Foucault Against Ethics: Subjectivity and Critique After Humanism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine Arts, Languages and Philosophy Faculty Research & Creative Works Arts, Languages and Philosophy 01 Jan 2016 Foucault against Ethics: Subjectivity and Critique after Humanism Patrick Gamez Missouri University of Science and Technology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/artlan_phil_facwork Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Gamez, P. (2016). Foucault against Ethics: Subjectivity and Critique after Humanism. University of Notre Dame. This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Arts, Languages and Philosophy Faculty Research & Creative Works by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOUCAULT AGAINST ETHICS: SUBJECTIVITY AND CRITIQUE AFTER HUMANISM A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Patrick Gamez _______________________________ Gary Gutting, Co-director _______________________________ Stephen Watson, Co-director Graduate Program in Philosophy Notre Dame, Indiana July 2016 © Copyright by PATRICK J. GAMEZ 2016 All rights reserved FOUCAULT AGAINST ETHICS: SUBJECTIVITY AND CRITIQUE AFTER HUMANISM Abstract by Patrick Gamez This dissertation is in the first place an interpretation of the thought of Michel Foucault. Beyond interpretation, it also makes provides a qualified defense of his views on the significance of ethical theory, particularly in its “critical” forms, the shape of the space of reasons, and the role of subjectivity within it. I take as my starting point an orthodox view of Foucault’s work, namely, that it can divided in terms of its content into three distinct periods. First, an “archaeological” phase spanning most of the 1960s. Second, a “genealogical” devoted to unearthing power-relations beneath purportedly progressive institutions. Finally, an “ethical” period, focused on rehabilitating practices of moral self-formation in Antiquity. This so-called “ethical turn” has been a source of persistent criticism of Foucault’s thought for several decades. I claim that this periodization is mistaken. There is no substantively “ethical” period in Foucault’s work that would stand in contrast to his genealogical inquiries. In the first chapter, I present overwhelming textual evidence against this interpretation, and then diagnose the motivation for it: the charge of “ethical nihilism” and the demand for a normative framework from critics of Foucault’s genealogical works. In brief the charge is that in revealing the power-relations that partially constitute Enlightenment institutions Patrick Gamez and the ideals that sustain them, Foucault deprives himself of the resources required to construct the kind of ethical theory needed to ground his critical project. In the second chapter and third chapters, I bring Foucault into conversation with several figures in analytic philosophy, most prominently Wilfrid Sellars and the “Pittsburgh School,” and P.F. Strawson. I argue that Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical works are best construed as an historical inquiry into the construction of “spaces of reasons,” in which we find ourselves subject to normative evaluation and direction. I then argue that the charge of nihilism against Foucault is the result of a process of neutralizing and depoliticizing the essentially plural, agonistic character of the space of reasons. I conclude by using my interpretation to explain and defend Foucault’s controversial engagement with the Iranian Revolution. As always, for my mother, without whom I doubt I’d have amounted to much at all ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................... iv 1. DID FOUCAULT DO ETHICS? ........................................................................................1 §1.1 What, if Anything, Comes After Genealogy? .....................................................1 §1.2 The Illusion of an “Ethical Turn” ....................................................................14 ! §1.3 The Demand for a Normative Framework .......................................................30 §1.4 Moral Problematization and the Technologies of the Self ...........................................................................................................................40 2. FOUCAULT’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION OF THE SPACE OF REASONS .........................................................................................................61 §2.1 The Trouble with Freedom .................................................................................61 §2.2 Sellars, the Myth of the Given, and the Space of Reasons ...................................................................................................................69 §2.3 Placing the Space of Reasons in the Arena of Power ....................................74 §2.4 Historical Ontology and the Archaeology of the Space of Reasons ............................................................................................................89 §2.5 Rationalities, Persons, and Power ......................................................................95 3. HUMANISM, CRITIQUE, AND HISTORICAL ONTOLOGY .............................112 §3.1 The Prosecutor, The Jurist, and the Universal Intellectual ...........................................................................................................112 §3.2 War, Sovereignty, and Subjectivity ....................................................................127 §3.3 Discipline, the Human Sciences, and the Subject of Correction ............................................................................................................142 §3.4 Cutting Off the King’s Head ............................................................................164 4. PUTTING THE ACCOUNT TO THE TEST: FOUCAULT ON BIOPOLITICS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION ...................................................................................................................198 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................................214 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research and writing of this dissertation would not have been possible without the support generous support of fellowships from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Nanovic Institute of European Studies. I am always grateful - and never more than at the end of an undertaking as convoluted as writing a dissertation - for the constant support of my family and friends in Edmonton: Mom, Dad, Ryan, Jillian, Michael, Nicholas, Matthew, and Conor. As is usually the case, the faults of this dissertation are mine, but whatever insights it contains have been sharpened by a group of friends and interlocutors, both at the University of Notre Dame and beyond. First and foremost, I am immeasurably grateful for the constant camaraderie and inspiration provided by Jordan Rodgers. Joshua Pineda’s criticism has been invaluable, as has his friendship. Discussions with Will Smith, Naomi and Jeff Fisher, Daniel Sportiello, and Scott Hagaman have made me a better philosopher than I would have been otherwise. Various parts of this work were presented at several conferences, receiving important commentary from Evan Edwards and Juniper Alcorn, and both serious questioning and support from Alexis Dianda, Debbie Goldgaber, Owen Glyn-Williams, Tom Krell, P.J. Gorre, Colin Koopman, and Jon Cogburn. Finally, I will never be able to repay Erin Marie Hall for her patience with me throughout this process. There are many more, of course, but these few needed to be named. iv 1 DID FOUCAULT DO ETHICS? §1.1 What, If Anything, Comes After Genealogy? It has become something of a commonplace, if not outright orthodoxy, in Foucault scholarship to divide his work into several periods. Foucault’s earliest works are sometimes the subject of discussion: Mental Illness and Psychiatry, or his introduction to Kant’s Anthropology. And his very early History of Madness has rightfully been at the centre of a great deal of scholarly dispute. But, more or less, the established periodization of Foucault’s work has three parts. First, there is the “archaeological phase,” exemplified in The Birth of the Clinic, The Order of Things, and The Archaeology of Knowledge. This “first” phase is set off from the second phase by an extended silence in publishing by Foucault, which is explained with reference to Foucault’s realization of the “methodological failure” of archaeology.1 This is followed by a second, “genealogical” phase, in which Foucault’s concerns are taken to shift from the autonomy of discourse and the production of knowledge to the effects and mechanisms of power. The works attributed to this genealogical period are, more or less obviously, Discipline and Punish and The Will to Knowledge, the first volume of The History of Sexuality. This genealogical period, similarly, is followed by a relative silence; Foucault publishes no major monographs between 1976 and 1984. A third period, in which Foucault’s concerns are taken to centre