In the essay “The Politics of Truth”, Michel Foucault examines what critique is. Foucault begins his explanation of critique by relating it to Immanuel Kant’s definition of enlightenment. In the essay “What is Enlightenment” Kant argues that society has developed an “immaturity” that relies on the direction of authority. Kant states “If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need to exert myself at all” (3). Kant believes that this “immaturity” leads to society being constrained. Kant believes that “the public’s use of one’s own reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment” (4). Kant provides an example of a tax payer who pays his taxes but questions them as well. Kant states that the taxpayer “[civic duty is to] publicly express his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes” (5). In Kant’s example, a connection can be made to Foucault’s argument “what is critique?” Foucault’s examination of critique begins with his question “how to be governed like that” (44)? Foucault uses this question and its connection to Kant’s “Enlightenment” to critically look at the history of “power and knowledge”.
Foucault’s definition of critique closely related to Kant’s definition of enlightenment. Foucault states “Critique is the movement by which the subject gives himself the right to question the truth on its effects of power and question power on its discourses of truth” (47). Foucault want to mainly apply critique to what he calls the art of governing or “the movement through which individuals are subjugated in reality of a social practice through mechanism of power that adhere to a truth” (47). A...
... middle of paper ...
...argues here that through critique one can find cracks in the power-knowledge relationship. At this point the public will be able to ask the question “how not to be governed like that”?
At this point we can determine the purpose of Foucault’s question, “what is critique”? Foucault’s definition of critique provides a tool to find cracks in power-knowledge relationships by analyzing the genealogy of a power knowledge relationship. Foucault states “we have to deal with something whose stability, deep rootedness and foundation is never such that we cannot in one way or another envisage, if not its disappearance, then at least identifying by what and from what its disappearance is possible” (65). Foucault believes that using his method of critique a power and knowledge relationship is not permanent. Questioning and knowledge can be used to remove the leash from authority.
Part 1. 2009. The 'Secondary' of the Print. The. Landstreet, Peter. A. The “Power and Power Relations Lecture”.
Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism.” Ways of Reading. Fifth ed. Ed. David Barholomae and Anthony Petrosky. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999, 312-342. Print.
The French Revolution was a tumultuous period, with France exhibiting a more fractured social structure than the United States. In response, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proposed that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities, and of the corruption of governments” (National Assembly). This language indicates that the document, like its counterpart in the United States, sought to state the rights of men explicitly, so no doubt existed as to the nature of these rights. As France was the center of the Enlightenment, so the Enlightenment ideals of individuality and deism are clearly expressed in the language of the document. The National Assembly stated its case “in
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
After the Reformation the notion of democracy began to seep into European society, bringing with it the liberation of individual religious conscience and property. It was at this point in history, institutions realized they could no longer attempt to unify belief. Immanuel Kant, an enlightenment philosopher, argued in his essay entitled “What Is Enlightenment?” that prior oppression of thought was the direct result of laziness and cowardice in European society. Hence, as Europe transitioned into an era of enlightenment it was almost as if European society was shaking off their “self-caused immaturity” and “incapacity to use one’s intelligence.” The enlightenment in many ways represented a departure from common practice and the arrival of creativity and
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Foucault once stated, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests” (301). By this, he means that our society is full of constant supervision that is not easily seen nor displayed. In his essay, Panopticism, Foucault goes into detail about the different disciplinary societies and how surveillance has become a big part of our lives today. He explains how the disciplinary mechanisms have dramatically changed in comparison to the middle ages. Foucault analyzes in particular the Panopticon, which was a blueprint of a disciplinary institution. The idea of this institution was for inmates to be seen but not to see. As Foucault put it, “he is the object of information, never a subject in communication”(287). The Panopticon became an evolutionary method for enforcing discipline. Today there are different ways of watching people with constant surveillance and complete control without anyone knowing similar to the idea of the Panopticon.
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
The writings of Locke on the subject of revolution in his second treatise of government were one of the founding and seminal texts on the “right” of a populace to resist the power of the state if a government was to overstep its defined power and become an unjust tyranny. Kant, however, took what could be labelled a surprising view for a republican and made the denial of the logical and legal coherence of this “right”, as well as the potential harm caused by the rejection of what Kant saw as an individual's moral duty in maintaining the rule of law by the preservation of a government. This essay aims to examine the arguments put forward by both thinkers, draw out their key foundations and assess their coherence with the component parts of their arguments, as well as their wider philosophy. It is my conclusion that whilst Locke's stance on the matter clearly stems from his key ideological tenets of inalienable individual rights and the duty of self preservation, Kant's argument sits uneasily with his stance on moral autonomy, as well as leaving certain areas (such as the right to resist on the grounds of injustice) untouched, and thus is lacking in both scope and coherence when placed in comparison to the writings of Locke.
Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
The 18th century was filled with Enlightenment philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians, each contributing to the way our world thinks today. The Enlightenment prompted society to part from the ancient views of superstition and traditionalism, and transition to basing findings and concept on reason and logic. Each of the brilliant minds contributed to the worldly movement, their purpose was to reform society by challenging ideas that were grounded firmly in faith, emphasize reason and intelligence, and to advance knowledge through science and the arts. This stirred debate and completely reshaped our world’s perception of the universe, it questioned the existence of our world and what we were meant to evolve to. This mass circulation of thought would significantly affect historical events to come, such as the American and French Revolution, whose bases for government was influenced by thinkers such as Montesquieu, and his idea about the balance of power between the three branches of government, as well as Rousseau’s idea about the power of democracy and the consent of the people. Three such Enlightenment philosophes were John Locke, Rene Descartes, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. Each of these men generally agreed that most human failure and suffering was a result of mindlessly following tradition and superstition that was fed to them by leaders of the church and state. They believed that humankind could improve itself greatly, and that Enlightenment values of reason and humanity could achieve it. The first step was to free thinking itself-to escape the darkness of the past to the light of reason.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
A key feature of the unwritten constitution is ‘the Separation of Powers’. This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group. Cooperating with one...
During the Enlightenment period, the principles of absolutism were practiced, which envisioned complete sovereignty in the hands of a monarch. The best way to express the ideals of Enlightenment was to work through the people who were the most po...