Part I the Circle of Parrhesia and Democracy
Part I The Circle of Parrhesia and Democracy Foucault has been read and interpreted in multiple ways, which is no surprise, since he gives different answers over time as to what lies at the heart of his project. In an appendix to Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow’s Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (1982), printed in Essential Works , Vol. 3, he announces that (EW3: 326) what has been the goal of my work during the last twenty years ... has not been to analyze the phenomenon of power, nor to elaborate the foundations of such an analysis. My objective instead has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects. According to this description, what is important to Foucault is to study how the speaking and acting subject has become objectivized in gram- maire générale , philology and linguistics. Focus is on the dividing practices in which the subject is chopped up in her relation to herself and others as rational and irrational, healthy and sick, sane and mad, and so on, and on how the human being transforms herself into a subject in the first place (EW3: 327, cf. May 2001, 2006, O’Leary 2003): Thus, it is not power, but the subject, that is the general theme of my research. No doubt it makes good sense to assess the whole of Foucault’s work from this vantage point of the subject. But in an interview from 1978 conducted by D. Trombardi, Foucault suggests another theme with another angle: that of power (EW3: 285, emphasis in original): 1 2 Foucault’s Political Challenge In writing Madness and Civilization and The Birth of the Clinic , I meant to do a genealogical history of knowledge.
[Show full text]