Although Foucault maintained the distinction between the technologies  translation - Although Foucault maintained the distinction between the technologies  Indonesian how to say

Although Foucault maintained the di

Although Foucault maintained the distinction between the technologies of power/ domination and the technologies of self, these should not be regarded as acting in opposition to or in isolation to one another. Indeed, Foucault frequently spoke of the importance of considering the contingency of both in their interaction and interdependence, by indentifying specific examples: ‘the point where the technologies of domination of individuals over one another have recourse to processes by which the individual acts upon himself and, conversely, the points where the technologies of the self are integrated into structures of coercion‘ (Foucault, 1993: 203). The distinction should therefore be considered as a heuristic deviced and not the portrayal of two conflicting sets of interests. Overall, we should see Foucault’s entire works as providing ways of understanding social relations that require on our part active interpretation, not passive regurgitation.
To take one modern example of how we might think with, alongside (and against perhaps?) Foucault. Consider the question: how is modern bio-ethics rooted in a specific configuration of subjectivity? The body culturally represents the best hiding place, a hiding place of internal illnesses that remains inconspicuous until the advent of ‘expert’ intervention. In other words, what are the effects of this problematization, given its conditions of possibility? Subjective relations to the self will be affected to the extent that social life confronts individuals with the proposition that the subjective truth – the truth of their relation to themselves and to others – may be revealed by ‘bodies’, which are also object of manipulation, transformation, desire and hope. In this way we might anticipate through ‘culture’ (Morris, 1998) the relations between illnesses, new technologies, power, the body and desire. When facing an illnesses, this involves a deliberate practice of self-transformation and such transformativity must pass through learning about the self from the truth told by personal narratives within popular culture. How are this culture and the body itself, however, interacting with and being changed by advances in bio-medical technology and the power of huge pharmaceutical companies?
Foucault is often seen as a structuralist, along with those such as Barthes, Althusser and Lévi-Strauss. In replay to questions which sought to make such parallels, he was consistent: ‘I m obliged to repeat it continually. I have never used any of the concept which can be considered characteristic of structuralism’ (1989, 99). Perhaps the best way to view this is by examining his idea of historical ‘events’. He refuses to see events as symptomatic of deeper social structures and focuses upon what seems to be marginal as indicative of relations of power. Events thereby differ in their capacity to produce effects. The following quote helps us see how this can be applied to cultural analysis:
The problem is at once to distinguish among events, to differentiate the networks and levels to which they belong, and to reconstitute the lines along which they are connected and engender one another. From this follows a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the symbolic field or the domain of signifying structures, and a recourse to analyses in terms of the genealogy of relations of force, strategic development, and tactics. Here I believe one’s point of references should not be to the great model of language (langue) and signs, but to that of war and battle.
(Foucault, 1980: 114)

0/5000
From: -
To: -
Results (Indonesian) 1: [Copy]
Copied!
Although Foucault maintained the distinction between the technologies of power/ domination and the technologies of self, these should not be regarded as acting in opposition to or in isolation to one another. Indeed, Foucault frequently spoke of the importance of considering the contingency of both in their interaction and interdependence, by indentifying specific examples: ‘the point where the technologies of domination of individuals over one another have recourse to processes by which the individual acts upon himself and, conversely, the points where the technologies of the self are integrated into structures of coercion‘ (Foucault, 1993: 203). The distinction should therefore be considered as a heuristic deviced and not the portrayal of two conflicting sets of interests. Overall, we should see Foucault’s entire works as providing ways of understanding social relations that require on our part active interpretation, not passive regurgitation.To take one modern example of how we might think with, alongside (and against perhaps?) Foucault. Consider the question: how is modern bio-ethics rooted in a specific configuration of subjectivity? The body culturally represents the best hiding place, a hiding place of internal illnesses that remains inconspicuous until the advent of ‘expert’ intervention. In other words, what are the effects of this problematization, given its conditions of possibility? Subjective relations to the self will be affected to the extent that social life confronts individuals with the proposition that the subjective truth – the truth of their relation to themselves and to others – may be revealed by ‘bodies’, which are also object of manipulation, transformation, desire and hope. In this way we might anticipate through ‘culture’ (Morris, 1998) the relations between illnesses, new technologies, power, the body and desire. When facing an illnesses, this involves a deliberate practice of self-transformation and such transformativity must pass through learning about the self from the truth told by personal narratives within popular culture. How are this culture and the body itself, however, interacting with and being changed by advances in bio-medical technology and the power of huge pharmaceutical companies?Foucault is often seen as a structuralist, along with those such as Barthes, Althusser and Lévi-Strauss. In replay to questions which sought to make such parallels, he was consistent: ‘I m obliged to repeat it continually. I have never used any of the concept which can be considered characteristic of structuralism’ (1989, 99). Perhaps the best way to view this is by examining his idea of historical ‘events’. He refuses to see events as symptomatic of deeper social structures and focuses upon what seems to be marginal as indicative of relations of power. Events thereby differ in their capacity to produce effects. The following quote helps us see how this can be applied to cultural analysis:The problem is at once to distinguish among events, to differentiate the networks and levels to which they belong, and to reconstitute the lines along which they are connected and engender one another. From this follows a refusal of analyses couched in terms of the symbolic field or the domain of signifying structures, and a recourse to analyses in terms of the genealogy of relations of force, strategic development, and tactics. Here I believe one’s point of references should not be to the great model of language (langue) and signs, but to that of war and battle.(Foucault, 1980: 114)
Being translated, please wait..
Results (Indonesian) 2:[Copy]
Copied!
Meskipun Foucault mempertahankan perbedaan antara teknologi kekuasaan / dominasi dan teknologi diri, ini tidak harus dianggap sebagai bertindak bertentangan dengan atau dalam isolasi satu sama lain. Memang, Foucault sering berbicara tentang pentingnya mempertimbangkan kontingensi baik dalam interaksi dan saling ketergantungan mereka, oleh indentifying contoh-contoh spesifik: 'titik di mana teknologi dominasi individu atas satu sama lain memiliki jalan lain untuk proses dimana tindakan individu pada dirinya sendiri dan , sebaliknya, titik-titik di mana teknologi diri diintegrasikan ke dalam struktur pemaksaan '(Foucault, 1993: 203). Perbedaan karenanya harus dianggap sebagai sebuah heuristik deviced dan tidak penggambaran dua set bertentangan kepentingan. Secara keseluruhan, kita harus melihat seluruh karya Foucault menyediakan cara memahami hubungan sosial yang memerlukan interpretasi aktif bagian kita, bukan regurgitasi pasif.
Untuk mengambil satu contoh modern tentang bagaimana kita mungkin berpikir dengan, bersama (dan melawan mungkin?) Foucault. Mempertimbangkan pertanyaan: bagaimana bio-etika yang modern berakar pada konfigurasi spesifik subjektivitas? Tubuh budaya merupakan tempat persembunyian terbaik, tempat persembunyian penyakit internal yang tetap mencolok sampai munculnya intervensi 'ahli'. Dengan kata lain, apa efek dari problematisasi ini, mengingat kondisi yang kemungkinan? Hubungan subjektif diri akan terpengaruh sejauh kehidupan sosial menghadapkan individu dengan dalil bahwa kebenaran subjektif - kebenaran hubungan mereka dengan diri mereka sendiri dan orang lain - dapat diungkapkan oleh 'badan', yang juga objek manipulasi, transformasi, keinginan dan harapan. Dengan cara ini kita bisa mengantisipasi melalui 'budaya' (Morris, 1998) hubungan antara penyakit, teknologi baru, kekuatan, tubuh dan keinginan. Ketika menghadapi penyakit, ini melibatkan praktek sengaja transformasi diri dan transformativity seperti harus melewati belajar tentang diri dari kebenaran diberitahu oleh kisah-kisah pribadi dalam budaya populer. Bagaimana budaya ini dan tubuh itu sendiri, namun, berinteraksi dengan dan yang diubah oleh kemajuan teknologi bio-medis dan kekuatan perusahaan farmasi besar?
Foucault sering dianggap sebagai strukturalis, bersama dengan orang-orang seperti Barthes, Althusser dan Levi Strauss. Dalam tayangan ulang untuk pertanyaan yang berusaha untuk membuat paralel tersebut, ia konsisten: 'I m wajib mengulanginya terus. Saya tidak pernah menggunakan salah satu konsep yang dapat dianggap karakteristik strukturalisme '(1989, 99). Mungkin cara terbaik untuk melihat ini adalah dengan memeriksa idenya dari sejarah 'peristiwa'. Dia menolak untuk melihat peristiwa sebagai gejala dari struktur sosial yang lebih dalam dan berfokus pada apa yang tampaknya menjadi marginal sebagai indikasi hubungan kekuasaan. Peristiwa demikian berbeda dalam kapasitas mereka untuk menghasilkan efek. Kutipan berikut membantu kita melihat bagaimana hal ini dapat diterapkan untuk analisis budaya:
Masalahnya adalah sekaligus untuk membedakan antara peristiwa, untuk membedakan jaringan dan tingkat mana mereka berasal, dan untuk menyusun kembali garis sepanjang yang mereka terhubung dan menimbulkan satu sama lain . Dari ini mengikuti penolakan analisis ditulis dalam istilah dari bidang simbolik atau domain dari struktur menandakan, dan jalan untuk menganalisa dari segi silsilah hubungan kekuatan, pengembangan strategis, dan taktik. Di sini saya percaya titik seseorang referensi tidak harus dengan model besar bahasa (langue) dan tanda-tanda, tapi itu perang dan pertempuran.
(Foucault, 1980: 114)

Being translated, please wait..
 
Other languages
The translation tool support: Afrikaans, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Basque, Belarusian, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Cebuano, Chichewa, Chinese, Chinese Traditional, Corsican, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Detect language, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian, Filipino, Finnish, French, Frisian, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Haitian Creole, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Icelandic, Igbo, Indonesian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Klingon, Korean, Kurdish (Kurmanji), Kyrgyz, Lao, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy, Malay, Malayalam, Maltese, Maori, Marathi, Mongolian, Myanmar (Burmese), Nepali, Norwegian, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Scots Gaelic, Serbian, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Spanish, Sundanese, Swahili, Swedish, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Welsh, Xhosa, Yiddish, Yoruba, Zulu, Language translation.

Copyright ©2025 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: