Outline & Assess Foucaults Critique of Modernity - Essay Example

?Outline & Assess Foucault's Critique of Modernity The ideas of modernity have been supported as an enlightened ideal with its support of democracy and social equalities between races, ethnic groupings, and genders. However, for postmodernists, they view the ideals of modernism to be part of another social order – one which is ultimately responsible for racism, slavery, and genocide. Foucault is one of these postmodernists. He views modernism as an ideal which would ultimately be oppressive to the ideals and principles which it seeks to protect. This paper will now present Foucault’s critique of modernity. It will examine the debate between modernity and post-modernism. It shall present Foucault’s ideas according to post-modernism and how it conflicts with the ideas of modernity. Then it shall seek to provide an answer to the questions raised in this introduction. A conclusion to this paper shall provide a summary and a clear answer to the issues raised. Foucault critiques of modernity are based on the anti-Enlightenment principles which do not agree with the act of matching reason with emancipation and progress. Instead, Foucault argues that the links between modern realms of information has led to different types of domination (Kellner, 1991: 65). His reports have added details to this domination through psychiatry, medicine, and criminology. His aim was to critique the trends in the current world order which makes issues from the more contemporary forms of prudence which appear to be natural, but are actually oppressive forms of domination. From his goals, it can be deduced that Foucault is a “complex and eclectic thinker who draws from multiple sources and problematic while aligning himself with no single one” (Kellner, 1991: 41). Foucault’s literature and philosophy is a critique of modernity and he differentiates between the classical and the modern eras of the post-Renaissance period (Kellner, 1991: 39). “He sees the classical era as inaugurating a powerful mode of domination over human beings that culminates in the modern era” (Kellner, 1991: 41). He also supports Nietzsche when the latter does not give much credit to the Enlightenment ideals in historical progress. In effect, Foucault believes that humans do not go through a series of conflicts to eventually arrive at an implied agreement of the rule of law; instead, he believes that humans use the series of violent acts under certain rules and then they progress from one act of domination to another (Foucault, 1979: 25). Enlightenment was deemed by Foucault as a means of increasing political power and of distributing it in the social field – eventually covering different aspects of daily life. Foucault, in effect, supports a position against modernity and this is a major characterization of his work (Grumley, Hegel, and Foucault, 1989: 11). The postmodern ideal does not support the idea of equating reason and freedom with each other; and it also does not support the attempts at making issues out of the different modern and oppressive elements of rationality. Foucault sees modern rationality and subjectivity therefore as a source of domination (Grumley, Hegel, and Foucault, 1989: p. 171). He also points out that knowledge and truth are tools for power and domination. Critique of Foucault’s perspectives One of the critiques of Foucault’s perspective of modernity is the fact that he rejected the advantages which were gained through modernity, including that of medicine (Kellner, 1991: 65). Other philosophers like Habermas believed that science and the technologies arising from it would not create any issues for as long as these technologies are managed according to proper rules (Powell and Moody, 2003). In contrast, Foucault completely discounted the benefits and progressive gains from modernity and science. Foucault believed that modernity is entirely disciplinary, and this generalization is a difficult one to support (Koopman, 2010: 3). His analysis has not exactly focused on what would end up being right in the end; instead, he focused on the means by which such ends can be reached. Foucault also assesses the role of exact data in producing the impact of power, without attempting to remedy the legality of science or considering the proper jurisdiction of certain knowledge (Koopman, 2010: 4). Another issue taken with Foucault’s work is the fact that he does not believe that domination is based on the dynamic interactions of production, organization of the state, and exploitation (Nkoyock, 2010). Some philosophers like Poulantza point out that Foucault failed to consider the contemporary forms of the state and how it is built on capitalist and production perspectives (Nkoyock, 2010). Foucault did not also consider the fact that most social events and happenings are implemented in relation to class and state divisions. Instead, Foucault highlighted too much the importance of implementing strict and disciplinary practices for modern states (Nkoyock, 2010). In the process, he ignored the crucial role of violence and laws in general. Whereas Poulantza considered the virtues of laws in states, Foucault preferred the prohibitive aspects of the laws and the positive aspects of state power (Nkoyock, 2010). In effect, Foucault generalized the importance of control, not allowing for the possibility that lawlessness and lack of control may bring forth some benefits for a staid society The work of Foucault has been largely supported and based on the different practices and schools of thought in the social sciences. The different elements of his work have sought to highlight the need to refocus theorists’ thoughts on to the persistent applications of power and to emphasize the issues surrounding rationality and knowledge (Seppa, 2004). Foucault also details that power is integrated in all elements of social and personal life, including schools, prisons, and other social systems. Just as Nietzsche questions the importance of thoughts and value, Foucault also does the same, as he prompts the world to rethink these thoughts and values (Conway, 1997: 133). As Nietzsche focuses more on how upright values confront with lowly origins, Foucault, on the other hand, highlights the connections between power and knowledge and considers how the more liberal values are connected with domination (Conway, 1997: 133). Foucault’s ideas and theories are actually a significant critique on macrotheorists who evaluate power as elements of a class or a state, and microtheorists who evaluate certain classes while also avoiding power in general (Kellner, 1991: 65). Despite Foucault’s best intentions, however, his work has been filled with different limitations. For one, even if Foucault recognized the benefits of Enlightenment, he did not lend the same recognition for the different elements and applications of technology and modernity. His critique is lopsided as he highlights too much on the controlling aspects of rationalization and does not at all consider the more beneficial elements of modernity (Merquior, 1985: 150). He disregards the fact that through modernity, the benefits of democracy, women’s suffrage, feminism, medicine, and literacy are also felt. Foucault’s writings have manifested at different times as one-sided. He discards his political positions for ethical stands and changes his focus from the assessment of social instruments to the evaluation of the basic foundations of antiquity (Kellner, 1991: 68). But he never returns to his evaluation of the more current and urgent issues. Furthermore, as Foucault has agreed to the fact that power can lead to resistance and he has shown incidents which indicate styles of resistance, there is still no sufficient definitions of resistance which support technology as a tool of domination (Kellner, 1991: 68). In effect, a tradition of resistance and subservience has yet to be manifested as a full-fledged report and historical fact. Foucault did admit to alternative means of evaluating power relations, as he considered the point of view of resistance to power, not so much on the practice and application of power. However, Foucault, never pushed through with his proposal or ideas. He did not also sufficiently detail the definitions of terms like struggle and resistance (Biggs and Powell, 2001: 93). Although he considers political resistance as part of the so-called technologies of self, he still did not present much political substance in these considerations. Admittedly, Foucault admits to the reconsideration of power; however, he does not provide much or contribute much data in order to fill such reconsideration (Bartky, 1998: 97). Since he focuses more on the basic level of resistance, he does not sufficiently consider the issue of how to reach unions within local settings or how divergent political movements can be built. Even as it is crucial to build on different forms of resistance to resist the different realms of power, it is also crucial to coordinate these struggles and resist disintegration (Bartky, 1998: 97). The issue now is built on how a better alternative can be created from Foucault’s ideal world. Foucault has no response to such an alternative. In fact, although he recognizes the issues from his writings and his critique of modernity, he evades these issues, and then insists on the importance of specific struggles. Moreover, he continues to postulate in terms of bigger pictures taking shape beyond the goals of human beings. Foucault also does not give much credit to the importance of violence and repression. The assessment by Poulantzas points out that a state controlled physical show of force is part of the permanent political undertone of the exercise of power (Kaufman-Osborn, 2002: 52). It is also a disciplinary tool as it fashions the society based on domination. There is no denying the view of Foucault about disciplinary power; it is important to consider however that disciplinary power can wrongly detract from state authority which is needed in disciplinary society (Kaufman-Osborn, 2002: 53). In order to adequately evaluate the encompassing applications of macropowers, there is a need for Foucault to adjust his theory-as-tool-kit approach and carry out a more organized means of analyzing (Kellner, 1991: 67). There are actually different areas in Foucault’s writings wherein he shifts to encompassing positions and attempts to consider different types of systems. This creates one of the many inconsistencies in Foucault critique of modernity, further indicating how Foucault attempts to consider certain positions in certain issues, but never actually committing to any of these. Foucault also uses the globalized ideals, even as he also disallows them, causing what is known as a performance contradiction (Kellner, 1991: p. 68). The issue with Foucault is therefore not so much on the generalizations he makes, but on the fact that these claims and generalizations conflict with his persistent issues and critique on globalizing processes (Bailey, 2003: 186). In order for disciplinary powers to reach a more globalized application, their assessment will need a global and orderly analysis. Similar to the theories of poststructuralists, Foucault does not also differentiate between the legal and the illegal forms of macrotheories. However, he actually applies different types of analysis, even as he presents polarizing opinions opposed with the applications of the generalized courts (Bailey, 2003: 186). In essence, with all his inconsistencies, Foucault is said to violate his support of divergent opinions and his respect for people’s differences. Foucault is plagued with his own competing commitments and theories. This is a mark of his characteristic as a “conflicted thinker whose work oscillates between totalizing and detotalizing impulses, discursive and biopolitics, destroying the subject and resurrecting it, assailing forms of domination but eschewing normative language and metadiscourse” (Kellner, 1991: 68). At times, he makes attacks on Enlightenment and modern thoughts and theories in their entirety; at other times, he also supports their progressive thought processes. His later theories and positions have been aimed at building on a subject at individualized settings. And yet, this practice very much clashes with his emphasis on the struggles of the suffering and subjugated groups (Epstein, 1999: 251). Even as he is associated often with postmodernists, towards the end of his career, he was supporting the Enlightenment critique, along with Greek ethical ideals; he was also firmly integrated into the evaluation of ancient works and the classical writing styles (Flood and Romm, 1996: 66). In different times, he considered the analysis of postmodernism, considering the different aspects of information and knowledge and the introduction of a new age in the general order of things – a new order which was likely to include the posthumanist rights in power and the different forms of subjectivity (Flood and Romm, 1996: 67). In his newer works, he recognized philosophy as a means of critical assessment on the modern era. However, Foucault later abandoned the sufferings of the postmodern era in order to regress into the realms of antiquity (Taylor and Vintges, 2004: 281). Therefore, he retreated into the classic and Kantian principles, even as he continued his postmodern critiques – which consisted of blocking universal opinions as a means of supporting heterogeneity. In effect, there is a complex, eclectic, as well as a combination of the ancient, the contemporary, and the post contemporary details in Foucault’s ideals (Kellner, 1991: 67). As he adapts these in his ideals, he is also slowly regressing into the basic foundations of his work. Conclusion Foucault’s critique of modernity uses conflicting arguments. He uses global concepts even as he also prohibits them. In effect, his concepts are in conflict with his issues and with the domination of global forces. He is a contradictory thinker who vacillates between two extremes – thereby disregarding biopolitics while also resurrecting it; he attacks Enlightenment but he also aligns himself with its progressive thoughts. He employs postmodern thoughts and refers to different forms of knowledge. His critique of modernity is based on a complex mix of premodern, modern, and postmodern elements and the postmodern ideas seem to recede into the obscurity with each critique. All in all, Foucault’s critique is based on the basic opposition for the ideals of modernity, but is also founded on the better ideas of the postmodern theorists. Works Cited Bailey, F. (2003), The saving lie: truth and method in the social sciences, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press Bartky S. (1988), Foucault, feminism, and patriarchal power, In Feminism and Foucault: Reflections On Resistance, ed. I Diamond, L Quinby, pp. 61–86. Boston, MA: Northeastern Univ. Press Biggs, S and Powell, J., (2001), A Foucauldian analysis of old age and the power of social welfare, Journal of Aging & Social Policy, volume 12(2), 93-111. Conway, D. (1997), Nietzsche and the political, London: Routledge Epstein, L. (1999), Reading Foucault for social work, New York: Columbia University Press, 1999 Foucault, Michel, (1979), Discipline and Punish New York: Vintage. Grumley, J., Hegel, G., & Foucault, M. (1989), History and totality: radical historicism from Hegel to Foucault, London: Routledge Kaufman-Osborn, T. (2002), From noose to needle: capital punishment and the late liberal state, Michigan: University of Michigan Press Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern Theory - Chapter 2: Foucault and the Critique of Modernity. University of California in Los Angeles, Retrieved 30 April 2011 from http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/postmoderntheorych2.pdf Koopman, C. (2010) Revising Foucault, University of California at Santa Cruz, viewed 07 May 2011 from http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/koopman_foucault_revising.pdf Merquior, J. (1985), Foucault, California: University of California Press, 1985 Nkoyock, A. (2010), Foucault and the Critique of Modernity, viewed 07 May 2011 from http://blog.nkoyock.net/?p=31 Powell, J. & Moody, H. (2001), The Challenge of Modernity: Habermas and Critical Theory, Theory and Science, viewed 07 May 2011 from http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol4.1/01_powell.html Seppa, A. (2004), Foucault, Enlightenment and the Aesthetics of the Self, Contemporary Aesthetics, viewed 07 May 2011 from http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=244 Taylor, D. & Vintges, K. (2004), Feminism and the final Foucault, Chicago: University of Illinois Press Read More