untitled

NOTES TO PAGES 636–38

bridge: MIT Press, 1989), 73–78. Republished in Tom McDonough, ed.,Guy Debord and the Situa-
tionist International(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002), reference on 321–28.

23. This very excess explains, insofar as Debord’s work is concerned, a popularization and
    even denigration of the concept of the spectacle in seventies tracts and eighties postmodernism
    (notably in Baudrillard). Jonathan Crary remarks on the problem in ‘‘Spectacle, Attention,
    Counter-Memory,’’ inGuy Debord and the Situationist International, ed. McDonough, 455–66.


24. Foucault,Discipline and Punish, 195–228.


25. Foucault, ‘‘Governmentality,’’ inPower, 201–22.


26. See the essays in Michel Foucault,Religion and Culture,ed. Jeremy Carrette (London:
    Routledge, 1999), as well as: ‘‘Afterword toThe Temptation of Saint Anthony’’; ‘‘The Thought of the
    Outside’’; the writings on the Enlightenment in ‘‘What is Enlightenment?’’ and ‘‘What is Critique?’’;
    the essays on ethics and the short pieces on Pasolini and Syderbergh, namely, ‘‘Sade: Sergeant of
    Sex,’’ ‘‘The Gray Mornings of Tolerance,’’ and ‘‘The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the
    Everyday Worms,’’ collected in theEssential Works. Many of these texts, even when not treating
    religious themes, take seriously the relations between philosophy and religion, questions of ethics,
    humanism, and non-Christian categories of theological (or para-theological) value.


27. Alexander Nehamas,The Art of Living: Socrative Reflections from Plato to Foucault(Berke-
    ley: University of California Press, 2000), 170.


28. See Jeremy Carrette, ‘‘Prologue to a Confession of the Flesh,’’ in Foucault,Religion and
    Culture, ed. Carrette, 5–6.


29. Cf. ibid., 31—Carrette completely ignores and undermines this comment. There is a deep
    and definitive vulnerability and uncertainty in Christian categories, highlighted perhaps most clearly
    in Foucault’s ‘‘Afterword to theTemptation of Saint Anthony.’’ It is not that Foucault is not pleased
    to use them, but rather that he uses them with the same excess that characterizes his use of non-
    Christian categories, an excess that betrays the hope of their rejuvenation in a different context.


30. Foucault,The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences(New York: Vintage,
    1994), 342.


31. Foucault,Discipline and Punish, 194, emphasis in original; trans. modified.


32. Ibid.


33. Foucault, ‘‘Omnes et Singulatim,’’Power, 308.


34. Foucault describes this case in ‘‘Truth and Juridical Forms,’’ inPower, 74–75.


35. InPolitical Theology, Schmitt couples historical development with foundation and struc-
    tural analogy. See Carl Schmitt,Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans.
    G. Schwab (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989), esp. 36–37. Blumenberg, Courtine, and de Vries have all
    noted the fragility of setting up the theologico-political on derivation and foundation, though it
    seems to me the structural element is not lost in Schmitt. See Jean-Franc ̧ois Courtine, ‘‘Proble`mes
    the ́ologico-politiques,’’ inNature et empire de la loi(Paris: Vrin, 1999), 167–68, cited in de Vries,
    Religion and Violence, 218.


36. Foucault, ‘‘The Subject and Power,’’Power, 332.


37. Foucault,Discipline and Punish, 28–29.


38. Ibid., 29.


39. Foucault, ‘‘Omnes et Singulatim,’’Power, 325.


40. I take the termisomorphismfrom Foucault’s consideration of Raymond Roussel’s language
    as self-immobilizing and gradually regressing, as ‘‘isomorphic’’ to death, in ‘‘Seeing and Speaking
    in Raymond Roussel,’’Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology: Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984,
    vol. 2, ed. James D. Faubion (New York: The New Press, 1999), 27. Here, ‘‘isomorphic’’ does not
    suggestperfectanalogy; instead, it retains a certain component of (perhaps asymptotic) approxima-
    tion. It also retains the optical metaphor that ‘‘analogous’’ reduces to a certain mathematics.

PAGE 790

790

.................16224$ NOTE 10-13-06 12:34:48 PS