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.