Quartz 4

week5-michel-foucault

11 min read

Up: 011_data-and-disc-lect Prev: week4-language-as-data-2 Next: week6-language-as-social-practice

Weekly Readings:

Cite

The episteme is the “total set of relations that unite, at a given period, the discursive practices that give rise to epistemological figures, sciences, and possibly formalized systems.” Unlike Kuhn’s paradigm, the episteme does not define what is knowable in a given period, but what is implicit in the fact that a given discourse or epistemological figure exists at all: “In the enigma of scientific discourse, what the analysis of the episteme questions is not its right to be a science, but the fact that it exists”. Giorgio Agamben on Episteme/Paradigm — The Signature of Things

Video Lecture Notes

  • Introduction to Michel Foucault
    • French philosopher known for his work on knowledge, society, and language.
    • Key Question: How do knowledge, social institutions, and language shape our understanding of the world, others, and ourselves?
    • Major influence on discourse analysis through his exploration of power-knowledge relationships.
  • Knowledge and Power
    • Interconnection:
      • Knowledge is not neutral; it is shaped by the way it is collected, organized, and interpreted.
      • Power and knowledge are mutually reinforcing; they influence each other.
    • Foucault’s Critique of Traditional Knowledge:
      • Traditional view: Knowledge is an accumulation of objective facts over time.
      • Foucault’s view: Knowledge is shaped by its historical and social context (perspective matters).
      • Example: Scientific disciplines (e.g., biology, economics, psychiatry) are influenced by the societal conditions in which they arise.
  • Discourse and Its Role
    • Definition:
      • Discourse is more than language — it refers to the rules, practices, and statements that produce and regulate knowledge within historical contexts.
      • It governs how we talk about, understand, rationalizes actions, and influences behavior.
    • Discourse as Power:
      • Discourse shapes societal norms, rationalizes actions, and influences behavior.
      • Example: Climate change debates reflect how language and knowledge are used to legitimize or challenge certain perspectives.
  • Foucault’s Historical Framework — Epistemes
    • Episteme: The underlying assumptions, codes, and rules that structure knowledge in a given historical period.
      1. Renaissance (14th-17th centuries):
        • Knowledge is based on resemblance and similitude.
        • Example: Aconite (a plant) was thought to cure eye diseases because it resembled the eye.
      2. Classical Period (17th-18th centuries):
        • Shift to classification, taxonomy, and measurement.
        • Observation and ordering replaced symbolic interpretation.
      3. Modern Period (19th century onward):
        • Focus on uncovering hidden structures (e.g., Marx’s analysis of labor, linguistics studying language’s inner workings).
    • Key Insight: The way we think and classify knowledge changes over time, shaping our understanding of ourselves and the world.
  • Archaeology of Knowledge
    • Methodology:
      • Foucault likens his approach to archaeology: uncovering the hidden rules that govern knowledge production.
      • Focus on the “conditions of possibility” of knowledge to emerge in a given period.
    • Discourse Analysis:
      • Not just about the content of language but about how practices systematically construct objects of knowledge.
      • Example: The concept of madness as a product of societal norms rather than an objective mental state.
  • Power in Foucault’s Work
    • Key Features:
      • Power is relational and dynamic, not unidirectional.
      • It exists in all human interactions, shaping thoughts, actions, and relationships.
      • Power is neither inherently good or bad; it is a condition of social life.
    • Examples:
      • Education: A teacher exercises power by sharing knowledge, shaping students’ understanding.
      • Love: Power dynamics exist is romantic relationships as a form of negotiation and strategy.
  • Foucault and Linguistics
    • Foucault critiqued formal linguistics (e.g., Chomsky’s focus on universal grammar), arguing for an analysis of language within its social and historical context.
    • Key Ideas in Linguistic Analysis:
      1. Functionality: Linguistic signs gain meaning from their usage in specific situations.
        • “Kapıyı açar mısın?” cümlesi, bir komut mu, rica mı, şaka mı, yoksa emir mi olduğunu, kullanıldığı duruma göre belli eder.
      2. Seriality: Language is functional within repeated social processes.
        • Her sabah iş yerinde “Günaydın” demek, sadece bir selamlaşma değildir. Bu sürekli tekrarlanan bir sosyal ritüeldir. Seriality, selamlaşmayı sadece bir kelime olmaktan çıkarır; toplumsal ilişkileri düzenleyen bir işlev kazandırır.
        • Mahkemede “Sanık ayağa kalk” denildiğinde bu, sadece iki kelimeden oluşan bir cümle değildir. Bu ifade sürekli tekrarlanan bir prosedürün parçasıdır. Seriality sayesinde, bir otorite gücü taşır.
      3. Social Dimension: Language operates and acquires meaning within social groups.
      4. Materiality: Linguistic signs involve material processes (e.g., written, spoken forms).
        • Örneğin, bir mahkeme kararının yazılı olması onun otoritesini sağlar.
      5. Pre-consciousness: Some linguistic practices are routine and not always intentional.
      6. Power: Language is shaped by and reflects power relations.
  • Conclusion and Key Takeaways
    • Discourse: A holistic framework connecting language, knowledge, and power.
    • Knowledge Production: Shaped by historical, social, and material conditions.
    • Power Relations: Always present in human interactions, influencing thought and action.
    • Linguistic and Social Practice: Language must be studied as part of broader social practices rather than isolated systems.

Video Notes

Power

  • Distinction between repressive and normalizing power Foucault differentiates between two forms of power: repressive power, often tied to coercion and violence, and normalizing power, which subtly shapes individuals’ behaviors and beliefs. Repressive power is visible and implies a failure of compliance, while normalizing power is pervasive and encourages individuals to internalize societal norms.
  • Normalizing power shapes societal norms Normalizing power creates an environment where individuals act according to societal expectations without coercion. Through institutions like families, schools, and workplaces, society instills values that lead individuals to conform willingly to behaviors deemed ‘normal’.
  • Power affects everyone equally Foucault argues that power is not simply wielded by a few over the many; instead, all individuals are subject to power dynamics. This means that both employees and bosses are influenced by normalizing power, shaping their behaviors and identities.
  • Scientific knowledge intertwined with power Scientific knowledge is not independent from power structures. The institutions that produce scientific knowledge also serve as mechanisms of normalization, dictating societal standards and influencing personal identity through accepted scientific norms.
  • Awareness of power can promote autonomy While Foucault believes complete escape from societal norms is impossible, understanding the myriad ways we are shaped by power allows for greater personal awareness and a slight increase in autonomy, challenging the illusion of complete freedom.

Episteme

  • Foucault’s Impact on Science Michel Foucault has profoundly influenced the philosophy of science, particularly through his analysis of power and knowledge. He approaches the history of science by examining how underlying assumptions shift over time, leading to significant changes in scientific discourse.
  • Comparison to Kuhn’s Paradigms Foucault’s idea of ‘episteme’ aligns with Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts but diverges in its focus and implications. While Kuhn emphasizes paradigm shifts as changes in theories, Foucault argues that these shifts arise from deeper, often unconscious, social and cultural rules that govern what is considered valid knowledge.
  • The Concept of ‘Episteme’ An ‘episteme’ refers to the set of unconscious rules that determine how scientific discourse is constructed and what is taken seriously within a particular period. This differs from a paradigm, which consists of explicit theories and practices that scientists consciously recognize and engage with.
  • Patterns in Historical Scientific Discourse Foucault critiques the over-emphasis on individual scientists, suggesting that broader societal and historical patterns dictate scientific knowledge. He argues that influences such as economic, geographic, and political factors may overshadow the role of individual genius in shaping scientific developments.
  • Examples of Epistemic Changes The video illustrates Foucault’s concept by comparing medieval bestiaries, which blended moral and scientific knowledge, to modern scientific practices that strictly separate observation from moral implications. This example emphasizes how historical changes in ‘episteme’ impact the function and acceptance of scientific knowledge.
  • Long-term Epistemic Shifts Foucault posits that significant shifts in epistemic frameworks in European science occurred around the years 1600 and 1800, noting that such changes can dramatically alter the landscape of scientific inquiry across all disciplines.

Reading Notes

Foucault’s Focus: Modes of Objectification

  • Foucault identifies three ways in which human beings are turned into subjects:
    • Scientific Inquiry: Objectification through disciplines claiming scientific status.
      • The speaking subject: Studied in linguistics, philology, and general grammar.
      • The productive subject: Analyzed in economics and wealth.
      • The living subject: Examined in natural history and biology.
    • Dividing Practices: Individuals are objectified by being divided either within themselves or from others.
      • Examples include:
        • The mad vs. the sane,
        • The sick vs. the healthy,
        • The criminals vs. the “good boys.”
    • Self-Formation (Turning into a Subject): Process by which human beings turn themselves into subjects by identifying themselves with broad categories such as sexuality.

Why Study Power? The Question of the Subject

  • Foucault emphasizes the need to study power relations because the subject is always embedded in these relations:
    • Human subjects are placed in relations of production (economics), signification (language), and power.
    • While tools exist for studying production and signification, power relations lack appropriate tools for analysis.
    • He does not believe that legal models or the study of institutions are effective ways of studying power because he views power as a social relationship rather than a fixed structure.
    • Foucault does not aim to create a theory of power but to conceptualize power critically and historically.
  • Key considerations:
    • Conceptual Needs: Historical awareness of the conditions shaping our concepts of power.
    • Reality of Power: Power is not merely theoretical; it is part of everyday experience.

Forms of Resistance and Power Relations

  • Foucault suggests analyzing power through the forms of resistance it provokes.
    • Resistance acts as a catalyst to reveal power relations, their location, and methods.
  • Key characteristics of contemporary struggles:
    • Struggles are not located in one country. They are international, transversal. They cut across geographical, political, and cultural boundaries.
    • The aim of struggle is to change the power relationship itself. Target is power’s control over individuals.
      • Example: Power of the medical profession. It is not criticized simply because it extracts wealth from the sick, but because its power over people’s health is out of control.
    • These struggles for power are immediate. They seek to produce effects in the present and not in some idealized future. Focus on the “immediate enemy” (not a distant liberation or revolution).
    • These power relationships concern the rights and status of the individual, including the right to be different.
    • Critique of how knowledge is controlled, mystified, and linked to power.
    • All of these struggles revolve around the question “Who are we?”

Power and Subjectivity

  • Foucault distinguishes 3 types of struggles:
    • Against Domination: Ethnic, social, and religious forms of domination.
    • Against Exploitation: Separating individuals from what they produce.
    • Against Subjection: Struggles against forms of subjectivity and individualization imposed by power.
  • Modern Focus: The struggle against subjection has become central, while domination and exploitation remain important.
    • The state embodies a duality: it is both individualizing and totalizing.
    • This combination originates in pastoral power, a form of power rooted in Christian institutions.

Pastoral Power and Its Transformation

  • Foucault explores how pastoral power (a form of individualizing power) has evolved:
    • Originally religious, aimed at guiding individuals to salvation.
    • Characteristics of pastoral power:
      1. Focuses on individual salvation (in the next world).
      2. Sacrificial (pastor sacrifices for the flock).
      3. Concerned with individuals throughout their lives.
      4. Requires intimate knowledge of individuals (their conscience and secrets).
  • Modern Transformation:
    • Pastoral power shifted focus to worldly goals: health, wealth, well-being, and security.
    • Spread beyond the church into state apparatuses, families, medicine, and education.
    • Pastoral power merged with the modern state, creating a form of power that is both individualizing and totalizing.

Power as Government

  • Foucault defines power as a mode of action upon the actions of others:
    • Power operates by structuring the field of possible actions.
    • Power requires freedom: it only functions where individuals have the capacity to act.
      • Power and freedom exist in a relationship of agonism: a struggle where resistance is always present.
  • Key Distinctions:
    • Power is not the same as violence, which eliminates freedom.
    • Power is not consent, though consent may facilitate it.
    • Power is not a physical force but an influence on actions.
  • Government: Power is best understood as “government,” a broad concept referring to:
    • The direction of conduct (e.g., governing children, families, communities).
    • The structuring of possibilities for others’ actions.

Analyzing Power Relations

  • To analyze power, Foucault suggests focusing on:
    1. System of Differentiations: Legal, economic, cultural, or status-based differences that enable power.
    2. Objectives of Power: Maintaining privileges, accumulating profits, enforcing authority.
    3. Means of Power: Tools like violence, surveillance, economic disparities, and control systems.
    4. Institutionalization: How power relations are formalized in institutions (e.g., family, schools, the state).
    5. Rationalization: The efficiency and effectiveness of power mechanisms.
  • Power relations are rooted in social networks, not just institutions. Power is not a fatality but can be transformed or resisted.

Power, Strategy, and Struggle

  • Foucault connects power relations to strategies of struggle:
    • Power always provokes resistance and insubordination.
    • Every power relationship contains the possibility of escape or reversal.
    • Struggles may stabilize into mechanisms of power, while power relations may lead to open confrontation.
  • Domination: When power relations solidify into stable structures, domination emerges:
    • Domination reflects a strategic situation consolidated through long-term confrontations.
    • Resistance and revolts reveal the interaction between power relations and strategic struggles.

Conclusion: Beyond the State and Individualization

  • Foucault calls for new forms of subjectivity:
    • The challenge is not to liberate individuals from the state but to reject the forms of individualization tied to modern power structures.
    • Philosophy’s task: Critically analyze the present and imagine new ways of being.

Graph View

Backlinks