Friday, 3 May 2024

{(1) Michel Foucault (2) Moralizing and Administration [continued]}[9th April 1991]

[Redbook9:54-55][19910409:0923g]{(1) Michel Foucault (2) Moralizing and Administration [continued]}[9th April 1991]


19910409.0923

[continued]


*‘The death of Victorian England signified, among other things, the transference of responsibility from the individual to the state.’

**

The previous extracted article** is in[this journal] for two reasons: the reaction*** against Michel Focault in the first three paragraphs,** which brings out the ultimate dissolution characteristic of R~ in its most extreme form, as manifest in this kind of theory; and the rest of the article, whose ideas are more difficult to analyse in C[ircles] A[nalysis] and S[ynthesis] terms.


The article implies a three-fold division of the Victorian era, roughly along these lines:


Period

System:


C[ommon] E[ra]

C[ircles] A[nalysis] and S[ynthesis]

(64 y[ea]rs)





(1832J~ )

(2048R~1792)

1st theory/


1837

1840G~


period:

Early Victorian


1848R~


‘Disciplinary


1856

1856C


Moralisation’

Mid Victorian


1864S~(-r~)


(↓)****


1875

1872M~



----------------------


1880U~


2nd theory/

Late Victorian


1888A~


Period:


1901

1896J~


‘Welfarist

+ Edwardian


1904G~


Administration’


1910

1912R~





1920C

(2048R~C~)


It is difficult to reconcile this in any straightforward way with the major C[ircles] A[nalysis] and S[ynthesis] cycles. The reviewer seems to feel that the ‘moralisation’ continued into late Victorian times, overlapping with administrative solutions: this makes a great deal more sense. So does the transfer or responsibility from the individual to the State, in the 2048-[&-]64-year# context around 1900.#*


*[See fn=# below]


**[ibid (per last previous ts entry): ‘Suitable cases for treatment[:] Moral attitudes to crime and punishment in Victorian England’, by Gertrude Himmelfarb, Times Literary Supplement 15/03/1991:7]


***[& in 1991 (per fn=** above); 64S~1992....]


****[Dashed/dotted arrow in ms]


#[sic; ‘-year &’ is deleted in ms, but probably the ‘&’ should have remained.]


#*[See text above marked]*


[PostedBlogger03for05052024]


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.