W5Summary

=**Week 5 Summary**=

**Readings:**

 * Foucault, Michel. “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom.” An interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984.
 * Koerber, Amy. "Rhetorical Agency, Resistance, and the Disciplinary Rhetorics of Breastfeeding." //Technical Communication Quarterly// 15.1 (2006): 87-101.

**Discussion Board Summary**:
Amy S. began titled the thread “Koerber Article – Not Agreeing.” She did not agree **“**with the freedom of breastfeeding where ever a person may be or choose to be.” This generated a useful conversation about the freedom of breastfeeding, the laws associated with public feeding, the medical benefits of breastfeeding, and the discourse surrounding breastfeeding. Melinda carried this idea into her post, “Breastfeeding in Public as a Power Relationship” which outlines the power relationship created by breastfeeding mothers and non breastfeeding mothers. Kendall continued the discussion in her post, “What bodies can do” by outlining examples of when mothers were told they shouldn’t or couldn’t breastfeed and were able to do so despite “medical” advice. Finally, Melody’s post “Breastfeeding Experiences” related personal experiences to the concept of Foucault’s “games of truth” as exercised by the medical community. As Dr. Koerber points out, the newest “blame game” in on the mothers, themselves, pitting “pro breast” against “bottle” moms instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion about how to facilitate public breastfeeding.
 * The Rhetoric of Breastfeeding (Koerber Article)**

·[| Breastfeeding PPT] (PDF) (submitted by Dr. Koerber) · [|NY Times article] (submitted by Dr. Koerber) · [|How Breastmilk Protects Newborns] (Newman) (submitted by Melody W.) ·[| Benefits of Breastfeeding] (US gov) · [|FAQ on Benefits of Breastfeeding a Toddler] (La Leche League) · [|Breast-feeding Best Bets for Babies] (Williams) · [|Benefits of Breastfeeding] (PDF) (US gov) · [|Breastfeeding: Good For Babies, Mothers, And The Planet] (Dermer, Montgomery)
 * Helpful links:**

This post was started by Kendall to address the idea that "if we are unknowingly controlled by the disciplinary power, we think we're doing the right thing, but only because the disciplinary power has taught us that's the right thing. In a sense the disciplinary power robs us of our free will because we do not realize other options exist or they appear to be unacceptable options. I think that's why Foucault rankles Americans in particular--we're big on free will. But in this interview I think Foucault is saying that in fact we do have free will, we can be aware of the other options and choose although those options can be extremely, extremely limited and unappealing." This generated a healthy discussion about free will and Foucault's discussion of resistance. Dr. Koerber was very helpful in guiding this discussion by highlighting that "I think in much of his work, like D & P, he's determined to demystify what he sees as a modern Western tendency to over-emphasize the ability of individuals to determine their own fate (what I like to call the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality)." In relation to the article we read, she says, "Instead of focusing on the constraining aspects of disciplinary power, he emphasizes the ability of individuals to engage with it by choosing from the options that are always available. He is careful to remind us, though, that sometimes these options are incredibly limited and not very appealing." Kevin and Beth admitted a love of the first Survivor, and Dr. Koerber used this to offer a fresh perspective, "I had always assumed Foucault was the guy you turn to for analyzing the power/resistance/agency of people who feel marginalized (such as the breastfeeding advocates and moms I interview, or the women in Britt's study). This is usually the way I see his ideas applied. However, I'm now changing my mind about this based on a fascinating article by Dorothy Winsor in the latest issue of TCQ. This article is based on interviews with the same group of engineers that she has been interviewing and writing about since 1989. In this article, she reports on interviews with four of these engineers, noting that each of them has now moved into a position in which they feel relatively in control (either management or starting their own business). She applies Foucault's concept of disciplinary power to understand the conditions of the agency that they feel they now possess--structural conditions that both make their actions possible and place certain limits on these actions. What's interesting about the article for me is that this is one of the first times I've seen Foucault's concepts of power applied to people who feel like they have a fair amount of agency."
 * Foucault and Free Will**


 * Helpful Links:**

[|Theory and language: locating agency between free will and discursive marionettes] (Pamela K. Hardin) [|Power and the Subject]

Kevin began this thread with an excellent post that I am including in its entirety:
 * Games of Truth**

//"'There are some games of truth in which truth is a construct and others when it is not. You can have, for example, a game of truth which consists in describing things in such a way. the one who gives an anthropological description of society does not give us a construct, but a description-- which has, as far as it is concerned-- a certain number of rules, evolving historically, so that one can say that up to a certain point it is a construct in relationship to another description. That does not mean that there is nothing there and that everything comes out of somebody's head. Of what we can say, for example, of this transformation of games of truth, some draw the conclusion that I said that nothing existed.'// --Foucault The question of truth is a fundamentally ethical one because it is adherence to truth that is responsible for proper self-government, or "care for self" as Foucault calls it. One who properly cares for self will have a correct understanding of his rights in relation to others and respect them as such thereby developing better relationships with those around him. Governments exist because people do not properly care for themselves and become slaves to their passions and desires. If everyone were capable of self-government, there would be peace on earth. Governments create power relationships designed to modify the behavior of people through coercion because they cannot reasonably be expected to behave in a civilized manner otherwise. The problem arises when one attempts to ascertain what truth there is that is not a construct of someone's mind. Existentialists would argue that all knowledge and understanding of reality is merely the construct of human perception. What can be unquestionably known as "the truth"? What is it that leads Foucault to believe that self-interest ultimately leads to care for others where another man may his self interest as making a lot of money and sleeping with as many women as possible before he dies? Foucault does not really address this problem in his interview. He declares that truth is not a construct and that some "truths" are absolute, but he does not explain which ones are and how he arrived at that conclusion (He may elsewhere. I do not know.). The non-theistic ethos relies on a form of self-governance that is composed entirely of constructed truths which, if they are not adhered to, carry no tangible consequences for the individual. Is it wrong to kill? Why? When you kill you have merely ended some easily replicated chemical processes. A human, considered in material terms is mostly water. Why is it wrong to kill a human and not to pull a weed? The material effect is similar. Life has value only insofar as what we assign to it depending on the truths we construct. Without consequences, the high esteem we hold for life could be cast aside as easily as we may choose to violate the speed limit. One only needs point to the mass slaughters of atheistic governments of Stalin, Mao, and Jong Il to see how little value human life can have. (It will be pointed out that Discipline and Punish begins with a rather gruesome religious execution of a man for the crime of attempted regicide. I do not in any way dismiss the inhumane actions of religious governments in the past; however I can quickly point you to statistics that clearly show governments of atheistic societies to be many times more brutal.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide#Update_on_democides This, I think is why religion exists. Religion creates a set of "truths" which can be regarded by the believer as absolute. The existence of a God whose Truths are absolute creates eternal consequences that cause the thinking man to properly care for himself and govern his own behavior, and coerce the behavior of those who may otherwise give in to their passions and turn to delinquency. Religion can be seen as another kind of power relationship, though believers would be unlikely to agree with you. It is to everyone's benefit to be able to govern themselves according to Foucault's definition of proper care of self. The more people are able to do so, the less power is necessary to give to government, and as the link I provided shows, the more power governments have, the more likely people are to be killed by it. Unfortunately, it takes quite a bit of thought to reach the conclusions Foucault does, and not very many people going against it to screw the whole thing up. If Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments are any indication, we're not on the right track. Sorry for being so dark. I'm really not as pessimistic as I sound here." I think this is an excellent post because it points to the "games truth" we talk so much about. Mary chimed in some examples, as did other students.

Staci's post follows closely here, "I wanted to talk about two things in this post. First, I'm interested in starting a discussion of human agency. Both of this week's articles deal with this topic, Foucault by defining it and Dr. Koerber by exploring it. Dictionary.com defines agency as "the state of being in action or of exerting power; operation."

Foucault equates this with freedom, though this is only present in this definition tangentially. Foucault explains that freedom is a practice, and it cannot be represented, possessed, distributed or guaranteed. In short, it is not a commodity. It must be exercised and used constantly, or it will disappear. Foucault goes on to say that both "ethics is the deliberate form assumed by liberty" and that ethics is care for the self.

I noticed that these same themes (freedom and care for the self as an ethical principle) are well-demonstrated in Dr. Koerber's article. By discussing the struggles of these mothers to simply feed their own children as they see fit, Dr. K shows that even the most basic of freedoms still need to be enthusiastically exercised to maintain and increase their validity. Having control of your own body and working to improve it both mentally and physically is the essence of care of the self.

Second, Dr. Koerber discusses rhetorical agency as the "negotiation among competing alternative discourses." It is ultimately up to the reader to decide what to believe. This reminds me of cognitive dissonance theory, defined as "the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time." When you experience something in contrast to what you already believe to be true, people often discount the new information, sometimes angrily. You see this in politics all the time. People of one political type will read only news that confirms their existing beliefs... the path of least resistance for their thought processes.

Is any one else familiar with this concept? Do you see this at work with the freedom to breastfeed? How does this affect Foucault's ideas of the power of norms?" This, too, questions agency in terms of norms.


 * Helpful Links**


 * [|The Critique of Impure Reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School] (Thomas McCarthy)**
 * [|Problematization and games of truth: Michel Foucault's analytics of the constitution of the subject in political modernity] (**[|Ferda Kemal Keskin])

**Class Discussion Summary**:
Dr. Koerber started the class with an interesting thought, "I was thinking, it's funny that much of the discussion last week revolved around Britt's claim that the women in her study couldn't (at least initially) resist the power of norms...But then this week, much of our discussion revolved around discomfort with women in my study who claimed to be resisting norms...So I wonder what to make of that?"

Kendall replied that "the system frequently catches people, particularly women, in a double bind--you can't win." This was evidenced by various examples provided by Mary and Melinda. Beth thought it depended upon the situation. Melody said that "resisting norms is uncomfortable." Dr. Koerber suggested, that "It's an interesting thought (the right and wrong way to resist), but I'm not sure if there's any form of resistance that wouldn't make someone uncomfortable--otherwise, it wouldn't be resistance, would it?" to which AmyS replied, "but all the women in Britt's study said that they kept their struggles to themselves, and didn't tell people or publicly acknowledge their struggle." Dr. Koerber mentioned that, "except for the public breastfeeding (which was really a very small part of the article), the women in my study weren't necessarily public about their struggles either..." Beth suggested that culture plays a role in resistance strategies. Mary thought gender played a role as women tried to be "people pleasers." Staci suggested that "Women feel they have the right to reproduce, but not the inherent right to breastfeed?"

Kendall suggested that, "the quiet, under the radar kind of resisting has more chances for success for the individual" because "You just don't tell your doctor, your mother, your friends etc. and do what you want." Erin agreed. Dr. Koerber wanted to know if Kendall what would "define as quiet and under the radar?" Dr. Koerber suggested that while it is possible to be quiet in some regards, it is unlikely that strategy would work for the bf movement "or in a f2f encounter where medical authorities are doing things right then and there." Kendall agreed saying "quiet resistance is less likely to create change for others."

Rob moved the conversation forward by saying, "I am having trouble understanding why all the hullabaloo about nursing...it’s perfectly legal and safe. What's the problem? Perhaps this is representative of the reading (I forget where I read it) that enforcement of norms are stronger than enforcement of laws." Several women in the room were interested in hearing the male perspective. Dr. Koerber identified the issue as a "norm in flux" and that "even though it's legal, many women don't feel entirely comfortable doing it or seeing it." Rob didn't want to represent the entire male gender :-) Kevin was honest in saying that he didn't "find the topic compelling myself. It seems to me like a lot of bureaucracy has influenced the way business gets done at hospitals and its ruffling some feathers in some rather personal ways."

The class then moved on to the discussion questions.


 * Question 1:

What do you think Foucault means by “a practice of the self,” a concept he begins discussing on p. 113 of the interview?**

Erin replied: "I think the practice of the self is when the person has autonomy to act upon themselves. Now the self is the exercise of self upon self by which one tries to work out, to transform ones self and to attain a certain mode of being" (113)/ She continued by saying, "In other words the self is an autonomous sort, but is laid siege to by other things such as religion, culture, education, etc. We believe ourselves to be capable of making our decisions, but we forget that we are constrained by what we know, which is our reality. The decisions which we make are seldom against straight norms. Even when we go outside our norms, we likely fall into another segment of norms (breastfeeding moms, criminals, women soccer players)."

Dr. Koerber pointed out that "there are some subtleties in the interview that might be easy to miss...for instance, in the first part of the article, he's talking mostly about ancient Greek practices of caring for the self...then later he moves on to talk more about modern times." Kevin suggested that "self means more than selfishness. It refers to an awareness of one's place in relationship to others. Mary thought that it meant "that while Christianity suppressed the self, the Protestant Reformation essentially started it all over again." Dr. Koerber liked Erin's reply because it "captured the complexity of it all--we are free to move around in the grid (chess board), but never entirely free to move any old way we wish." Dr, Koerber also supported the ideas of Kevin and Mary; highlighting that Foucault is talking about early Christianity.

In discussing the chess board metaphor, Beth suggested that "we don't always define ourselves on the board; we might think we are a rook when others think we are a knight." Several students agreed. Dr. Koerber said that "the chess board metaphor is working wonders for me, and I liked the Texas hold 'em one also--I think that was yours, wasn't it?" To which Beth hung her head in shame, knowing that poker is a weakness.

Kendall suggested that "TCers generally don't have and don't try to claim much politically power within their organizations. This lack of political power makes it difficult for them to act ethically. I definitely think promoting one's political power is a kind of care of self." Mary agreed. Dr. Koerber thought that was interesting thought. Melody asked "so a game of truth, promoting one's political power, is self care?" Dr. Koerber likened the issue to ethics, "That's one thing I often think about when we talk about ethics issues in relation to tc--tech writers don't always have the power we wish they did, and if they had more power, they could perhaps act more ethically." Kendall replied, "I guess the other part of that is that consumers generally fare better when TCers have more power, because we are trained and practice constantly considering the audience/consumer."


 * Question 2**


 * How was liberty defined for the Greeks, according to Foucault? (See p. 116). How was ethics or ethos defined for the Greeks, and how did it relate to liberty? (See. p. 117).**

Amy S was not present in class, so the class responded.

Kendall suggested that "One established one's ethos and it allowed one to practice liberty." Dr. Koerber said, "on p. 12 where he says "these relationships of power are changing relationships" and then goes on to provide the example of how his power relation with the interviewer might change by the end of the interview." Kendall replied that "Foucault says we can always resist if we can commit suicide or violent acts--I'm rarely, if ever, prepared to do that." Further, "the ability resist may be very limited and unattractive." Amy agreed and suggested the "dark side" applies to issues like "domestic abuse." Kevin likened it to his prison camp training because "even when you're in the interrogation room you still have means to resist...and I can't imagine a much more hopeless power situation."

In response to some conversation, Dr. Koerber suggested to Erin and Amy that they had an interesting point because "the person with the title isn't always the one who's the most powerful." Staci suggested questioned "IS the person with the power to resist the most powerful?" For example, she says, "Veto power is a pretty strong power." Beth, however, thinks this isn't always the case, as Holocaust victims certainly had no form of usable resistance.

The power-knowledge dilatation surfaced again in examples provided by Kevin and Staci. Dr. Koerber suggested that "the one who's most aware of their options is sometimes the most powerful one." Kevin's examples of classified information and Dr. Koerber's example of breastfeeding options were explored. Melinda said that she was shocked to find she knew more about her baby than the doctor, "As a new mom I thought authority figures like MDs knew more than I did. Then I realized I'm the one who lives with the child and I know more than them about THAT child (mine)."


 * Question 3**


 * On p. 120, the subject of conversation shifts to questions of power-knowledge and subject-truth. Some of the ideas in this section will sound similar to Foucault’s ideas in Discipline and Punish, but others sound quite different. What are some of the key differences that you notice?**

Kevin replied, "In Discipline and Punish, Foucault described the modern prison as power constructs that are intended to coerce free individuals into docile bodies that are more easily governed. In his interview, Foucault describes this as a relationship of power that exists only as long as either side is able to resist it in some fashion, even if it is by drastic measures such as suicide. A docile body is therefore one who has the means to resist power, but chooses not to either because they do not know they have the power to resist, or because they are too inured to their circumstances to bother. In this place he explains that power exists outside of monolithic panopticons like a prison because it is generated by the interaction of individuals with each other, but can constantly shift."

Beth said "I thought I understood the differences that Foucault changed some of his terms over the course of his life...but, I can't pinpoint what they are exactly." Dr. Koerber gave the example, "for instance, he talks in the interview more about the game of truth, which is very similar to power-knowledge from D & P." Kevin suggested that "the biggest difference was the shift of power relationships from the coercive behavior modification of government to the interpersonal." The game of truth fascinated Beth. Dr. Koerber reminded us that "D & P hardly talked at all about individuals' ability to act or resist. This interview is one of the few places where Foucault addresses individual agency at all." Beth agreed saying "he rarely mentioned the individual and resistance in D&P." Dr. Koerber suggested that Foucault "spent most of his career trying to overcome notions of the self that he thought were outdated in the modern world."

Mary wondered if Foucault had any addictions and the class discussed his death from AIDS. Dr. Koerber suggested that "his work was very much motivated by an attempt to understand his existence in a world where he was marginalized--that situation probably changed as he became an established academic." Beth was concerned about defining Foucault by his disease. Kevin suggested that "the more knowledge one possesses the more they are able to resist power as we have discussed. So knowledge brings freedom with it."


 * Question 4**


 * What does Foucault mean by “games of truth”?**

Rob replied, "Foucault calls power a strategic game. A game is an ensemble of rules for the production of truth, or an ensemble of procedures which lead to a certain point. I view games of truth similar to a card game where each card is a truth for your side. The truths include possibilities, effects, situations, conditions or areas of exploitation. The concept of games of truth is similar, in my opinion, to a biased debate." Dr. Koerber wanted him to clarify "biased debate" which he defined as "stacking the deck." Dr. Koerber was "reminded of the advocacy group's strategic moves in Britt's book--you win by shutting out other arguments, not by coming up with the argument that's most true." Kendall said that she sees "games of truth" illustrated by all kinds of research...we research a topic using one methodology--well-respected--and get one answer and that become truth and then someone else comes along and does another experiment with an equally good methodology and finds a completely different truth and points out why the previous experiment didn't really work and that becomes a new truth." Further, she suggested that "the one with knowledge usually gets the best hand."

We then had a rousing rendition of Kenny Roger's famous song, "The Gambler."

You got to know when to hold em Know when to fold em Know when to walk away Know when to run You never count your money when you're sitting at the table there'll be time enough for counting when the dealings done

Rob, not wanting to do v-karaoke suggested the idea that "an interesting concept is hiding lies behind cards of truths. Theoretically, the truth shall prevail, but does it?"


 * Question 5**


 * On p. 123, Foucault offers an interesting distinction between domination and power. What is this distinction? He applies this distinction to 18-19th century conjugal relations, but can you think of other examples to which it might apply?**

Melinda said, "Foucault says that power can exist within domination, but that resistance does not necessary change the fact that one is dominated. He used the example of 18th and 19th century marriages where women were economically, sexually, and socially dominated by their husbands, and where they exercised some power as in being unfaithful or getting money from them, but that resistance did not change the original state of domination." Kendall [to Kevin]: exactly...even if you had some incredible world-changing epiphany, you just wouldn't be able to get out the word. Melinda continued with "The only example of this I thought of was the parent-child relationship. My husband and I have domination over our children (at the present time). We buy their clothes, cook their food, and dictate what school they attend. Yet they can resist us in numerous ways by the friends they choose, the hobbies they take up, even how much of their dinner they will eat! Yet none of that changes our power relationship." Dr. Koerber thought that was a great example. Kendall suggested that "you've got to balance the power-relationship, because children get so frustrated so as to be non-functioning if they don't have some control...at least my kids." Dr. Koerber reminded us that Foucault "talks about different forms of power relationships, saying some involve domination and some do not."


 * Question 6**


 * Comment on this statement from p. 127: “In any case, one can in no way say that the games of truth are nothing else than games of power.” What does this mean? (Make sure you carefully read the paragraph that this sentence is part of—it will help you understand the statement).**

Melody suggested that "power is everywhere, but just because it is everywhere isn’t a bad thing. It can be, but there’s the other side, the good side. It’s the same with games of truth. They do have validity, like Foucault’s example of the game of truth called psychiatry. Psychiatry is the game of truth in the relations of power from the medicalization of madness." Dr. Koerber replied that "it's important to remember that pouvoir (French) = "power" and "to be able" in English--makes it less negative." Beth used the open chemists as an example of resisting mainstream ideology. Staci said, "Foucault says that perfectly transparent communication is a utopia, and that he does not believe that there can be a society without relations of power.” She earned kudos by Dr. Koerber.

Erin suggested that "Foucault is saying that our society is built on power, and right now, everyone isn't going to relinquish to someone else the power we have, regardless of how little it might be."


 * Question 7**
 * On p. 129, Foucault discusses communication and brings up his differences with Habermas. What does he say about communication, and how does he differ with Habermas on this subject?**

Staci thought that Habermas had a more positive outlook than Foucault and Dr. Koerber suggested we note the differences in the approach in our future readings.


 * Question 8**


 * In the Koerber article, how are rhetorical agency and resistance defined?**

Mary replied that "a rhetorical agency is like an ad agency, they act on behalf of someone... a rhetorical agent is someone acting on behalf of the cause, in this case breastfeeding, like it or not. Resistance in this case refers to going against the cultural norm, or paradigm. Is this even close?" Amy [to Mary]: Yeah, you better get it right! Dr. Koerber suggested that "agency = action."


 * Question 9**


 * The Koerber article offers several examples of individuals enacting resistance in the context of disciplinary power. However, it doesn’t fully address the question of how such individual acts relate to long-term, systemic change. What do you think is the relationship between individual acts of resistance and long-term systemic change? When one individual “bucks the system,” does this necessarily make it easier for others after them to do the same?**

Kendall replied, "If enough individuals buck the system in an organized way, like with breastfeeding, it can cause systemic change. And, as Foucault points out, as long as you can commit suicide you have choice, but I don’t think that’s much of a choice. He does say the capacity for resistance can be very limiting. When one or even a few people buck the system, they are labeled as crazy, criminal, something, and the system acts to normalize them through the disciplinary apparatus, possibly even the juridical apparatus. Furthermore, I think, my opinion, the system further galvanizes against that kind of resistance and it becomes more difficult at least for awhile. When fathers initially wanted to be in delivery rooms, they handcuffed themselves to their wives gurneys. They started stocking delivery rooms with bolt cutters. Of course, when individual resistance is part of a wave of resistance, it can have profound, systemic change." Beth suggested that "one person can burn a good path for others to follow if the fire is strong enough and enough people see it." Beth used her example of being the first female pipe major at her college. Melody's daughter had a similar experience in Lubbock.


 * The class adjourned.**