DOCSLIB.ORG

Experience in Michel Foucault's Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Experience in Michel Foucault's Philosophy Practical Philosophy Faculty of Social Sciences University of Helsinki Finland Experience in Michel Foucault’s Philosophy Sanna Tirkkonen ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, for public examination in Auditorium XII, University main building, on 5 October 2018, at 10 am. Helsinki 2018 ISBN 978-951-51-4529-1 (nid.) ISBN 978-951-51-4530-7 (PDF) Unigrafia 2018 Kone Foundation Finnish Cultural Foundation Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation Subjectivity, Historicity, Communality Research Network Oskar Öflunds Stiftelse sr University of Helsinki Funds Abstract In everyday language the word “experience” is used in different senses: it might refer to a subjective phenomenon, expertise that is gained through time or something people have in common and share with others. Scientific, experiential knowledge is commonly considered opposite to personal experience. In the history of Western thinking, however, “experience” is frequently associated with scientific knowledge, and the ways in which the concept is understood are also related to different conceptions of mental distress. This thesis is an investigation of Michel Foucault’s (1926‒1984) concepts of experience and of the issues he addresses when he refers to these terms. Previous studies on the subject focus only on some aspects of experience in Foucault’s philosophy or are framed according to a specific theme. He is often considered an anti-experientialist thinker, but this thesis places experience at the core of his philosophy and reveals the crucial theoretical functions of the different concepts of experience in his work. The research explicates the meanings of these concepts and analyses their interrelations and similarities when Foucault uses them in different contexts. A further focus in the thesis is on the continuities between Foucault’s early and late philosophies of experience. He refers to experience throughout his work, especially in his early writing on psychiatry and psychology from the 1950s and 1960s and in his late work from the 1980s. “Experience” thus constitutes a thematic link between his earlier investigations into medical, especially psychiatric knowledge and his late research on ancient virtue ethics that is closely connected to the medical tradition and the topics of health and care. His writings do not constitute a system, but these texts are brought together in the same study because, independently, none of them allows a comprehensive grasp of his philosophy of experience. Terms such as “lived experience”, “background experience”, “contradictory experience”, “forms of experience”, “fields of experience”, “limit-experience”, “transformative experience” and “experience of the self” are explicated. The meanings of these terms are not always entirely fixed. The thesis consists of two main parts. Part One is a systematic study of the theoretical and argumentative roles of the different concepts and notions of experience in Foucault’s early works on psychiatry, psychology and medical knowledge, and in his late articles and interviews. Part Two of the thesis is based on the argument that it is necessary to analyse the different concepts of experience to understand Foucault’s late work on ethics as a study on intersubjectivity. The thesis discusses the ways in which it is possible to experience the self in cultural contexts in which people are encouraged to listen to, turn to, observe and find themselves. Foucault’s investigation into “experiences of the self” is understood as a normative and critical study of cultural practices, activities and techniques, including therapeutic and confessional procedures, through which one forms a relationship with oneself and with others. Thus, analysing the concepts of experience in Foucault’s philosophy helps to enhance understanding of his work as a whole: “experience” opens the discussion to themes such as mental distress, the social and intellectual exclusion of madness, ethical skills and, in the end, the virtue of critique. 5 Acknowledgements “When things get tough, think about the Acknowledgements” is one of the best pieces of advice my colleagues and friends in academia gave me during this process. Even though philosophy requires minimizing distractions and reading and writing long periods of time in solitude, the truth is that my work has been supported considerably. The best moments during these years of thesis writing have involved collective projects, lively conversations and a sense of excitement about creating something new together. When things then did get tough, walking along the shoreline in Helsinki and thinking about everyone I want to thank became a meditation technique of some sort. First, I want to thank my Opponent, Professor Timothy O’Leary, who knows Foucault’s philosophy of experience better than anyone. His book Foucault and the Art of Ethics influenced my choice of specializing in Foucault’s late work as a young student, and his Foucault and Fiction: The Experience Book inspired me to organize my research around different concepts of experience. I’m grateful that he agreed to fly from Sydney to Helsinki to lead a discussion on Foucault’s philosophy and to be part of our academic tradition. Second, I thank the Custos, Professor Antti Kauppinen, who arranged the practicalities concerning my thesis defence, but above all, I thank him for being a new-generation philosophy professor with nonhierarchical working methods and broad interests in different fields of philosophy. I’m also grateful to the comments and suggestions of my pre-examiners. Assistant Professor Daniele Lorenzini saw what is new and valuable in my work and encouraged me at the right moment. My other pre-examiner Professor Cressida Heyes pushed me to refine the arguments and thus helped me to finish the thesis. I have two dedicated supervisors, University Lecturer Kristian Klockars and Professor Sara Heinämaa, without whom this thesis would not have seen the daylight. I first met Kristian as a second-year student in one of his lecture courses on social and political philosophy. In his undergraduate seminars I was a very serious and anxious student who wanted to choose the most difficult topics for the first attempts to write philosophical papers. Today I’m grateful that Kristian had such patience with me then, and that he has given me the academic freedom to delve into new texts, even when it has meant rescheduling the thesis or when it has led me to pull my hair out in his office crying that Foucault’s “Dream, Imagination, Existence” and The Birth of the Clinic are so intriguingly difficult that they have to be included in the thesis. I’m 6 grateful that Kristian has defended the rights of young scholars who teach, publish and face academic pressures, but whose lives are shadowed by uncertainty. Without the support of Professor Sara Heinämaa I would not be where I am today. I first found Sara’s works on phenomenology of the body as a freshman, and they gave me a glimpse of how philosophy could be done. This thesis started to get its current shape and structure, when I sent her a massive pile of paper with no clear thread, more than 350 pages of which I had already deleted a hundred. Without her precise comments, dedication and encouragement I would have been lost in the forest for much longer. I thank her for always having my best interest at heart and for calling at any hour of the day. I also want to thank my current boss, Senior Lecturer Joona Taipale, who was courageous enough to ask a meticulous but slightly anarchist Foucauldian to be part of the research project Experiential Demarcation: Multidisciplinary Inquiries into the Affective Foundations of Interaction. I thank Joona for his open-mindedness in exploring genuinely new, creative ways of doing research and for building an environment in which everyone can be the best versions of themselves and test new ideas. Working in the project with Jussi Saarinen, Heidi Fast, Petra Nyman- Salonen and Tiia-Mari Hovila has been pure joy, and I thank you all for that. Sara and Joona’s research seminar in phenomenology was my academic home during these years. The seminar is known for its high quality, and as a PhD student it was an inspirational environment to be in—and to make good friends. I thank all those who have participated in the seminar and given comments, shared thoughts and established reading groups and new collectivities, including Timo Miettinen, Anniina Leiviskä, Jussi Backman, Miira Tuominen, Irina Poleshchuk, Erika Ruonakoski, Mirja Hartimo, Simo Pulkkinen, Fredrik Westerlund, Jaakko Vuori, Martta Heikkilä, Hermanni Ylitepsa, Juho Hotanen, Minna-Kerttu Vienola, Tuukka Brunila, Joni Puranen, Risto Tiihonen, Harri Mäcklin, Olli Aho and Sini Pentikäinen. Moreover, my experience of doing the PhD in Helsinki would have been completely different without Helsinki Network for Philosophy of Psychiatry: Anna Ovaska, Pii Telakivi, Laura Oulanne, Tuomas Vesterinen and Ferdinang Garoff. It is a privilege to be part of a collective, a genuine “we”, that works so well together and in which everyone’s expertise complements the whole. Anna, Pii, Laura Tuomas and Ferkku taught me that friendship is the best way to tackle with the downsides of academic life and that working with serious issues and making a change in the world can be so much fun. On weekdays most time is spent with those you share an office, and with this regard I have been incredibly lucky. I thank Joonas Leppänen and Joonas Martikainen for our great discussions on political philosophy, for taking care of my plants, reminding of the value of 7 balanced life and for keeping me in good coffee. I’m also grateful to Eero Kaila and Annamari Vitikainen, especially for the times when we planned and graded entrance exams together. I want to thank practical philosophers Johanna Ahola-Launonen, Marion Godman, Heta Gylling, Tero Ijäs, Tarna Kannisto, Tomi Kokkonen, Simo Kyllönen, Olli Loukola, Frank Martela, Pekka Mäkelä, Matti Sarkia, Päivi Seppälä, Ninni Suni, Maria Svanström, Teemu Toppinen, Bradley Turner and Anita Välikangas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Foucault and Deleuze, April 2014 Nicolae Morar, Penn State University, Thomas Nail, University of Denver, and Daniel W
    Nicolae Morar, Thomas Nail, and Daniel W. Smith 2014 ISSN: 1832‐5203 Foucault Studies, No. 17, pp. 4‐10, April 2014 INTRODUCTION Foucault Studies Special Issue: Foucault and Deleuze, April 2014 Nicolae Morar, Penn State University, Thomas Nail, University of Denver, and Daniel W. Smith, Purdue University Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault are widely accepted to be central figures of post‐war French philosophy. Philosophers, cultural theorists, and others have devoted considerable effort to the critical examination of the work of each of these thinkers, but despite the strong biographical and philosophical connection between Foucault and Deleuze, very little has been done to explore the relationship between them. This special issue of Foucault Studies is the first collection of essays to address this critical deficit with a rigorous comparative discussion of the work of these two philosophers. Deleuze’s Course Lectures on Foucault In particular, this special issue is motivated by the recent (2011) online publication of Gilles Deleuze’s course lectures on Michel Foucault (1985‐86) at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (French National Library) in Paris. The BNF collected the available recordings of Deleuze’s seminar lectures at the University of Paris 8 and converted them into digital files. Needless to say, the task was a painstaking one, but the mp3 files have now been made accessible online through the Gallica search engine at the library.1 When Foucault died in 1984, Deleuze was so affected by the death of his friend, that he began lecturing and writing a book about Foucault’s philosophical corpus immediately. When asked why he wanted to write such a book, Deleuze was quite clear, “it marks an inner need of mine, my admiration for him, how I was moved by his death, and his unfinished work.”2 Deleuze’s desire for some kind of reconciliation with Foucault seems to have been a mutual one.
    [Show full text]
  • Becoming-Other: Foucault, Deleuze, and the Political Nature of Thought Vernon W
    Philosophy Faculty Publications Philosophy 4-2014 Becoming-Other: Foucault, Deleuze, and the Political Nature of Thought Vernon W. Cisney Gettysburg College Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/philfac Part of the Philosophy of Mind Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Cisney, Vernon W. "Becoming-Other: Foucault, Deleuze, and the Nature of Thought." Foucault Studies 17 Special Issue: Foucault and Deleuze (April 2014). This is the publisher's version of the work. This publication appears in Gettysburg College's institutional repository by permission of the copyright owner for personal use, not for redistribution. Cupola permanent link: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/philfac/37 This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Becoming-Other: Foucault, Deleuze, and the Political Nature of Thought Abstract In this paper I employ the notion of the ‘thought of the outside’ as developed by Michel Foucault, in order to defend the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze against the criticisms of ‘elitism,’ ‘aristocratism,’ and ‘political indifference’—famously leveled by Alain Badiou and Peter Hallward. First, I argue that their charges of a theophanic conception of Being, which ground the broader political claims, derive from a misunderstanding of Deleuze’s notion of univocity, as well as a failure to recognize the significance of the concept of multiplicity in Deleuze’s thinking. From here, I go on to discuss Deleuze’s articulation of the ‘dogmatic image of thought,’ which, insofar as it takes ‘recognition’ as its model, can only ever think what is already solidified and sedimented as true, in light of existing structures and institutions of power.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychiatry and Anti-Psychiatry: History, Rhetoric and Reality
    2 (4) 2018 DOI: 10.26319/4717 Daniel Burston, Psychology Department, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh PA [email protected] Psychiatry and Anti-psychiatry: History, Rhetoric and Reality Abstract: The term “anti-psychiatry” was coined in 1912 by Dr. Bernhard Beyer, but only popularized by Dr. David Cooper (and his critics) in the midst of a widespread cultural revolt against involuntary hospitalization and in-patient psychiatry during the 1960s and 1970s. However, with the demise of the old-fashioned mental hospital, and the rise of Big Pharma (with all its attendant evils), the term “anti-psychiatry” has outlived its usefulness. It survives merely as a term of abuse or a badge of honor, depending on the user and what rhetorical work this label is expected to perform. Those who use the term nowadays generally have a polemical axe to grind, and seldom understand the term’s origins or implications. It is time that serious scholars retire this term, or to restrict its use to R.D.Laing’s followers in the Philadelphia Associates and kindred groups that sprang up in the late 1960s and 1970s. Keywords: psychiatry, anti-psychiatry, psychoanalysis, DSM V, Big Pharma, normalization, psychopolitics On November 16, 2016, Dr. Bonnie Burstow, Associate Professor of Adult Education and Community Development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, which is affiliated with the University of Toronto, launched the first (and thus far, only) scholarship in North America to support doctoral theses on the subject of “anti-psychiatry.” Predictably, this bold gesture garnered praise in some quarters, but provoked a barrage of criticism from both in and outside the university.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, Human Nature: Justice Vs
    Asger Sørensen 2013 ISSN: 1832-5203 Foucault Studies, No. 16, pp. 201-207, September 2013 REVIEW Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, Human Nature: Justice vs Power. The Chomsky- Foucault Debate, edited by Fons Elders (London: Souvenir Press, 2011), ISBN: 978-1-595- 58134-1 This small booklet is a transcript (and in the case of Foucault, a translation) of what was said in a Dutch television program recorded in 1971, today allegedly accessible at You Tube. The edi- tor Fons Elders is the original organizer of the program. He was thus part of the conversation just as the audience was allowed to pose a few questions. Elders first published these tran- scripts in 1974 under the title Reflexive Waters: The Basic Concerns of Mankind, and first one could thus ask: Is it worth publishing them again? Yes, definitely. Does it reveal anything fundamentally new and surprising about Foucault or Chomsky? No, not really, but the con- frontation between them brings forth certain traits of their respective ways of thinking that may be worth a little extra scrutiny. The text consists of Elders’ introduction (iii-ix) and the transcript, which has two main parts. The first part of the conversation is about the question of human nature, knowledge, and science (1-42), the second is on politics (42-82), and it is es- pecially the second part I find interesting, both in relation to Foucault and in more general philosophical terms. I will thus focus on two points, namely how they relate to politics, and which implication this has for their relation to anarchism.
    [Show full text]
  • Chomsky and Foucault on Human Nature and Politics: an Essential Difference?
    Chomsky and Foucault on Human Nature and Politics: An Essential Difference? Foucault: "On the other hand, when we discussed the problem of human nature and political problems, then differences arose between us. And contrary to what you think you can't prevent me from believing that these notions of human nature, of justice, of the realization of the essence of human beings, are all notions and concepts which have been formed within our civilization, within our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as a result form part of our class system; and that one can't, however regrettable it may be, put forward these notions to describe or justify a fight which should—and shall in principle—overthrow the very fundaments of our society. This is an extrapolation for which I can't find the historical justification. That's the point." Chomsky: "It's clear."' "Any serious social science or theory of social change must be founded on some concept of human nature." — Noam Chomsky 1. Introduction In 1971, Dutch television held a series of interviews and discussions with noted intellectuals of the day to discuss a wide range of issues regarding contemporary social and philosophical affairs. Perhaps the most significant of these encounters was the meeting between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. It brought together arguably the two most prominent Western intellectual-activists of the day in a debate that illustrates clearly the lineage of thought within which each writer is situated. Nominally the discussion was in two parts: the first an examination of the origins or production of knowledge, with particular concern for the natural sciences, the second explicitly focused on the role and practice of oppositional politics within Western capitalist democracies—in part a response to the unfolding Vietnam War.
    [Show full text]
  • Michel Foucault, Jean Le Bitoux, and the Gay Science Lost and Found: an Introduction Author(S): David M
    Michel Foucault, Jean Le Bitoux, and the Gay Science Lost and Found: An Introduction Author(s): David M. Halperin Reviewed work(s): Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Spring 2011), pp. 371-380 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659349 . Accessed: 13/01/2012 13:59 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Critical Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org Michel Foucault, Jean Le Bitoux, and the Gay Science Lost and Found: An Introduction David M. Halperin About fifteen years ago I arranged to meet Jean Le Bitoux in Paris. My intent was to secure the translation rights to his legendary interview with Michel Foucault, “Le Gai Savoir” (“the gay science”). The interview had been conducted on 10 July 1978. Jean Le Bitoux was already by that date a gay activist of some renown. Born in Bordeaux in 1948, he eventually moved to Nice where in 1970 he founded the local branch of the FHAR (Front Homosexuel d’Action Re´volutionnaire or “Homosexual Front of Revolutionary Action”), a radical group that incarnated a 1960s style of Gay Liberation.
    [Show full text]
  • Foucauldian Madness: a Historiographical Anti-Psychiatry
    International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 7714 www.ijhssi.org ||Volume 9 Issue 6 Ser. II || June 2020 || PP 48-51 Foucauldian Madness: A Historiographical Anti-psychiatry Bhaskar Sarkar M.A, Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad ABSTRACT- Foucault has been criticized as anti-psychiatric in nature yet his scepticism toward madness is actually based on its institutionalized treatment not in its academic reception. This paper tries to trace back Foucauldian inspirations in historiography of psychiatry and its power relations in asylum. Presuming madness as social construction, the paper tries to establish the limitations of pseudoscientific, moral assumptions toward insanity. Historiographical examination has been suggested here to reduce the psychiatric predispositions with threat for the civilization while it proves that insanity is a product of civilization.Everywhere the capitalist world order is associated with established religious morality. Presuming this, the reception toward insanity, academically and socially, has been challenged in this paper in order to theorize anti-disciplinary insanity into consideration. KEYWORDS- Insanity, Unreasoning, Foucault, Historiography, Anti-psychiatry ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Date of Submission: 01-06-2020 Date of Acceptance: 15-06-2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Of 'Strange Synergies' and 'Murky Ferments': Governance Discourse and the Taming of the Foucault Effect
    Of ‘strange synergies’ and ‘murky ferments’: governance discourse and the taming of the Foucault effect Jim Jose Abstract The paper explores the alleged links between contemporary understandings and uses of ‘governance’ and Foucault’s ideas. Scholars working in quite diverse disciplines have asserted, with increasing frequency, their debt to Foucault for the idea of ‘governance’. However, it is doubtful that Foucault ever used the word ‘governance’, or that he would have accepted having his ideas grouped under that term. This paper argues that positing Foucault as an intellectual progenitor of the concept of ‘governance’ conflates two quite different and incompatible discourses. The political effect is to undermine the emancipatory impulse embedded within Foucault’s political philosophy. In effect, this serves to reposition him within a framework that de-radicalises his intellectual legacy and renders him safe for mainstream scholarship. 1 Introduction Foucault’s legacy of ‘strange synergies’ risks being de-radicalised by being fused with the ‘murky ferments’ of contemporary governance discourse. Many scholars, including those self-described as Foucauldians, treat ‘Foucault’ as a key source for contemporary understandings of the concept of ‘governance’. Thus Beresford (2003, p. 83), Bernauer and Rasmussen (1988), Brass (2000, p. 315), Doornbos (2003), Hunter (1994), Hunt and Wickham (1994), Ingram (1994), Mayntz (1993), Mercer (2002, pp. 316–317) and Roberts (2000, pp. 275–276) explicitly name Foucault as their source. Some who owe varying intellectual debts to Foucault use the term without necessarily attributing it directly to Foucault (e.g. Bang 2003a, 2003b; Cruickshank 1993; Dean 1999, 1994; Gordon 1986; Hindess 1996; Hunter 1994; Rose 1999, 1996; Rose & Miller 1998; Stenson 1998; Valentine 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Power and Identity in the Modern Era of Mental Illness
    Intersect, Vol 10, No 1 (2016) “We’re All Mad Here”: Power and Identity in the Modern Era of Mental Illness Nicolas Hogan University of Virginia Abstract Mental illness is the modern term for the classification of conditions originally referred to as madness prior to The Enlightenment. Before the Enlightenment, madness was identifiable by the outwardly deviant behavior of individuals acting out of unreason. This definition manifested in the absence of expert knowledge or organized efforts to study the nature of the condition. During this time, madness was seen as a condition of divine origins with the afflicted being blameless. This perception changed during the Enlightenment when madness became associated with moral error. This perception caused the widespread isolation of the mad from the general public. Confinement indirectly catalyzed the study of madness as a condition because it isolated the afflicted into a setting where they could be independently observed. This study spurred the development of systems that classified specific mental illnesses based on symptoms, thereby officially labeling madness as an illness. As advances in the field of psychology have led to an increased number of recognized conditions, modern diagnostic systems can diagnose any individual with a form of mental illness. While this broad system contains the ability to extend care to any who may benefit from it, stigmas associated with mental illness can restrict the social power of diagnosed individuals. To combat stigma and extend treatment opportunities to a wider population of need, a system that recognizes each individual as existing on a continuum of mental wellness must be adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biopolitics of Spain During the Francoism (1939-1959)
    © Salvador Cayuela ISSN: 1832-5203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i26.5748 Foucault Studies, No. 26, p. 21-41, June 2019 ARTICLE Governing Goods, Bodies and Minds: The Biopolitics of Spain during the Francoism (1939-1959) SALVADOR CAYUELA University of Castilla La-Mancha, Spain ABSTRACT. In this article I am going to analyse the creation of a series of disciplinary and regu- latory mechanisms aimed at increasing the State’s forces and decreasing the individual’s capacity to protest during the initial years of Franco’s regime. In order to do this, after an introductory section that presents certain concepts and methodologies, I am going to describe three areas of analysis in which the biopolitical mechanisms belonging to the Franco regime emerged: the eco- nomic sphere, the medical-social sphere and the ideological-educational sphere. I will use the anal- ysis of these mechanisms to present the training and functioning of the totalitarian governmental- ity during the first years of the Franco regime, and the creation of a subjectivity, which was con- sidered to be the cornerstone on which the regime was supported for almost forty years. Finally, I will conclude with some considerations about the biopolitical interpretation of fascism and Fran- coism. Keywords: Biopolitics, Governmentality, Francoism, Fascism, Homo Patiens. INTRODUCTION: SOME CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPRECIATIONS The Franco regime arose from the ashes of a bloody civil war that devastated Spain be- tween 1936 and 1939.1 Within this context, violence and fear played an essential role in the institutionalisation of the New State.2 The new regime orchestrated a complete set of repressive mechanisms and a far-reaching police system where denouncement and legal exceptionality were the norm.
    [Show full text]
  • Foucault and Chomsky on Human Nature, Power and Anarchism
    Foucault and Chomsky on Human Nature, Power and Anarchism By Ana Smokroviü Submitted to Central European University Department of Gender Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Critical Gender Studies Supervisor: Professor Anna Loutfi CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2012 CONTENTS CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ iii 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 2. SITUATING THE CHOMSKY-FOUCAULT DEBATE .......................................................................... 5 2.1. Hobbes’s “Hostile Man”..................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Rousseau’s “Savage Man”.................................................................................................. 7 2.3. Schmitt’s “Open question” ............................................................................................... 11 2.4. Kropotkin and principle of “Solidarity” ............................................................................ 14 2.5. Sartre and “Existential humanism” ................................................................................... 17 2.6. Marxism and “Anti-humanism”
    [Show full text]
  • Madness and Civilization
    Madness and Civilization By John Protevi / Permission to reproduce granted for academic use [email protected] / http://www.protevi.com/john/Foucault/ PDF/Madness_and_Civilization.pdf In this lecture I rely heavily on Gary Gutting, Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Scientific Reason (Cambridge UP, 1989) F's work on mental illness in the 1950s Strictly speaking, this is not F's first work. Two major works of the 50s preceded it: a book entitled Mental Illness and Personality (1st ed, 1954) or Mental Illness and Psychology (2nd ed, 1962) and a long Introduction to the French translation of Binswanger's work of existential analysis, Traum und Existenz (1954). Both works betray Foucault's existential phenomenological outlook in the 50s, as they explicate mental illness or dreams as phenomena explicable only in terms of personal existence, of the meaning of the world constituted by individual subjects. The key factor is imagination, the creation of a world other than the present one: for mental illness, the lived world is dominated by terrifying images that lock the ill person in sick situations; in healthy people, the imaginary world can be realized artistically, and hence becomes an expression of the existence of the person. The key that produces mental illness is the blocking of expression by a warped social system that prevents some people from acting on their projects (blocks their desiring- production, in D/G terms). Therapy must consist in helping the person move their social situation to one that allows expression. In other words, F has an essentially Marxist account of mental illness at this point.
    [Show full text]