Εισαγωγή στον Μισέλ Φουκώ

Continental European Philosophy

by Todd May, Αλέξανδρος Ματσάγγος (Translator)

H ιστορική και φιλοσοφική έρευνα του Μισέλ Φουκώ έχει περάσει από πολλά στάδια. Ο Todd May ακολουθεί την πορεία της από την πρώιμη "Ιστορία της Τρέλας" μέχρι τη μετά θάνατον δημοσίευση των διαλέξεών του στο College de France, και δείχνει ότι παρά τις συνεχείς μεταβολές, αυτό που εμπνέει και παραμένει σταθερό στο έργο του Φουκώ είναι το ερώτημα: "ποιοι είμαστε;".
Με αυτό το ερώτημα ως οδηγό, το βιβλίο προσφέρει μία εντυπωσιακή σε εύρος και βάθος, και συνάμα εύληπτη, συνολική παρουσίαση του φουκωικού έργου και κομβικών εννοιών, όπως:

Η αρχαιολογία
Η γενεαλογία
O λόγος
Η εξουσία-γνώση
Η ηθική
Εξετάζοντας με προσοχή τα κύρια έργα του Φουκώ -"Η ιστορία της τρέλας", "Η αρχαιολογία της γνώσης", "Οι λέξεις και τα πράγματα", "Επιτήρηση και Τιμωρία", καθώς και τους τρεις τόμους του "H Iστορία της Σεξουαλικότητας"- και τοποθετώντας τα μέσα στο ευρύτερο ιστορικό πλαίσιο και σε σύγκριση με στοχαστές όπως οι Φρόυντ, Νίτσε και Σαρτρ, το βιβλίο του Todd May αποτελεί την ιδανική εισαγωγή για όλους όσους επιθυμούν να γνωρίσουν έναν από τους πιο σημαντικούς στοχαστές του καιρού μας, οι θεωρίες του οποίου άσκησαν και συνεχίζουν να ασκούν μεγάλη επιρροή σε όλο το φάσμα των κοινωνικών και ανθρωπιστικών επιστημών.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Todd May was born in New York City. He is the author of 18 books of philosophy. He was philosophical advisor to NBC's hit sit-com The Good Place and one of the original contributors to the New York Times philosophy blog The Stone. Todd teaches philosophy at Warren Wilson College.

Reviews

[Kamakana · Rating 5 out of 5]

if you like this review i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com

030714: later confusion: discovered an earlier graphic text 'introducing Foucault', source of some of my negative impressions of f- but now, in my reading, able to see that this may's book is the 'why' to read f, macey is the biographical, downing is the linkage apparent between bio and work, merquior is 'critical' but too soon, too simple, too limited in texts, and o'farrell is the 'what' of f, and encouraging 'how'- which is basically: read a lot, read more, read f in native French, read a lot of work by others that he had read- the intro that goes with 'why' already agreed...

first review: i am confused. i am confused in a good way- much i have heard of foucault is contemptuous, if not just angry and dismissive, and i tried to find such received wisdom in this text. instead, i am pleasantly surprised, my thoughts engaged and convinced he is going somewhere. granted, this is not by foucault but on him. may possibly renders his thematic pursuits intelligible, logical, even as he does not shy from critique. he lays out foucault's progression, he allows thinkers who have since followed. may recuperates f's technique and shows his insights not historically voided...

foucault is introduced not by mini bio, but by extracting the major question that persists in all his work, the question: 'who are we now?'. may highlights how this question continues throughout the strategies approaching it, but f never undergoes that typical philosophical 'turn' by which f repudiates his past, eg. nietzsche. f did not live long enough. perhaps f never would have. may represents these strategies as 1) archaeology, 2) genealogy, 3) ethics. i enjoyed this immensely, from the moment these questions are posed, from how f enacts the process of thought, the way f interrogates earlier thinker- particularly descartes, nietzsche, marx, freud, sartre, kant...

foucault is, here at least, sympathetic, nowhere near as the 'everything is power' caricature i had heard. power is indeed a central concern, and power inflects everything but is not everything. f makes great explorations about the way power is embedded in the modern era, by describing the so-called 'liberation' of the mad, which actually works by turning our open society, our individual, our universal, being, into its own jailer. f can sometimes sound obsessive about describing prison, control, restraint, and when later he investigates human sexuality- great quote 'the soul is the prison of the body'- he might seem too biographically partial, to gays, less to women, historically to the horror of the masturbating child. but if we let bio influence who we read, we would not read heidegger...

foucault is not simply about institution, about force, but rather he uncovers 'practices', and describes, i think correctly, the development of ways of thinking that provoke or parallel social changes eg. normative ideals of the 'malthusian family' (man, woman, child) and the modern creation of capitalist society. f does not search for some origin story but only the plausible description of how structures of power dissolve into practices of 'subjectivation' of making the population police itself, of how obvious school resembles factory resembles soldiery resembles prison... great stuff...

foucault is not a democrat, but unlike nietzsche, his sympathies are with the marginalized rather than the resented, tragic, aristocrat. f passed away relatively young for a philosopher, certain thinkers have arisen since who on first glance deny his power, his technique, and yes society, technology, possibilities of electronic media, all have greatly changed since 1984 or particularly his heritage of the 'events' in 1968, but his guiding question still works against those who come after, especially those thinkers grouped as 'postmodernists'- baudrillard, deleuze, lyotard. but perhaps this is their error: while refusing the 'grand narrative' of any tradition- enlightenment, communism, etc.- they might be guilty of imposing their thought scheme in its place. this is a familiar error from those previous thinker eg. marx, where everything is economics. f suggests in retrospect there is possibly a little truth in each scheme...

foucault moves from those previous thinkers but it is an error to cite him as 'postmodern', or as claiming historical societies and ways of thought- eg. sexuality in ancient greece, seen as healthy, seen as a part of life, not an unspoken obsession that identifies some people as entirely their sexuality- are 'better' or even applicable millennia later. critics exaggerate f. it does not seem he overstates his rhetoric for effect. he seems much more measured, and openly acknowledges his openness, his conflicts, his errors. f talks about 'power' as something that comes from below, something dispersed, something of which to be vigilant. but he is more than just 'power knowledge', and certainly never disputes truths of physics. there is much to read here. much to read on him and all those other since...

just thought i should mention: possibly only because i have read so many philosophers, does f work for me. the five star should probably be measured. but this is a good place to start foucault...

[Elliot · Rating 5 out of 5]

A phenomenal secondary work on Foucault. For May, there is one question that animates all of Foucault's work- "who are we?" What is so helpful about reading Foucault this way is that it demonstrates the coherence that spans Foucault's writing over almost 30 years- from the archeological period, to the genealogical, to the ethical, into Foucault's final writings on governmentality. It is precisely this question that gives Foucault's project its historical character and it's concern with the present throughout his career.

While May does a great job showing how Foucault's work is structured around this question, he also does a wonderful job demonstrating the unique differences between each period. One of the highlights in this regard is May's argument that while the archeological writings (like Madness and Civilization) struggle with the critique of reflexivity (is Foucault not operating out of his own episteme/archive- a critique so often given), the genealogical writings (D&P and Sexuality vol. 1) are not open to the same problem because they do not reduce knowledge to a particular archive and instead engage in an analysis that is dispersed and multivocal (see p. 94-95).

Overall, an absolutely phenomenal companion to Foucault's work. It is also especially helpful insofar as it situates Foucault in relation to figures such as Descartes, Freud, Sartre, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Lyotard, and Baurillard.

[Lily · Rating 4 out of 5]

As of now, I think that where you begin with studying philosophy, is a matter of taste and audacity. Some will prefer to read introductions and secondary literature prior to picking up a formidable work of philosophy, and some would rather delve right in, armed with nothing but pure tenacity. I don't think that there is one universal method of dealing with philosophical theories and the best way to studying these works is what makes you keep reading. This book was my first attempt at reading on Foucault's philosophical endeavors. Knowing him to have a plethora of writings on widely different subjects with dynamic re-inventions and intersecting theorizing, I hoped to find an introductory reading that would assist me in gaining some insight into Foucault's work. Todd May's book on this subject turned out to be exactly what I was looking for. While clear and concise, this book does not sacrifice nuance for brevity. The introduction of the book presents an understandable structure of the central question Foucault aimed to pose and answer with his works ("Who Are We?") while also contrasting his rationale for asking this question with Descartes, Sartre and Freud. Having created this framework, May moves on in the next chapter to categorize Foucault's work into different periods, focusing on his observations regarding phenomenology and Marxism and detailing his notion of epistemes. In chapter 3, May draws from Foucault's genealogical works and introduces many of the concepts he worked with (chief among them, inversion and normalization), while drawing intriguing comparisons between Foucault and Nietzsche regarding the contingency and non-linearity of history. The much anticipated notion of power-knowledge is also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 4 concerns Ethics; Foucault's views on ancient notions of ethics are dissected, and his ideas regarding the emergence of who we are and who we ought to be are examined. The following chapter provides an interesting context for the man himself, turning the question of who we are on Foucault with regards to his academic and social activities. The final chapter considers critical viewpoint by Deleuze, Baudrillard and Lyotard, each regarding different aspects of Foucault's work, chief among them his views on discipline in society, historical narratives and power relations. I found this book a devoted invitation to engaging with Foucault's work from multiple angles, rather than a dry attempt at interpretation, and while it does not shy away from demonstrating the attacks on his viewpoints (especially in chapter 6), May succeeds at turning Foucault's philosophical framework into a valuable tool with lasting effect.

[Pongprapas · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Who are we?” is a “single question that receives elaboration” in Michel Foucault’s body of work, so claims Todd May (p. 2), the author of The Philosophy of Foucault, and is, thus, the question that sums up Foucault’s philosophical endeavor throughout his whole corpus from the archaeological period and, then, the genealogical period, through to his ethical period. May honestly sticks to this question in introducing us the philosophy – or, at least, philosophically oriented thought – of Foucault, by portraying what Foucault has to say as an answer to and a discussion of “who we are.” That said, in so doing, the book also tells us who we are, utilizing what Foucault has done, working through Foucauldian methods – through archaeology, genealogy, and ethical problematization. In other words, the book is not just an introduction to Foucault’s body of work but also an introduction to who we are via Foucault’s thought, which, May claims, is still relevant after twenty-odd years since Foucault’s death (May wrote the book in 2006), in a world where so much has changed, with, for example, a significant increase of transnational entities, the birth of the Internet, the rise of neoliberalism, etc.

May asserts that Foucault’s approach to the question of who we are is a historical one. He invites us to think, like Foucault, of history as “the temporal movement that has deposited us on these particular shores” (p. 11). It is because of a particular contingent history that we have become who we are. May proposes that there are five characteristics in saying that we are a product of such a history. Firstly, who I am as an individual is indispensably a matter of collective determination. Who I am is determined collectively and not only by myself. Secondly, that collective determination is not something that can be easily shaken off – who we are is embedded in that history. Thirdly, collective determination is a complex matter, an interplay of interweaving themes. Fourthly, there is a close relationship between acting and knowing. Finally, and most importantly, such collective determination is contingent, by no means necessary, and therefore changeable. This is what I think is the key message of the book: that, if we are determined by particular practices situated in a particular history, rather than by some ahistorical essences, then we can be otherwise. May argues that these five characteristics are present in all of Foucault’s works and, therefore, essential for understanding Foucault.

The book proceeds in chronological order in the investigation of Foucault’s body of work. May divides Foucault’s published writings into three periods: the archaeological period, the genealogical period, and the ethical period, each of which is corresponding to each chapter of the book. . . . Although adhering to this standard periodization, May acknowledges that the periodization may be far less decisive than it seems, that Foucault’s works may be discontinuous, and that each of them is “a singular experiment” in its own right (p. 24). He also warns us that, in so doing, “betraying the riches” that each of Foucault’s works brings “will be inevitable” (p. 25). Nevertheless, by following such periodization, we also get to witness in the process the riches of each of Foucault’s methods, his “straying afield” of himself, and the expeditious character of his philosophical endeavor – as May excellently puts it, Foucault is in direct contrast with those philosophers who

spend the early part of their careers staking out a small piece of philosophical territory, and the rest of their professional lives patrolling that territory rather than investigating what else might be out there. It is, for all but very few philosophers – those who can mine a particular problem more deeply with each investigation, always finding a hidden seam with new riches – a sad and futile exercise” (p. 59).

—

The following are two of my reservations about the book.

Firstly, I think the book is somewhat half-finished or lacking in its elaboration of Foucault’s corpus. Carlos Prado, who also reviews this book, argues that the book “misses its audience” by appearing as an introduction but is in parts too detailed to be elementary. He says that the book requires somewhat well-grounded knowledge of and familiarity with Foucault’s works to understand what May has to say. On the contrary, from the point of view of someone who is already familiar with Foucault’s works, I’d rather say that the book has not fulfilled what it promises to do: to offer an “elaboration, to the very end, of the necessary implications of a formulated question” (p. 2). I feel a sense of omission and watering down in the process. For instance, as a political science student, I see Foucault being associated with politics a lot. However, here in the book, although it does mention that Foucault’s genealogical turn takes on a political tinge and does explain some of his political concepts, the political implications of Foucault’s works are largely left untouched or unsaid. It might be because May is too concerned with the question of “who we are.” Or it might be because he has to cram Foucault’s whole corpus, which covers so many subjects, so many published writings, and so many years, into a book of 158 pages. This might be the best result a book of this length could bring.

Secondly, I agree with Prado that, by ending with Deleuze, Baudrillard, and Lyotard, the book inflicts damage upon itself. As Prado puts it,

[t]he first two-thirds of [chapter 6] in effect date Foucault in a way that robs the presentation in preceding chapters of some of its force and immediacy because by the time May defends the timeliness of Foucault's ideas, the damage has been done.”

That chapter convincingly refutes the book’s reading of Foucault’s approach to the question of who we are – the project of the whole book! And although May returns to defend Foucault, I suppose a lot of readers will have already defected to the other side. I am not saying that Foucault is right and that Deleuze, Baudrillard, and Lyotard are wrong – in fact, I acknowledge that criticisms like these are indispensable in any philosophical discussion. I am saying, rather, that this presentation in the last chapter renders what the book has carefully done the whole time somewhat less rigorous than it’s supposed to be.

[Phoenix · Rating 3 out of 5]

Foucault's Prisms

According to the text Foucault's central struggle was understanding the evolution of identity and its relationship to power, and his route was the opposite of Socrates and Plato - replacing prototypes of ideals with multiple and overlapping concepts that merge into our present conceptions. Foucault was an applied philosopher focusing on the soft sciences for his examples. His doctoral thesis, History of Madness examined transformation of the idea of madness in society. He notes that a major premise of Descartes' Meditations is that he is not made and argues that it was the elevation of Enlightenment rationality in the mid 17th century led to wide scale confinement of the insane, but also also a prescription of treatment in an attempt to normalize behaviour, in particular the forging of a link between reason, morality and work. Similarly in Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison he argues that prisons underwent a similar ideological change from vengeance to reform with similar changes to the notion of justice.

Foucault's program of investigation uses two distinct lenses. The first he termed Archaeology advocating sifting through historical sources finding examples of concepts as they are used. He later refines this used a metaphor of Genealogy, a term he borrows from Nietzsche, by looking at both the evolution of a practice in order to ascertain the roles it plays in reflecting and shaping social behaviour. Another concern of Foucault is society's attitude to pleasure and power. He rejects a progressive Marxist view of an ever improving history and suggests that we merely progress from one epistemological frame of reference to another. One such example is to contrast different attitudes towards different kinds of pleasure, terms aphrodesia. For the Greeks pleasure was secondary to be done in moderation - too much pleasure was unnatural and corrupted one's natural relationship with the universe. Shame rests in overindulgence and the inability to master oneself, whereas Christianity valued denial and confession.

In the last section of the book May tries contrasting Foucault's theories with those of his successor critics, Deleuze, Baudrillard and Lyotard. Deleuze, a colleague of Foucault, thinks that we are in new territory where strict power relationships are breaking down and individuals move more or less voluntarily between different frameworks. In the a globalized world we deal more in meta knowledge and surpranational relationships where optimistically negotiation and direction are more prevalent that coercion. Baudrillard in his book Forget Foucault (Foreign Agents) (Semiotextt argues that we have entered into a age of self constructed hyperreality where we manufacture or are seduced our own alliances and metasocieties. Lyotard downplays the importance of Foucault's metanarratives and focuses on "performativity", which I interpret from May as privileging behaviour over strategy or intent. May argues that these three do not transcend Foucault's program and miss the multiplicity in his approach.

IMV a not too obtuse introduction to Foucault's ideas but it's not light reading. May presents some interesting ideas and is generally understandable but he repeats himself from time to time. Recommended.

[A. B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, systematic overview of Foucault as a thinker.

Introduced me to his basic thought- his devotion to the contingency of history, 'eternal' truths being merely contingent, and the need to discover our historical legacy to discover who we really are. The differences across historical periods as well as their hidden a priori assumptions, perhaps renders any claims we can have to objectivity null and void. Contra previous Western philosophy, he does not hold an essential view of human nature; instead exploring the assumptions of each historical period, and revealing them in their contingency.

Perhaps we should think of our history as the temporal movement that has deposited us on these particular shores. On this view, history is a part of us. It is not disconnected from us in the way the approach to history as a series of discrete events would have it.

Foucault's thought can be divided broadly into three periods: Archaeology (which investigates the differences between periods and the ruptures that belies all claims of 'progress'), Genealogy (which seeks to explore how certain historical assumptions fall out of favour and are replaced by others), Ethics (more focused on the subject's own development and ethical differences across Greece, the Hellenic Age, and early Christianity).

The book deals with his various concepts: biopower, normativity, power-knowledge, problematization etc. ending with a short 'biography' (although not a conventional historical account), a study which deals with Foucault's restless striving and experimentation throughout his life.

He views his own project as being a continuation of modernity and the 'critique of the present' as initiated by Kant.

Chapter 6 also deals with the relevance of his thought today (as in 2006) and contrasting it with Lyotard, Deleuze, Baudrillard etc. which I will probably need more exposure to.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why study a philosopher, a philosophically oriented historian, a thinker?

Why grapple with a body of thought that is difficult, often elusive?

Why forsake the pleasures of sport, the company of friends, a novel or a videogame for the slow, patient activity of coming to understand a set of texts that, far from inviting one in, seem often designed to keep one at bay?

These are not idle questions. One might he told, in response to them, that the rigours of thought are good for the mind, that grappling with difficult concepts is bracing, or strengthening, or a sign of good character.

The concluding testimony to Foucault’s project can be provided by his own words, from a late period piece known as “The Subject and Power”: “the political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is not to try to liberate the individual from the state and from the state's institutions but to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization which is linked to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us for several centuries.”

[Bleh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative

[Anthony DeFalco · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is an introduction to Foucault’s historical and philosophical writings. The position May takes regarding what Foucault is: philosopher, historian, post- modernist, etc. is not an issue, and in a book like this it is not significant. What is significant is that May very clearly examines many of Foucault’s major works written and the various stages he has gone through. May also attempts to do what Foucault had said he could not do: examines the question of who Foucault is. The book is useful for teachers to be able to make an informed decision to accept or reject Foucault. The Philosophy of Foucault is well structured, clearly presented, and intellectually honest.

[Kara · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an ultra-brief summary of Foucault's major Histories and it seems like a great starter. It's short but doesn't try to be comprehensive. May studiously avoids biography, which I get, but it started to disappoint me because Foucault's story is so interesting and linked to his philosophy.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent primer on Foucault. Summarizes many of the key concepts, along with some general criticisms and debate of those concepts. A great philosophical overview.