Reading 12

Ambrosio
Discourses of truth interact with domains of practice to make objects of knowledge pertinent, valid, and socially accepted. (252)

Question: If students don't understand how to question the discourses of truth how till they know when things are moving or have moved in a direction they must and can change?

For Foucault, morality is not about conformity to prescriptive rules of conduct, but about our real behavior in relation to rules imposed on us, that is, the manner in which we obey or resist, respect or disregard, moral codes and values.(256)

I find this a little confusing. What if the rules imposed on us force us to behave in ways that harm others? Nazi soldiers who were working within the rules and moral codes of their time would now be considered amoral. Would Foucault consider morality our interpretation of the rules? How does the establishment of moral exist within a vacuum of prescribed beliefs and reasonings?

For Foucault, ethics is not concerned with abstract rules and universal principles, the discovery of virtues that enable a purposeful life, fostering certain self-conscious and habitual dispositions of character, or with relations of caring, but with the relation of the self to itself, with how we are constituted, and constitute ourselves, as ethical subjects in relation to systems of truth.(262)

Ironically I find that people who were raised in a moral bound religious home (mostly Jewish or Christians I know) decide that they don't want to "force" religion on their children. I understand the sentiment but I see so many of them lost in child raising because they cannot explain their reasoning and sometimes let their children act like unsocialized heathens and then lament why they aren't behaving! I can respect choices to do this but I wish they would think it through further than they do. Frankly I think that form of neglect is damaging as well as anger induced pankings.

BRE
Being labelled criminals, deviants, even "thugs" and "pests" as homeless people too often are, erases my humanity. (224)

I noted the use of pests here from the book I just read. Baker explained in many fashions that by calling something animalistic the implicit purpose is to erase the humanity.

Governments don't invite us to take part in discussion on issues that affect our lives (225)

This statement reminded me of British nobleman trying to understand the reason for the American Revolution. Their confused response was that most English citizens didn't have representation for their taxation either!

"criminalizing homeless people, rather than addressing root social and economic causes of homelessness, such as lack of affordable housing, availability of social service, and access to jobs with a living wage." (232)

Again I find it so interesting that facts of life we criminalize. Unfortunately I see the class warfare as well but I see that lately it's the actions and means and people who are wealthy that are being criminalized. If I hear again that the rich are complaining about tax increases I will scream. The poor can't complain about how much they pay in federal income taxes AS THEY DO NOT PAY A DIME. The discourse is so slanted to hate the wealthy and middle class who pay ALL THE TAXES that I think meaningful discourse will be shut down in this country.

"She suggests that "poor-bashing is when people who are poor are humiliated, stereotyped, discriminated against, shunned, despised, pitied, patronized, ignored, blamed and falsely accused of being lazy, drunk, stupid, uneducated, having large families, and not looking for work" (Swanson 200T: 2). (233)

This is horrible and should never be done. And can I say that my family would be appalled that having a large familky is a negative? LOL! We have rich and poor in my family and I have myself been both rich and poor and frankly I saw no shame and have no fear of having nothing again. I strongly attribute my 17 year marriage to the fact that my husband started with nothing. When you start with nothing and family is everything, stuff is just stuff.