Michel Foucault, a short summary of his world vision

Michel Foucault (1926-1984), French philosopher / historian

Foucault is a philosopher who sees philosophy not as a search for truth, as most contemporary philosophers have done. Foucault is not concerned with arriving at some final, objective truth, but with finding out why Western culture has been so dominated by the search for truth. “Why truth?” Foucault asks.

He started his philosophical career investigating the institutions of the nation state which are aimed at influencing human behaviour. His focus was especially aimed at mental institutions and prisons, and their relation to the shifts in the dominant boundary between good and bad behaviour, or sane and insane minds, over a period of time. This research uncovered the role of the nation state in defining ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘sane’ and ‘insane’, and showed this power of definition was used primarily for the good of the state itself.

When starting to investigate sexuality (around 1980), his scope widened to ethics in general. In this respect he has investigated the differences in thought between the Greek-Roman tradition and the early Christian tradition. His goal has always been to find differences in history which have effect in today’s way of thinking. His type of research has been dubbed genealogy. This type of research is aimed at uncovering the way in which traditions of thought have originated and been sustained. This creation process is approached from an evolutionary perspective.

Foucault sees ethics as the “practitioning of freedom”. Foucault sees freedom not exactly in the Kantian way; Kant claims freedom is transcendent and that any person is able to choose and act ethically in any circumstance. Foucault’s vision on freedom is subtly different in that he allows for situations in which freedom of choice and action are practically reduced to zero (e.g. slavery, tiranny). In practice, this freedom can only be reduced to zero if every possibility of protest against domination (i.e. even suicide) is taken away. The difference between Kant and Foucault in this respect is mostly theoretical.

An important distinction that Foucault makes is that between power and domination. Power is a principal part of every relationship between human beings, even in sexual or family relationships. Power is in this respect defined as the ability to in any way influence or lead the behaviour of the other. One could speak of a power balance. Only when this power balance becomes dominated by one side of the relationship, “domination” occurs. In this situation one side has control over the other, and the dominated party can resort to protest measures, such as rowing, violence or fleeing, but these measures will not result in the reversal or restoration of the power balance. The power balance has become locked in an imbalanced position, so to speak.

Every relationship is a game of playing with these powers, to lead and be led. In this way power presupposes freedom. When freedom is not present, there is no power balance, because the dominant party has total control over the dominated party, which cannot even protest in any way.

An important aspect of ethical behaviour, according to Foucault, is the prevention of domination to occur when playing these power games which are part of every relationship.

Foucault also distinguishes between two forms which ethics can take: codification and self-evaluation. Codified morals are prescriptions from some higher authority as to how to behave. Self-evaluation is not based on orders from any authority, but is done independently by individuals who decide for themselves the right type of behaviour in a given circumstance.
The Greek tradition is primarily focused on self-evaluation, especially the stoic tradition, of which Seneca is the most influential exponent. The Christian tradition places more emphasis on the codified form, although both forms coexist. The focus on “truth” has a function in this codification; if a ruling authority is somehow able to show a codified law is based on an objective truth, it provides a more solid base for applying power. This focus on truth is still present in the nation state era, and still plays the same role in shaping the behaviour of the people through laws.
Foucault’s investigation focuses on how this shift in emphasis came into being.

One of the main shifts he found was a shift from self-development towards self-denial. In Christian society, focusing on oneself has become associated with egoism and egocentrism, and therefore with bad behaviour. One was not to think of themselves but of others, and especially God (and with Him also the authority of the church and monarch). Self-denial has led most people away from self-evaluation as a way of solving ethical problems.

Another shift is the introduction of accountability of thought (exagoreusis). Monks in monasteries were to tell any thought to their superiors, who would make any decision for them. In this way the masters of the church could control the behaviour of their subordinates.

Such control mechanisms have later, in the nation state era, been institutionalized in other forms, such as prisons and mental institutions, which were designed for excluding individuals with certain thoughts or behaviours from society.

Although Foucault doesn’t explicitly judge one tradition as better than the other, his work does read as a pledge for reinstating self-evaluation and self-development.

Foucault’s work has been influenced mostly by Nietzsche, Bataille, Blanchot and Klossowski.
His work has also been based on work of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Weber, Husserl, Heidegger and the Frankfurter Schule. His interpretation of Kant strikes me as exquisite.
His work has been a great inspiration for Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida.

Michiel van de Sande, August 4, 2004.