. Foucault, like Merleau-Ponty, was a rare philosopher capable of theorizing with the entire body. In the poststructuralist critique of phenomenology, Foucault is to Merleau-Ponty as Deleuze is to Husserl, and therefore, superior in every respect. A positive note, however: The second chapter is a strong explication of Discipline and Punish, and is more explicit about that study's political implications than Foucault himself ever was. It can be read on its own, and if one is more interested in Foucault than in Deleuze, but lacking the time to read DP in its entirety (e.g. in an undergraduate survey course), perhaps it should be.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Hayden Berg

    This was my first exposure to Deleuze and I had a really mixed experience with it. On the one hand, I don't think this is a good introduction to Foucault's work. I personally really struggled to understand his analysis of those works of Foucault's which I hadn't already read. I find Foucault himself a much clearer and more exciting writer. I'd recommend this book to someone who has read some Foucault already and wants to see how his ideas can be developed further - the book didn't present an int This was my first exposure to Deleuze and I had a really mixed experience with it. On the one hand, I don't think this is a good introduction to Foucault's work. I personally really struggled to understand his analysis of those works of Foucault's which I hadn't already read. I find Foucault himself a much clearer and more exciting writer. I'd recommend this book to someone who has read some Foucault already and wants to see how his ideas can be developed further - the book didn't present an introduction to Foucault as much as an interpretation of Foucault through a Deleuzean lens. I felt, as others here have noted, that much of the clearest and most illuminating aspects of the work come in the very brief appendix on the death of man and superman. On the other hand, while I genuinely struggled to understand much of the book - in large part due to the fact that Deleuze seems to have constructed his own language unique to his philosophical system and/or makes use of language from myriad traditions that I'm not familiar with - there were moments of clarity that excited me and caused me to think about Foucault's work in a completely different light. The idea of power as diagrammatic, the insight that Foucault seems interested in articulation/visibility (language/image), and a clear analysis of Foucualt's (somewhat Kantain) historical project. I'm not ready to dismiss Deleuze as an elitist Continental obscurantist who babbles on about "the folding" and "the curve of the outside farther from all exteriority, yet closer than interiority itself", etc., etc. I'm more inclined to think that I haven't yet experienced enough of (1) Deleuze's work and (2) the works he references/builds upon to merit a deep understanding of the work. The book made me excited to read more Foucault (The Use of Pleasure, in particular) and once I've further familiarized myself with his ouvre (as well as some more Heidegger), I'm sure I'll return to this volume and have a much greater understanding and appreciation for it.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Aaron Schuschu

    Of course Deleuze would give Foucault the golden child treatment. On the other hand, it gives definition to what Foucault said throughout History of Sexuality- that church was not at fault for sex being repressed. Plus an odd little appendix about the death of language and how it relates to the Nietzschean Superman.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Alfonso Nosequechingados

    Un libro con lenguaje denso, oscuro y poco claro. Algunas aportaciones interesantes respecto al autor "homenajeado", no recomendable para alguien que no conoce la obra de Deleuze, Foucault o conceptos de filosofía postestructural Un libro con lenguaje denso, oscuro y poco claro. Algunas aportaciones interesantes respecto al autor "homenajeado", no recomendable para alguien que no conoce la obra de Deleuze, Foucault o conceptos de filosofía postestructural

  24. 4 out of 5

    Max

    love that cover tho

  25. 5 out of 5

    Ali Amiri

    اصلاً نفهمیدم چی خوندم تو این بلبشو. باید دوباره بخونم.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Steen Ledet

    Lucid and luminescent overview of Foucault.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Pablo

    Lectura lenta para situar a Foucault y sus conceptos - complejos - de poder, subjetividad, etc. Leí la ed. catalana, ed. 62, 1987, trad. de Victor Compta.

  28. 4 out of 5

    vi macdonald

    3.5

  29. 5 out of 5

    Eric Phetteplace

    A treatment of Foucault as philosopher, not as historian, that is barely recognizable in the context of most of his more well-known works.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Ayanna Dozier

    In his book on the work of Michel Foucault entitled Foucault, Deleuze reads Foucault’s work in topological terms in an effort to articulate a way of mapping out power relations with regards to knowledge production, language, archives, and “subjectivity.” Deleuze uses Foucault’s work to trace how we can read how Foucault mapped out the external forces and relations that produce power and how the relations are (en)forced upon the bodies. An example of how he gets at this can be found in his discus In his book on the work of Michel Foucault entitled Foucault, Deleuze reads Foucault’s work in topological terms in an effort to articulate a way of mapping out power relations with regards to knowledge production, language, archives, and “subjectivity.” Deleuze uses Foucault’s work to trace how we can read how Foucault mapped out the external forces and relations that produce power and how the relations are (en)forced upon the bodies. An example of how he gets at this can be found in his discussion of Foucault’s The History of Sexuality: An Introduction in chapter two, “A New Cartographer.” Deleuze writes: “By highlighting sexuality as a special case, The History of Sexuality will therefore show how we can believe in a sexual repression operating within language if we concentrate on words and phrases but not fi we isolate the dominant statements, and especially the verbal procedures in use in churches, schools and hospitals, which simultaneously search for the reality of sex and the truth in sex. It will also show how repression and ideology explain nothing but always assume an organization or ‘system’ within which they operate, but not vice versa” (29). In this way, the diagram becomes one way of manifesting or mapping out such forms of exteriority (that is power relations). This is to say that power is a force that is constituted through its relation between force and force, or how power “express well the effect of a force on something, some object or being (28). His continual use of force as an analytic construct refers to the “history of forms, the archive, [which] is doubled by an evolution of forces, the diagram” (43) to constitute the exterior where relations between forces (and forces themselves) are realized. Deleuze writes, “the outside is not a fixed limit but a moving matter animated by peristaltic movements, fold and folding that together make up an inside: they are not something other than the outside, but precisely the inside of the outside” (97). The archivist nature of Foucault’s work allows Deleuze to argue for the process of diagramming out power relations and its effects in the world. Such a process, of course, can be used outside of Foucault’s work and has found great use in mapping out affect and art practices such as mapping out the structure of feeling in cinema, performance, dance, etc. Deleuze’s Foucault offers a sturdy (and unique) interpretation of Foucault’s work while additionally providing and establishing a theoretical approach and theory for other fields of study.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.