Page 149 - Cultural Theory

Edwards-3516-Ch-07.qxd 5/9/2007 5:56 PM Page 138

••• Tim May and Jason Powell •••

limits’ (ibid.: 45). The purpose being ‘to transform the critique conducted in the form
of necessary limitation into a practical critique that takes the form of a possible trans-
gression’ (ibid.: 45). Overall, it is genealogical in form: ‘it will not deduce from the
form of what we are what it is impossible for us to do and to know; but it will sepa-
rate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no
longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think’ (ibid.: 46). The ideal lies
in the possibility of setting oneself free. To examine the internal modes of the order-
ing of truth, but not in the name of a truth that lies beyond it, is seen to open up
possibilities for its transgression.
Despite criticisms that his work lacked a normative dimension (Fraser, 1989),
the orientation of Foucault’s approach is clear. The issue translates into one of
how one-sided states of domination can be avoided in order to promote a two-
sided relation of dialogue. Foucault’s interventions were practically motivated. The
journey for these investigations being from how we are constituted as objects of
knowledge to how we are constituted as subjects of power/knowledge. What we
can take from Foucault is the insight that critical approaches to cultural analysis
cannot practise on the presupposition that there is an essence to humanity. The
idea of coming to know ourselves differently and viewing the possibilities for
transformation, is about interpreting ourselves differently. Between self-definition and
social situation lies the potential to render the ‘cultural unconscious apparent’
(Foucault, 1989: 73).

References

Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1997) Dialectic of Enlightenment, originally published 1994.
Translated by Cumming, J. London: Verso
Armstrong, T.J. (ed.) (1992) Michel Foucault: Philosopher. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Ashenden, S. and Owen, D. (eds) (1999) Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between
Genealogy and Critical Theory. London: Sage.
Biggs, S. and Powell, J.L. (2000) ‘surveillance and elder abuse: the rationalities and technologies
of community care’ Journal of Contemporary Health, 4(1): 43–a.
Biggs, S. and Powell, J.L. (2001) ‘A Foucauldian analysis of old age and the power of social wel-
fare’, Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 12(2): 93–111.
Braidotti, R. (1991) Patterns of Dissonance, New York: Routledge.
Brooke-Ross, R. (1986) quoted in Langan, M. and Lee, P. (eds.)(1988) Radical Social Work Today,
London, Unwin Hyman.
Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.
London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Butler, J. (2000) ‘Merely Cultural’, New Left Review, 227: 33–34.
Davidson, A. (1986) ‘Archaeology, genealogy, ethics,’ in D. Hoy, (ed.) Foucault: A Critical Reader.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dean, M. (2004) Governing Societies. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Deleuze, G. (1992) ‘What is a dispositif?’, in T.J. Armstrong, (ed).
Donzelot, J. (1980) The Policing of Families. Michel Foucault: Philosopher. London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf. London: Random House.
Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elders, F. (ed.) (1974) Reflexive Waters: The Basic Concerns of Mankind. London: Souvenir Press.
• 138 •