The Big Ol' Michel Foucault Thread

[Dhul Fiqar]

Michel Foucault is probably my favorite philosopher of all time. He was a Frenchman and during his lifetime he was everything from an Anarchist to a Marxist to a Maoist to a Foucault-ist (he would resent the last term most of all but there is no other person that truly formulated the same ideas as him - thus I would put his political ideology and philosophy under one bracket under: "Foucault-esque").

He died in the late eighties from AIDS, he was both a homosexual and a known user of some drugs - particularly Cannabis. Now he has immediately lost credibility with some that are reading - he realized this early on - and this compelled him to take a deep look at why and HOW society chooses to classify peoples and behaviours as "abnormal" and what it does to try and normalize them.

He explored mental illness and prisons with special vigour - as well as speaking out scathingly against misogyny which he saw as endemic in modern capitalist societies. His background in Communism also made him a favorite of many Left-wingers - and his ideas have obvious sympathy for the socialist cause. Basically - he often tries to speak for the voiceless and the disenfranchised - with remarkable results imho.

He invented the concept of "discourse" - which is an underlying "truth" that almost all of society subconsciously subscribes to. Once you establish a discourse - nothing that contradicts it is a rational argument any more - as the discourse does not just dictate the answers - it dictates what questions can be asked!

An example would be the "capitalist discourse" in western society. We all "know" that it can't get any better than this - communism is a good idea but it could not work. We all collectively share this idea that "free movement of capital equals freedom for the people" - even those of us that fundamentally disagree with this on a factual basis cannot penetrate or escape the discourse that society has created

I could go on forever - but if anyone has any additional questions of raises particular issues I will take it from there. I can debate this man and his ideas forever!

To read up on him beforehand if you don't know him, see http://foucault.info/ - it is far from being complete and it is a bit dry but it has some good articles. Also you can search google for his complete works - it is available in .txt in more than one place.

One thing I will probably try and explore later tonight or tomorrow in my next post to this thread is his assertion that "madness is the absence of work" - basically that people that refuse to take part in the capitalist system and do not see the rationality of living out their lives as wageslaves are put into institutions where they are either forcibly brainwashed ("re-socialized" for the squeemish) or kept theer indefinitely to save us the embarrassment of living evidence that our system does not work for everyone and no ideas can be universally accepted.

Breathtaking stuff - I have been reading him off and on for years now and I feel I have barely scratched the surface of his ideas - especially when it comes to what he calls "the carceral society". He argues that ALL of society is just one big prison - and that actual prisons and asylums are not primarily built or conceived to keep criminals and the insane at bay but to remind the rest of us of the consequences of breaching societal norms.

Anyway - what do you all think? :)

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

http://www.thefoucauldian.co.uk/

[FatFreeMilk]

Wow, i'm already learning a whole lot more from this philosophy board which is pretty damn cool. This guy sounds tight, imma do some research on this guy now. thanks dhul. but what exactly does it take to be a "philosopher" ? I don't know why but I always thought that philosophes were only around a long ass time ago so it's kinda weird to me to read that he died in the late 80's :huh:

[Dhul Fiqar]

A philosopher is just someone concerned with philosophy - preferable a writer of philosophical texts. There is still a lot of them around :)

--- G.

[pedro san pedro]

he sounds pretty cool -can you recommend a good text to start on?

[The Feral Underclass]

Foucault wanted to be a gold fish when he was younger so i read...........I do not understand his theory of discourse.....can you explain to me as if I was 5, without me having to read endless text....thanks!

he sounds pretty cool -can you recommend a good text to start on?

There is a series called Introducing..... I have Introducing Logic, Postmodernism and Existentialism, you can also get 'Introducing Foucalt' they are £9.99 in the UK, $12.95 in the US and $17.00 in Canada....they are a fantastic series which gives a founded introduction into what ever subject and I highly recomend them.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Good suggestion for books! If you need something short and quick on the internet you might want to look at: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-fou1.htm - it is brief and emphasizes the parts of his ideas that these guys are interested in - but it is quite accurate.

As for discourse:


Discourse, as defined by Foucault, refers to:

ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and relations between them. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the 'nature' of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern (Weedon, 1987, p. 108).

... a form of power that circulates in the social field and can attach to strategies of domination as well as those of resistance ( Diamond and Quinby, 1988, p. 185).

Basically, a discourse is knowledge - something that is a given and forms the basis of all debate on a specific matter. Foucault was very interested in how people create knowledge (especially social knowledge - and note he does not consider it something already existing to be learned but something that is created by particular conditions in society). He was also very much interested in the processes through which people use discourse to exercise power over individuals and social groups - as well as how individuals and groups actively resisted.

He also looked really cool:

http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/images/foucault.jpg
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~fr279/syllabus/foucault.jpg

Lastly, check out this excerpt from a TV debate he had with Noam Chomsky, he revealed that the people sponsoring the debate had to make sure it was in Amsterdam and bribe him with a pound of hashish before he agreed to debate Chomsky! =D

http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-...lt.chomsky.html (http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/foucault/foucault.chomsky.html)

--- G.

[redstar2000]

The "weakness" of Foucault, if I understand him, is that he never produced a "theory of resistance", much less "revolution".

In his analysis, the prevailing social order is "all powerful" or at least getting very close to that, not so much by means of systematic repression but because it "dominates the discourse" so effectively.

As I understand it, in Foucault's world, the masses really do not act or even think at all. They swim in an intellectual pond created for them by their rulers.

On the other hand, perhaps he did have a theory of how things change that went beyond the schemes of the elite...I am very far from an "expert" on such matters.

For the moment, at least, I have the strong impression that while insightful, he was an extraordinarily pessimistic thinker.

Am I right?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dhul Fiqar]

You're right - he can be read as being extremely pessimistic and he indeed proposed no concrete solutions - which is what seperates him from political thinkers like Marx. However, he claimed to be fundamentally misunderstood, and responded to such criticism with a semi-famous quote:


"My role - and that is too emphatic a word - is to show people that they are much freer than they feel, that people accept as truth, as evidence, some themes which have been built up at a certain movement during history, and that this so-called evidence can be criticized and destroyed. To change something in the minds of people - that’s the role of an intellectual.."

--- Michel Foucault

Essentially he maintained rather than saying "look - here I can show you how your entire world is just a structure of lies designed to keep you down and dominate you forever and ever" - he was actually saying something more along the lines "If you understand how and why these 'truths' that are used to dominate and subdue you came about - you can easily dismantle them with your mind and then they have lost all power over you".

At least that is my interpretation - he was a complex man :)

--- G.

[Ben Sir Amos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:01 PM
The "weakness" of Foucault, if I understand him, is that he never produced a "theory of resistance", much less "revolution".

In his analysis, the prevailing social order is "all powerful" or at least getting very close to that, not so much by means of systematic repression but because it "dominates the discourse" so effectively.

As I understand it, in Foucault's world, the masses really do not act or even think at all. They swim in an intellectual pond created for them by their rulers.

On the other hand, perhaps he did have a theory of how things change that went beyond the schemes of the elite...I am very far from an "expert" on such matters.

For the moment, at least, I have the strong impression that while insightful, he was an extraordinarily pessimistic thinker.

Am I right?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I think it's 'yes and no' on most of this.

The lack of a theory of resistance is more to do with resisting the idea that analysis can be transformed into a recipe for change. It's not so easy, of course. However, I think Foucault was politically active in protest against gulags - so he must have thought that change was possible.

Is 'discourse all powerful? Only in the same way that ideology is all powerful. The ideas of the ruling class dominate the the discourse - but that doesn't stop opposition totally. In fact, I feel Foucault's take on the issue gives us a better mechanism for understanding how ideology can be challenged and how we can effect a transition from a class in itself to a class for itself.

I'm sure that the bit about swimming in an intellectual pond isn't correct (although his ideas did not stay the same throughout his career). Foucault argued that people 'constituted their subjectivity' through discourse. This is similar to the non-deterministic Marx.

Was Foucault a pessimist? Are there any jolly philosophers?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Excellent post - welcome to the board :)

--- G.

[redstar2000]

Are there any jolly philosophers?

John Dewey was a rather optimistic fellow as I recall.

Otherwise...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[lifetrnal]

Personally, I can't see how you can stomach his philosophy. I confess that the new forms of control, that Foucault labels as, "power/knowledge" discorses web through society. But, I'll stake my claim with the Frankfurtists any day.... that web of power serves an agent: the rich. If you buy Foucault, then there is no reason for you to be a Marxist at all... firstly he takes a completely non-normative view of politics, secondly he thinks power has no agent (so having a revolution wouldn't help at all), and lastly (ties to the last comment) he thinks that the only way to resist "power" is on the micro-level.

[Quota 76 denial]

Are we participating in archeology or genelogy when we discuss Foucault?

[Palmares]

By any chance can anyone tell me what Foucault's relationship with Marxism was? What were his disagreements? I realise he was quite pessimistic, but did he propose anything to make up for these disagreements?

[Mujer Libre]

As a feminist I appreciate Foucault's contribution to thinking on how we discipline our bodies, and on modes of social control in general.

I also find Foucault frustrating in many ways. In my History and Philosophy of Psychiatry course this semester we've read Foucault and those influenced by him and there seems to be a distinct romanticisation of mental illness (the concept of the fool, and being free before the 'great confinement'), which is decidedly impractical IMO. Foucauldians like Szasz also deny that mental illness exists at all. While I appreciate a lot of what they're saying, for example that diagnoses are often used as a means of social control, I think that to deny the existence of mental illness altogether is a very one-sided view.

[Bannockburn]

I can't believe I missed this thread. Concerning Foucault, great thinker, not pessimistic whatsoever. I wouldn't consider myself an authority on Foucault, but somebody who spent half his undergrad studying Foucault, and doing lectures on Foucault, seminars, and papers. I would like to say a few things.



The "weakness" of Foucault, if I understand him, is that he never produced a "theory of resistance", much less "revolution".

In his analysis, the prevailing social order is "all powerful" or at least getting very close to that, not so much by means of systematic repression but because it "dominates the discourse" so effectively.

As I understand it, in Foucault's world, the masses really do not act or even think at all. They swim in an intellectual pond created for them by their rulers.

On the other hand, perhaps he did have a theory of how things change that went beyond the schemes of the elite...I am very far from an "expert" on such matters.

For the moment, at least, I have the strong impression that while insightful, he was an extraordinarily pessimistic thinker.

Am I right?

No. You're not right whatsoever. Yet, you are not to blame. A lot of people take Foucault to be pessimistic. Yet, you must know Foucault's understanding of power. I would refer you to my Blog, where I wrote on Foucault, his power relations, and the potential for resistance.

To sum up real fast. Power, for Foucault is not something like the subjugation of law, of authority, or one group of Rulers, over the ruled, or one class over another. Power, for Foucault is not something external to groups, or individuals, not a transcendent force, but completely immanent that produces people, people can produce it, exercise and submit to it.

For Foucault, power is a relation that produces through a (This is key) multiplicity of force relations

in his history of sexuality, vol 1, he discusses where there is power, there is resistance. This is key, and the end results, are the institutions which are created out of power relationships. Nevertheless, as Foucault sums up, in Biopower, since life can never be contained, and always produces, it can never be, life that is, “trapped” in various social insitituions. Thus, the potential for resistance. That is to sum it up, real fast like. Read my Blog. That would clear it up better for you.

You can't have a “all-powerful” anything for Foucault, because it relies on a relationship. If you had an all power, then it would create a vacuum, and power would end.

See, for Foucault its power two fold
1) Force
2) Resistance.

[UltraLeftGerry]

Again, I am not an expert on Foucault, so if I say something out to lunch, I invite those who know Foucault to correct me.

It seems to me that his notion of power is almost metaphysical. He states power permeates in all relations in society. As a Marxist, I believe that such relations are caused by economic forces and to an extent cultural ones as well, though I am inclined to think that the material base is primary while certain smaller quirks of culture can be tweaked. I do agree that there seems to be power relations in many things beyond just the worker/boss view. Patriarchy, racism etc. involve trying to assert power over others. These are caused by economic relations in my view, and if someone could point out how Foucault believes power came into existence I would greatly appreciate it.


Bannockburn
in his history of sexuality, vol 1, he discusses where there is power, there is resistance. This is key, and the end results, are the institutions which are created out of power relationships. Nevertheless, as Foucault sums up, in Biopower, since life can never be contained, and always produces, it can never be, life that is, “trapped” in various social insitituions. Thus, the potential for resistance. That is to sum it up, real fast like. Read my Blog. That would clear it up better for you.

This is not unlike alienation. We assume and are taught the world we live in is the "normal" world and everything in society is "natural." Of course resistence still develops due to our alienated nature.

I don't think Foucault is necessarily that divorced from Marx. He's not necessarily concerned with economic questions but questions of how society exerts power. However he is extremely anarchic. More anarchic than a traditional anarchist is. He does not believe in proletarian revolution because he sees nothing in history which justifies the proletariat seizing power. I don't think the proletariat seizes power to rule but to abolish power relations. His association with the Iranian revolution is also strange. He seemed to take joy in Muslims rebelling against western influence. Though the one revolution he did supports seems to be the least progressive revolution of the 20th century. (Sure the Iranians smashed U.S. hegemony in Iran, but unlike say Cuba, China, Algeria etc. there were no real progressive social and economic changes.)

[Bannockburn]

It seems to me that his notion of power is almost metaphysical. He states power permeates in all relations in society.

I am in a hurry, so this will be fast, and not complete, but I would like to answer some questions now, and perhaps later continue?

Power for Foucault, I would argue that its not a transcendence metaphysics, like a God, or anything other worldly or above man. I don't know if I want to call it metaphysical in the sense its “beyond the physical”, and in the sense it must be a priori in the Kantian sense. However, since metaphysics is dubious in definitions, its hard to pin down. Nevertheless, I would call Foucault's power, an immanent metaphysics, and metaphysics roughly as followed, as “the really real”, or transcendental real.

Certainly power does permeate in all relation in society, but I think Foucault would also say that society itself is a product of power relations. So really, all relations, including sociality itself, and all relations in society are in power domains. Power is primordial, immanent omni-present.



As a Marxist, I believe that such relations are caused by economic forces and to an extent cultural ones as well

Certainly I understand where you are coming from. In fact, economic relations is a product of power relations for Foucault. For example, Foucault argues Disciplinary power and biopower at the turn of the 18th century had an enormous effect for the productivity of capital. So class struggle, and economics itself, its a nexus of power relations of networks which we call “economics”.


These are caused by economic relations in my view, and if someone could point out how Foucault believes power came into existence I would greatly appreciate it.

Two books
1) Power/knowledge
2) Society must be defended

Neither one is a book, but a set of essays and lectures. It deals mostly with power relations. Also, the “method” chapter of his book, “history of sexuality”.


I don't think Foucault is necessarily that divorced from Marx.

No, not whatsoever. Different methodology. Actually, not really. Both are historical accounts aren't they? So again, you can argue there is a link. I can see it.