Strategic Matters: Apparatuses, Sub-Individuals, and Anthropological Slumber.
This paper uses the methodological dispute between Karen Barad and Thomas Lemke over the concept of strategy and the dispositif to access a deeper methodological issue in genealogy pertaining to matter. Critics including Barad and Beatrice Han find a problematic ambiguity in Foucault's writings arou...
| Publicado en: | Foucault Studies no. 37; pp. 75 - 103 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
University of Pennsylvania Press
Spring2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=187273321&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 187273321 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 18325203 1COW jtl: Foucault Studies issn: 18325203 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Spring2025 iid: 37 pid: 4636 pub: University of Pennsylvania Press artinfo: ui: 187273321 10.1353/fou.00006 ppf: 75 ppct: 28 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 1.1MB tig: atl: Strategic Matters: Apparatuses, Sub-Individuals, and Anthropological Slumber. aug: au: PERLMAN, DANIEL affil: Loyola University Chicago su: Discursive practices Failure (Psychology) Genealogy Materialism Ambiguity Governmentality sug: subj: Discursive practices Failure (Psychology) Genealogy Materialism Ambiguity Governmentality keyword: agential realism dispositif Foucault genealogy materialism strategy ab: This paper uses the methodological dispute between Karen Barad and Thomas Lemke over the concept of strategy and the dispositif to access a deeper methodological issue in genealogy pertaining to matter. Critics including Barad and Beatrice Han find a problematic ambiguity in Foucault's writings around how to articulate the force of discursive practices. This ambiguity coalesces in the figure of the individual and the question of how genealogy handles the non-discursive in relation to the institution. To Han, it marks a failure of genealogy to overcome Kant's transcendental theme. To Barad and Lemke, however, further developing certain concepts in genealogy's analytic framework in a materialist direction can resolve these issues. Both Barad and Lemke aim to move genealogy towards a new engagement with the natural sciences, but they disagree over which concepts require revision. Lemke rejects Barad's agential realist re-conception of the dispositif on the grounds that it neglects its strategic dimension; Lemke prefers to develop the concept of governmentality. I argue against Lemke that his focus on governmentality perpetuates the problematic ambiguity of discourse and matter by subsuming the non-discursive back into the institution, and that his demand for an intelligible account of how strategy stabilizes is misapplied to Barad's work, which is not itself conducting a genealogy of the tactics that constitute strategies. To help make the case, I read their dispute back into Han's critique, which though unconcerned with matter, demonstrates why the figure of the individual and the question of the non-discursive are substantial obstacles for genealogy. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Foucault Studies is the property of University of Pennsylvania Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Foucault Studies holder: University of Pennsylvania Press dt: @attributes: year: 2025 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|