Foucault in California
the-tls.co.uk
the-tls.co.uk
I think that Foucault found capitalism and the freedom it granted absolutely fascinating (just like Marx before him was fascinated with capitalism's ability to increase wealth), which eventually led him to look into thinkers like Hayek, Friedman and Say. Anedoctal but imo significant: his last partner and the executor of his will now works for a neoliberal think tank.
The left-wing magazine Jacobin had ran an interesting inyerview on the subject of Foucault's neoliberal inclinations some time back, worth a read if the subject interests you: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/
Briefly looking at his history, it does seem to be he was very opportunistic on his positioning, following the sentiment and political movements of france.
What's that?
You'll see him criticized and reviled in many philosophical circles as being the epitome of post-modernism (which has (unfairly IMHO) become a bit of a dirty word in some cultures), but don't let that scare you. I believe (mostly from reading analysis from people much smarter than me, like Thaddeus Russell) that Foucault is widely misunderstood.
When people say "post-modernism sucks" they mean, for example, that moral relativism sucks, or that it is stupid to view science as a grand narrative of no more value than other narratives. When they say "Foucault sucks" they are attacking the understanding among the "woke" of how power relations work in society, an understanding that is drawn, however incompetently, from readings of Foucault.
Leading post-modern philosophers didn't embrace those positions in an uncomplicated way, but many influenced by them do, and they massively outnumber the people who have actually bothered to read Derrida or Baudrillard.
Furthermore, many post-modern philosophers were showboaters who enjoyed being provocative, so you don't have to look hard to find justification for the unnuanced understanding of their work.
A word currently used to describe "consciousness" and being aware of the truth behind things "the man" doesn't want you to know i.e. classism, racism...
A THOUSAND SMALL SANITIES
The Moral Adventure of Liberalism
By Adam Gopnik
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/books/review/adam-gopnik-...
To name names, he means Lacan and Althusser among many others.
Marx believed that history was driven by the means of production, and that the original means, foraging, produced societies that were egalitarian and peaceful. Then the human race switched to agriculture, and societies became unequal, oppressive, and militaristic. This went on for thousands of years, until finally some societies switched to industrialization and capitalism, which upended the old social order, but lead to new forms of oppression and suffering. But capitalism has internal contradictions that will lead to its being overthrown by the workers and replaced with anarchistic socialism which will be egalitarian and peaceful. And so everyone should join in and support the overthrow of capitalism.
That is all clear and understandable, and that is not an accident, because Marx's goal was to change the world through mass political action, and the only way that can happen is if you have a set of ideas that is understandable to ordinary people.
And that leads me back to Foucault. If is ideas are so complex and subtle that only a tiny elite of dedicated scholars can understand them, then they are of little use in helping people overcome the many things wrong in the world today.
I think the NYT quote on the back of many of the english paperback editions of his works, "Foucault must be reckoned with," sums up his position in the history of philosophy perfectly--his ideas were quite radical and not easy to contend with at first (especially from the perspective of anglo-american pedagogy), but the level of scholarly thinking and ingenuity the man possessed are awe-inducing.
His thesis History of Madness is still an incredible read and really drives home the often great degree of malleability and historical contingency of cultural/social concepts and categories.
I say this as someone who read Russell's chapter on Nietzsche and avoided reading his work, then read it.
Critiques should be accompanied with salt.
Care to get more specific with that recommendation? Ideally, an entry point in the 30m-60m range.
I think it gives a sense of the sort of theoretical work that Foucault is interested in (which is perhaps somewhat distinct from his more historically and politically oriented work). It also contends with questions of information and ownership in a way that may be interesting from a “hacker” perspective.
> There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.
"Discipline and Punishment" and "History of Sexuality" are short and clear. Foucault's basic idea of "power" is that one should pay less attention to the explanations and excuses that are given, and more attention to what actually happens. If despite their protestations, one side consistently ends up winning, and their opponents consistently end up losing, it's likely that they hold "power".
Which is to say, while you are welcome to skip Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, and Kristeva, I think you should read Foucault.
One detail is that shortly before his death, Foucault sent a letter asking if he could come to live with Wade and Stoneman. "I think he wanted to die like Huxley. I said yes, of course."
Think of all the things that you care about, that make your life good or bad. Sexuality is obviously one, but only one, and even it is intertwined with many others, like health, child-rearing, companionship, and so on.
But with Catholicism, or at least a rigid version, life is all about fighting sin, and central to sin is sexual desire, and hence fighting sexual desire is central to living properly. Now stick with that sex-centered view of life and just make sexual desire good instead of bad, and you have Foucault, or at least a large part of his views.
You know, someone who follows exactly what his father tells him to be in life is not free. But someone who spends his life doing the exact opposite, and never discovers for himself what a good life would be, which might in some ways agree with his father's vision, is still not really free.
No doubt some Foucault fans will claim, and perhaps properly, that I am greatly distorting his views. But as a public intellectual, Foucault had a responsibility to make his views clear enough that people could understand them and decide if they are right or wrong, and if the latter put them into practice in their lives and society as a whole. It is, for instance, pretty clear what Marx thought should happen in the world, and likewise the American founding fathers.
If it is the case that Foucault wrote in a way that predictably would lead to his being misunderstood, then I say he was being irresponsible. If on the other hand his views are not of any use to most people, then why do they matter?