taylor foucault

7/28/2019 Taylor Foucault

1/13

Taylor, Foucault, and OthernessAuthor(s): William E. ConnollySource: Political Theory, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Aug., 1985), pp. 365-376Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191237 .

Accessed: 09/04/2013 17:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:31:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191237?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191237?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/13

MICHEL FOUCAULT:ANEXCHANGE

I. TAYLOR, FOUCAULT, AND OTHERNESSWILLIAM E. CONNOLLYTheJohnsHopkinsUniversity

L-i OUCAULT, accordingoTaylor,dentifies odes fsubjuga-tionpoorlyunderstoodr thinly ocumentednprevious riticalaccounts, ut heNietzscheanerspectivehat overnshis ccount,althoughupportingesistanceodomination,evers hemoral erveof ollective ffortso mprovehemodernondition. ta highevelofgenerality,concurwith hisudgment. nd,as anyonewouldexpectwho has readhispreviouswork,Taylor lluminatesarkcornersf ocial heoryshestrivesodislodge he iable lementsfFoucault's houghtrom perspectivehat eems to depreciatepolitics fsocial mprovement.But I also contend, irst,hatthe translationf FoucaultianrhetoricntoTayloresque ormulationsbscuresdistinctive ea-tures fFoucault's houghtnd,second, hat ncethis bscurityslifted,he uccessofTaylor's ritique fFoucaultwilldependessonthe laim hat he heorys "ultimatelyncoherent"ndmore nTaylor's bility o defendhis ownaffirmationsrom oucaultiandecomposition.Foucault's ocumentarytudiesredesigned,believe,osupportanontologicalhesiswith oliticalmplications.hecharacterf histhesisndtheway nwhicht sadvancedre he irstuestionsobeposed nanengagementith oucault.In "The Orderof Discourse,"whileopposing herationalistideaof foundingubject,hephenomenologicalnterprise,ndtheHeideggerianuest forBeing,Foucaultasserts:"We mustnotimaginehatheres a great niversalr great nthoughthich unsthroughoutheworld nd intertwinesith ll itsformsnd all itsPOLITICAL THEORY, Vol. 13No. 3,August1985365-376e 1985Sage Publications,nc.

365

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:31:05 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

366 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST1985events,ndwhichwehaveto articulater tothink t ast."1And noppositionoanyontologyhat ontainseleologicallements,

Wemust ot maginehat heworld urns oward s a legible acewhichwewouldhaveonly odecipher;heworld s not he ccomplice fourknowl-edge; heres noprediscursiverovidence hich redisposesheworldnourfavor.Wemust onceive iscourses a violencewhichwe do tothings,r,nany ase as a practicewhichwe mpose n them.2Whatstheforce fthe is" andthe must" nthese tatements?

The claim-I use a Nietzschean erm f artherewith ufficientambiguityo avoidbeing rawnmmediatelynto he ircle fepis-temology ithin hich riticstrive o encloseFoucault's hought-isthatheres more obeinghan nowingnd hathe dvance f heknowledgenterprisentonewcorners f ife s the dvance imul-taneouslyf ubjectification,ormalization,nddisciplinaryontrol.Theclaim,nshort,sthat hewill o truthhat overnsmodernitysthewill o extend iscipline,o mpose orm ver hatwhichwasnotdesignedoreceive t.Andthe"claim" s notsimply knowledgeclaim, lthought s ntimatelyonnectedoclaimsbout nowledge.Foucault dopts wo nterlockingtrategiesosupporthis laim.First, heres,as inthe hapternTheOrderf ThingsntitledManandhisDoubles,"anarchaeologicalccount fhowmodernnder-standings ffinitude-ofife, abor, nd language-eventuallyalltranscendentalnd teleological erspectives ntoquestionfromwithin.nmoderniscoursewewitnessthe nterminableoandfroof a double ystem freference:fman'sknowledges finite,t sbecause he is trapped,withoutossibilityf iberation, ithin hepositive ontentf anguage,abor, nd ife, ndconversely,f ife,labor, ndlanguagemaybeposited ntheir ositivity,t s becauseknowledge as finiteorms."3n this etting very rticulationfthoughtresupposeshe nthoughtrom hichtdraws ourishmentand,conversely,hatwhichnourisheshought ust lways scapefullarticulation. he perpetuationy thought f theunthoughtprovidesmaterialrom hich oundationalheoriesanbestrippedftheir oundationalretensions.Foucault's houghtt this rchaeologicaleveldoes notseek todefeat norientationuch s Taylor's.Rather,t dentifieshe errainuponwhichmodernritics fepistemologicaloundationalismsuchas Heidegger,aylor, oucault,Blumenberg,ndRorty) ompete



4/13

Connolly FOUCAULTANDOTHERNESS 367with neanotherorhegemony.here re, ndeed, everal oints fcommonalityetween aylorndFoucault:

(1) Anepistemeets inTaylor's anguage)the imits f he hinkable"oran age, even though hose imits o notnecessarilyorrespondo thelimits f houghts such.(2) The correspondenceheory f truth oes not coalesce withmodernunderstandingsffinitudes thoseunderstandingsind xpressionntheoriesf ife, abor,nd anguage.(3) Thepremodernode f ttunementotheworld o ongers available ous,although aylor eems othinkhat new orm f ttunementetweenself-identitynd theworldmightecome vailable.(4) There s more obeing hanknowing, r, ntheformulationoucaultwould refer,heresmore o ife hanknowing.(5) Languagesimpoverishedf t sforcednto designativehilosophyflanguage, nd theprediscursiveealm romwhich iscourses formednever anbedrawn ullynto iscourse.(6) The strongheoryfthesubject s sovereignruniversal o longerssustainable.(7) Thedeath f Goddoesorwould pread n nfectionhroughoutrevailingunderstandingsftruth,he elf, ationality,ndmorality.

It sbecauseTaylor hares o muchwith oucault tthis irstevelthathe must truggleo valiantlygainsthim t thesecond.Forwithinhesebroad ommonalitieseside undamentalifferencesntheorientationsfeach tomorality,olitics, he elf, nd the ntiremodem ondition; ndthecommonalitiesimit heways nwhicheach can legitimatelyriticize hecontrarympulses overninghethoughtf he ther. aylor, indingimselfnable oprovehismostfundamentalssumptionso be true, eeksto drawus closer otheexperiencef ttunementetween hewayhuman eings re t theirbest ndthe ctual dentityvailable othemodernelf.He seeks otranscendhe llusion fthe overeignelf ncommand ftheworldby situatingt na world oth argerhan tandpartlyonstitutivefit. He doesthis ystrivingo articulateor s those lementsntheself nd ts ircumstanceshat ome losest oexpressing hatweareat our best.The most xpressiverticulationsrenot simplyhecreations f subjects,nordo they epresent hat s true n itselfindependentlyfhumanrticulation:They atherave hepower omoveus because theymanifesturexpressive ower tself nd tsrelationo ourworld. nthiskind f xpression earerespondingothewaythingsre,ratherhanustexteriorizingurfeelings."4



5/13

368 POLITICALTHEORY / AUGUST1985But Foucault,conceiving iscourse s "a violencewe do tothings,"cannot endorse this quest forattunementnd self-

realization. e proceeds t the econd evel, hen, s a genealogist,deployinghetoricalevicesto incite heexperiencefdiscord rdiscrepancyetween he ocial onstructionf elf, ruth,ndration-ality nd thatwhich oesnotfit eatlywithin heir olds.Andtherecurrentxperience fdiscordventuallyhakes he elfoosefromthe uestfor world fharmonization,world n which he nstitu-tional ossibilitiesor ersonaldentityarmonize ith unifiedetofpotentialitiesntheself, nd the realizationfunityn theselfharmonizes ith he ommonoodrealized ythe ocialorder. hisquest for dentityhroughnstitutionaldentificationecomesre-definedsthe angerousxtensionf disciplinaryociety"nto ewcornersfmodernife.The rhetoricaligures,o usea phrase fNietzsche's,ncite sto"listento a differentlaim"ratherhan oaccept hefindingsfanargument;ndthey roceedn hiswaybecausegenealogyf hewilltotruthannot resenttselfsa setof ruthlaims.Genealogys nota claim o truthalthoughtfunctionsn anepistemenwhich stab-lished heoriesftruthrecalled nto uestion); texercises claimupon he elf hat nsettlesheurge ogivehegemonyo thewill otruth.TheFoucaultianhetoricaltrategyorks, ornstance,hroughdisplacementf he nifyingrmellowmetaphorsoverningaylor'stexts ymore isturbingnes;andbythe onversionfnoun ormsgivingolidityo modernonceptionsf ruth,ubject,ndnormalityintoverbs hat resenthem s constructions;nd bytheposing fquestions eft nansweredn thetext; ndbythe ntroductionfsentenceragmentshatommunicateven houghhey onot itntotheconventionalormhatgivesprimacy o thesubject; nd by amode of repetitionn one textthat xposesand counteractsheunconsciousffectfrepetitivenessn udgmentnthecumulativeflow fmainstreamexts.Thesestrategiesredesigned, believe,simultaneouslyoexpressa view ftherelationetweenocialformandthematerial romwhich t s constructedt oddswith hat c-cepted yTaylor,o xposethe ubterraneanole layed yrhetoricalconfigurationsn texts ywritersuch s Taylor ngainingssent otheirmost undamentalonvictions,nd toexcite inthereader heexperiencefdiscord etween he ocialconstructionfnormalityand hatwhich oes not it eatly ithinhe rame f hese onstructs.



6/13

Connolly FOUCAULTANDOTHERNESS 369Now fwe readFoucaultn hisway, is exts an still ecriticizedand opposed.ButI contendhat hose uch s Taylorwho seektodismiss undamentaleaturesftheproject yshowingtto beinco-herent ill indtmore ifficultomake hathargetick nce heyrenot llowed o precede heirritiquesfFoucaultianenealogyytranslationf t nto hevery ormulationst eeks o nterrogate.etme showhow this s so byconsidering ore pecificallyeveralcharges aylormakes gainst oucault.

IFoucault, ays Taylor,adopts Nietzschean-derivedtance fneutralityetween hedifferentistoricalystemsfpower,nd husseems oneutralizehe valuationshat riseoutofhisanalyses."5It s truehat oucault efusesoendorsehe ife f neperiod veranother,nd t lso s truehat he ndorsementsedoesmake renotcouchedn he ubject-centeredoral ocabulary ost amiliarous.But, first,heview thatFoucaultdistinguishesetween hermeti-callysealedmonolithicruth egimes"s greatlyxaggerated. eexplicitlyenies uch nassumptionnhis tudiesfpunishmentndsexuality. e speaks,for nstance, f "thiswillto truth hichhascrossed omany enturiesfourhistory"; e identifiesffinitiesswell as differencesetween the religious onfessionals f themedieval ge and themodern onfessional;ndheemphasizeshe

importancef hemind/bodyualism hat ashauntedheWest inceits nception.oucault oesrefuse oendorse ny ettled ayof ifeunambiguouslyecausehe claimsthat very uchsettlementn-volves mpositionvenwhile t may nable ife obe in particularways.Butneither,hen,s he neutral. e is notneutral,or xample,about hewill o truthnd tseffects.nformedytheNietzscheanmaximhat we have rt o thatwewillnot erish romhe ruth,"eseeks o oosen butnot, think,oeliminate)hehold hewill o ruthhas overmodem ife.The will o truthannot e eliminated,ut tshegemonyan and should e contested. aylor's haracterizationfFoucault s a neutralistllicitlyssimilatesheFoucaultianssault nsubject-centeredormativeudgmento a stancethatdepreciatesevaluationltogether.tthereby isrepresentsoucault'snterroga-tion fmodem tandardsfnormalityrior o contestingt.



7/13

370 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1985

IITaylor sserts hat oucault's heoryf ocial"strategies ithoutprojects . . . makes no sense." Why? Because "purposefulnesswithout urpose equires certain ind f xplanationo beintelligi-ble . . to be relatedo thepurposefulction f gentsn a way hatwe canunderstand."i6I agreewith aylor ere nonerespect,ndhis larificationfwhata goodexplanationequiress superb. ut t lso attributesn nten-tionto Foucaultthat s nothis. Foucaultdoes not seekto offercomplete xplanationsecauseheknows hat uch nobjectivewilldrawhimback nto hediscourse e seekstounsettle,ecause heknowsthat n themodern pisteme coherent xplanationwillpresuppose hevery onceptionsftruthndsubjectivityewishesto call intoquestion.He does, though,eekthroughenealogyocreate istance etweenhemodemelf nd hediscoursenwhichtis implicated. enealogy, ot xplanation.Taylor,nreply, ightnsist hat hegenealogicalrojectanhaveno presence ven s a counterpointoestablished odes f xplana-tion.As alternativehetoricaltrategiesnduce lternativeffects,even hey,emightay,must inallyesubjectedoepistemicvalua-tion.Even one who seekstoplaytheroleof thefool o prevailingmodes fdiscourse,tmay eclaimed,must e drawn ack nto hecircle fepistemology.utthese renot rgumentsaylor asactu-ally given n the textbefore s. He has not really ried, irst, o

ascertain hat tance oucault doptswith espect othe spirationsof hehuman ciences nd, hen,oaskwhetheruch stance an besustaineds a viablecounterpointothose spirations. e merelyassumes hat oucault ntendso offerxplanationsontestinghosethat owhavehegemony,ndthen eshows hat fFoucault's extsdoembodyuchntentions,hey o not iveupto he tandardfgoodorcoherentxplanations.III

Foucault, aysTaylor, fferstheoryfpower hat s not inked ofreedom.t s a theoryf powerwithoutreedomrtruth." nd hiswillnotwork, or he notion fpower r dominationequires omenotion fconstraintmposed n someone ya process n somewayrelated ohumangency."7 nd, gain, powerneeds argets," ut



8/13

Connolly FOUCAULTAND OTHERNESS 371Foucaultwants ousethe anguagefpowerwhile efusingoacceptthe deaofsubjectswhohavepower xercised ver hem.Foucault grees npartwith hiscontention. ut thetarget fpowers not nhis heory subjecthatsrepressedrconstrainedypower. ower roduceshe ubjecthat ecomes ot mere ictionftheorynd aw, ut real rtifact.hesubject,n Foucault's eading,is not "dead": It is verymuch live andverymuch he effectfmodem isciplinarynstitutions.ut fpower roduceshe ubject,inwhatwaysdoes power onstrainr imit he elf? ubjectification,an effectfpower, ubjugatesecalcitrantaterialnan embodiedself esistantothis orm. ower roducesndconstrains,hen, utthe argetf onstraintsnot he elf s agent, ut hatn elveswhichresists gentification.oucault's heoryfpower nd ubjectificationispart fhis ssault n those eleological hilosophieshat ontinueto find isguised xpressionnthemodem ge. Thetheoryftheessentiallymbodied ubject,for nstance, s a theory f self-realization hattreats he self as if it were designed o fulfilltspotentialityhrougherfectingtssubjectivity;nd toreject here-sidual eleological remisenside hat ope s to see the ubjects anartificialealitymposednmaterialotdesignedoreceivet.Free-dom,n his erspective,snot educibleo he reedomf ubjects;tisat eastpartlyhe elease f hatwhich oes not itnto hemolds fsubjectivityndnormalization.his swhat oucaultmeanswhen esays hat the oul s the rison f he ody" ndwhen e supportshe"insurrectionf ubjugated nowledges"hat peak, lthoughmper-fectlynd ndirectly,o thatwhichs subjugated y normalization.Foucault lso explicitlyspires oa conceptionfrightsttached otmerelyothe elf s subject, ut speciallyothatwhichs definedythenormalized ubject s othemess, s deviating rom r fallingbelowor failingo iveup to the tandardsfsubjectivity.I agreewith aylor n saying hatwe should herish ome dealofsubjectivity,nd Foucault eems o me, althoughhere re countertendenciesnhiswork s well, o be too willingo dispensewith heidealofsubjectivityltogether.ut Taylor's ritique f Foucault nthesubject hroughhe medium f a critique f his conception fpowermisses its target. Foucault's theoryof power may beexaggerated-humaneingsmay, or nstance, e more eceptiveosubjectificationhanFoucault's ntologyfdiscord llows.But t snot n incoherentheory fpower.And Taylor's ailure o see thatdeflects im rom more undamentaluestion:What mplications



9/13

372 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1985might oucault'sdocumentarytudies fothernessarry or stab-lished heories fthe ubject?

IV"Foucaultmustpresuppose ruthnseeing ruth s imposed."8Hence,theultimatencoherencen hisproject,n incoherencehatspreads n infectionntohistheory fpower, reedom,ubjectivity,andorder. oucaultneeds osee truths imposed ypower, atherthan discoveryhat erves s a standard ywhichoassesspower;buthe cannot ustain conceptionftruths imposition.hat sTaylor's harge. ut thinkhere re couple frejoindersvailableto Foucaulthere.First, e can saythatfhistexts resuppose theoryftruthndsubjectivityven while alling hem nto uestion hispredicamentmerelynvertshe nefacing is ritics. ortheyffirmonceptionsof ruthnd ubjectivityonstantlyalled nto uestionn hemodern

episteme.Taylor, or nstance, annotprove the theory ftruthpresupposedyhis heoryf ubjectivityndFoucault annot scapepresuppositionst odds withhis own project.We have reached nimpasse o which here realternativeossible esponses.Ifthe imits fthemodern pisteme o not onstitutehe imitsopossible houghts such, case can be made n favor f Foucault'sresponseo this redicament.oucault's esponse, vertlynformedbypolitical onsiderations,s to refuse o constrainisdiscourse ythesepresuppositions.ather, e striveso stretchheestablishedlimits f thethinkable y concentratingn how othernessppearswhen t is presenteds theproduct fa subjectivityhat s itselfproduced. hispolitical roject festrangementromhe dentitygiven ousbeforewe are na positionoappraisetcriticallys theobverse fTaylor's roject, xemplifiedy hediscussion t the ndof histext, fdrawing s into ndorsementndperfectionftheidentityowgiven ous. Taylornsistshatwe"cannot" scapethisidentity;oucault nsists hatwecango furtherhan aylormaginesifonlywe pursue hegenealogical roject elentlessly.NowTaylorould rgue hatheresno such mpasse ere, uthehas not.Thatwould equire more ffirmativergumentn hispart.For only fTaylor hows irsthat e escapes this redicamentithrespect o truth nd subjectivityan he conclude hatFoucault'simmersionn tprovides ufficienteason o dismiss isproject.



10/13

Connolly FOUCAULTANDOTHERNESS 373Theres a second esponsevailable oFoucaultswell.Hemightacknowledgehat lthoughis rchaeologyf ruthontainslementsofan immanentritique-arguinghat n themodem pistemeheassumptions ithinoundationalheories f subjectivityndtruthconstantlyrode thesolidity f thefoundationshemselves-hisgenealogyf hewill o truthsnot tself claim o truth.tconsists,again,ofrhetoricaltrategiesesigned o incite heexperiencefsubjugationnthose reas nwhichhe uestionf ruthecentlyasbeen givenprimacy.hat s whatTheHistoryfSexuality,or n-stance,s allabout. t seeks ofix he onnectionetweenruthndsexualitynmodernity-toxpose hepeculiar,modern haracterfthe onvictionthat t s sex tself hich ides hemost ecret arts fthe ndividual,he tructurefhisfantasies,heroots fhisego,theformsfhisrelationshiporeality."9nd he ntrusionfthewill otruthnto his pherenvolves heextension fdisciplinentonewfrontiersf disciplinaryociety.The moremodestside of thisthesis-that the connectionbetween truth nd sex is now

accentuated-is usceptible,ven nFoucault'sview, o documen-tary upportndcritique; utthepolitically oremportantlaimabout hedisciplinaryffectsf this ntrusion illcarryonvictiononly if Foucaultconvincesus that"there s no prediscursiveprovidence hich redisposesheworldn ourfavor," o trueden-tity o be realized yunveilinghe secrets fsex. Andthat atterconvictionunctionsot s a truthlaim ut s a genealogicallaimagainst heprimacyfthewill o truth.A Taylor ritique f Foucault'sview oftruthmust howwhygenealogys ncoherentven s a counterpointoexplanatoryheoryand, especially, why Taylor's ontology s more viable thanFoucault's. f, s I believe, aylormustcknowledgehat isontol-ogy snot usceptibleodemonstrationy pistemologicaleans, ewill ind imselfacingomethingike he redicamenteattributesoFoucault:Thetheory ftruth eendorses resupposesnontologysupportablenlyby ndirect eans. fTaylorffirmshis eaturefhisown nterprise,t snotunreasonableoexpecthim o grantttoFoucault.Taylor, have charged, eeks to evade thepressure oucaultexerts nhisowntheory f thesubject yconvictingoucaultiantheoryf ncoherence.havealso suggested,irst,hatFoucault snot s vulnerableothese riticismss Taylormakeshim uttobeand,second, hat venthoughhat harge s inflated,here tills a



11/13

374 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1985case to be made nfavor f hemodernubject.Assuminghat havemadeprogressn defusinghe harge f ncoherence,hat heoryfthe ubject emains efensiblefternencounter ith oucaultiantheory?Withoutryingo argue he ase indetail, wish osuggestthatwhile stablishedheories fpersonaldentitynadequatelyopewith heways nwhichhe onstitutionf hemodernubject pawnsotherness,heresa caseto bemadefor he ubject s anessentiallyambiguouschievementfmodernity.'0It is an achievementecausewithoutheemergencef self ssubject, e couldnot ustain emocraticitizenshiprmoral espon-sibility.ut t s an ambiguouschievementecauseonce weaffirmthat he elfwas notdesignedobe a subject,we are na position osee that he ormationf ubjectivityustubjugatehatwhich oesnot it eatly ithints onfines.Whenwe giveup the esiduef elosclingingo modern onceptions f the subject,wecanadopt dif-ferentoliticaltance othatwhichsother osubjectivity.ewill eeothemess o be less whatmentalnstability,riminality,ndperver-sity re n hemselvesndmorewhatmust eproducednd ontainedif ubjectivitys to be. Ifwe understandhe ubjectnthisway,fweacknowledgehat hesubject s formed rommaterialnd notpre-designed o fit erfectlynto his orm, e are n a position o recon-sider hepolitics f containmenthatnowgovernsnstitutionalri-entationsoothemess.Wewillnotbe abletoconceive nordernwhich thernessseliminated,utwemaybe able toappraisemoreadequately hedebt ubjectivitywes to t.

I have ntimatedne way nwhichhe heory f he ubjectmightberevised ftern explorationfFoucault's enealogiesf thernesstoencourage aylor o articulatemore ffirmativelyhat hifts,fany,seemto him to be required n his own theories f truth,freedom, rder, nd personal dentityfter ngaging hese exts.Specifically,herere hree elatedreas nwhichlarificationould eilluminating.First,givenTaylor'sprevious ritique f the primacy f epis-temology,is apparent ejectionf thecorrespondenceheory ftruth,is ndorsementf hehermeneuticirclensocial heory ithits cceptance fpersistentheoreticontestability,iscommitmentto anexpressive hilosophyf anguagenwhich hehuman apacityfor rticulationever xhausts he narticulatedaterialrom hichit sdrawn,what heory ftruth oes he endorse gainst oucault'sview of truth s impositionf form ponmaterial otdesigned o



12/13

Connolly FOUCAULTANDOTHERNESS 375receivet?How sthis heoryobe establishedndhowdoes t huffletheFoucaultianheory utofthe phere fviable ompetitors?Second,whatmodifications,f ny,wouldTaylormakenhisowntheory f personal dentityfter confrontationithFoucault'shistories fotherness? oes Taylornowendorse theoryf self-fulfillmentnwhichhe oal s to ntegratethemessntomore erfectforms f dentificationith hewill f rationalommunity?rdoeshe now eesomethingn heview hatweshouldtrive ocreatemoreinstitutionalpace to allowothernesso be? What s the relationbetween ubjectivitynd otherness,nd how shouldwe respondpoliticallyothat elation?Third, o what xtent oes Taylor's pposition o Foucault m-body residual ommitmentothe sort fteleologicalhilosophyFoucault's enealogiesredesigned ohunt own nddestroy?fhistheory ftruthndsubjectivitysnourished yanontologytoddswith heone advancedby Foucault,how is thisontology o besustainednthemodernge?

Theseare arge uestions,nd not llofthem an be consideredwithinheframef his xchange. hey re,however,uestionsneisdrivenothroughnengagement ith oucaultianenealogy.

NOTES1. Michel Foucault, "The Order of Discourse," inRobertYoung, ed., Untyingthe Text Boston: Routledge& Kegan Paul, 1981),p. 67.2. Ibid., p. 683. Michel Foucault, The Orderof Things (London: Tavistock Publications,1970),p. 316.4. Charles Taylor,"Language and Human Nature" (Plaunt MemorialLecture,CarletonUniversity, 978),p. 34. Later inthesame essay Taylorsays,todistinguishhis positionbothfrom heenchantedview oftheworldprior o theEnlightenmentand theEnlightenmenttself, The view of theuniverseas an orderofsigns s lost

forever, t least in its originalform" p. 44).5. Charles Taylor, Foucault on Freedomand Truth,"Political Theory 2 May1984),p. 162.6. Ibid., p. 169.7. Ibid., p. 172.8. Ibid., p. 176.9. Michel Foucault,HerculinBarbin New York: PantheonBooks, 1980),p. xi.10. I have triedto develop thisconception,alongwiththeallied conceptionsofambiguity,slack intheorder," ndotherness n"The PoliticsofDiscourse," in The



13/13

376 POLITICALTHEORY / AUGUST 1985Terms fPolitical iscourse, nd d. (Princeton, J: Princeton niversityress,1984); Discipline, olitics nd Ambiguity,"oliticalTheory1 August 983), p.325-342;nd ModernAuthorityndAmbiguity,"omos:AuthorityevisitedNewYork:New YorkUniversityress, orthcoming).

William . Connolly eaches political theory t The Johns Hopkins Universityand is editor f Political Theory.

taylor foucault

Documents