Foucault's Distinctive Approach - Essay Example

What do you understand to be Foucaults distinctive approach, and how would you assess the contributions of his work? In order to understand the distinctive approach of Foucault, it is necessary to refer briefly to his life and especially his academic and professional background. Foucault was born in France in 1926. After finishing all the steps of education, he followed an academic career. One of the most important positions of his career was that of the Professor in the College de France. He also visited many Universities around the world developing his ideas as an ‘outside’ lecturer. Many different characterizations have been made for Foucault. First of all, he was a philosopher despite the fact that the approaches he used could be easily regarded as belonging in other disciplines. In accordance with an article published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ‘almost all of Foucaults works can be fruitfully read as philosophical in either or both of two ways: as a carrying out of philosophys traditional critical project in a new (historical) manner; and as a critical engagement with the thought of traditional philosophers’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003, online article). In accordance with the ideas included in his work and the methods used for the description of the various aspects of the modern life Michel Foucault has been characterized as a ‘postmodernist’ and ‘poststructuralist’ having a significant impact on many fields of knowledge like ‘literary criticism and theory, philosophy (especially the philosophy of science in the French-speaking world), history, psychoanalysis, the history of science (especially scientific medicine), and the sociology of knowledge’ (Neohumanism, 2004, online article). All the above issues should be taken into consideration when evaluating Foucault’s approaches – compared to other historians of the same period. The fact that makes the work of Foucault unique – when compared with the work of other historians – is that an extensive reference is made within his papers to the problems of society as understood through specific social and political aspects. In other words, the problems appeared within the society are related with the decisions of governments under the influence of specific financial and political interests. Foucault’s approaches when describing the problems of people within modern society could be characterized as quite descriptive; metaphors are also often used in order to present a specific condition. As an example, in Birth of a Prison, Foucault refers to an ‘imaginary’ town in which life of all people is depended on the decisions of the ‘syndic’ that has the power to supervise a specific part of the town. It is within this context that the term ‘absolute’ is described: this term means that there are no chances available to the people of the city; they have to obey to the rules of the government and accept the supervision of the syndic as part of their daily life. The above issues present an example of the way Foucault handles difficult social problems: he creates a ‘story’ (imaginary one in most cases) and develop it in accordance with the issues that he wishes to highlight. On the other hand, the conditions of the story mentioned above seem to be pre-arranged; there is no reference to alternative options; all the aspects of lives of people within the ‘imaginary’ town are pre-decided and there is no option of changing the rules. Somehow, people seem to be ‘trapped’ within a way of life with no chance of escaping; the specific approach could be regarded as too pessimistic however it is in accordance with modern way of life. Maybe the town of Foucault in Birth of a Prison is imaginary (according to him) but there is a close relevance with modern cities so that most of the issues developed in the work of Foucault respond to the reality. In accordance with the above, Foucault uses specific contexts – usually imaginary stories (that have many common elements with the reality) – in order to comment the negative aspects of people’s lives. When developing his ideas he usually refers to specific terms to which he gives a particular content (an example is the term absolute as it has been used by Foucault in the Birth of the Prison). In this way, people can identify the key points of Foucault’s critique on a particular issue. However, there is also the risk of failure in the interpretation of one of these terms; then the whole work will be interpreted towards a wrong direction. The specific issue has been highlighted in the literature. More specifically, Trados (1998, 75) mentioned that ‘by reading the term ‘juridical’ as synonymous with the term ‘law’ in Foucault, people miss the substance of Foucaults argument; the term juridical describes an arrangement and a representation of power rather than the law’. In other words, the whole context of Foucault work could be wrongly interpreted if the appropriate approach is not used when interpreting the key-terms on which the views of Foucault are based. In this context, Foucault can be considered as differentiated by many theorists of his era as their work is usually based on standard terminology and methodology; this is not the issue in the case of Foucault who used to develop his own ‘terminology’ – using words that are quite known in the public – and incorporating it within stories that were indirectly related with the reality (as noticed before the ‘fictionary’ stories of Foucault had many common elements with the real conditions of life of the particular period). It should also be noticed that Foucault has introduced a different way to identify and evaluate the key elements of knowledge within the particular philosophical fields. In this context, it is noticed that Foucault ‘Rather than asking what, in the apparently contingent, is actually necessary, he suggests asking what, in the apparently necessary, might be contingent; the focus of his questioning is the modern human sciences (biological, psychological, social)’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003, online article). There was no need for Foucault to develop a different approach in order to interpret the philosophical views. Other philosophers, like Locke and Kant have already presented appropriate methods of interpretation of the philosophical thought; however these methods were not so close with the conditions and the needs of real life. There was an emergent need for improvement of the style of philosophical interpretation in order for the relevant theories to be ‘approachable’ to the public. The above target has been achieved by Foucault through the development of the critical philosophy (which has all the characteristics pre-described, being closely related with the real life of people in modern society). It is this critical philosophy that ‘undermines such claims by exhibiting how they are just the outcome of contingent historical forces, and are not scientifically grounded truths’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003, online article). The development of critical philosophy by Foucault has helped towards the increase of the quality and the effectiveness of criticism on the various projects and policies adopted by governments around the world. The distinctive approach of Foucault can be identified within his work. We could refer primarily to the ‘History of Madness in the Classical Age’, a work that was first published in 1961. In the specific work, Foucault deals with the identification of the key reasons of Madness and the treatment available for this ‘illness’ in people across Europe. The methods used until then for the treatment of patients suffering from madness were extensively criticized by Foucault as being hypocritical. More specifically, it is noticed that ‘according to Foucault, the new idea that the mad were merely sick ("mentally" ill) and in need of medical treatment was not at all a clear improvement on earlier conceptions (e.g., the Renaissance idea that the mad were in contact with the mysterious forces of cosmic tragedy or the 17th-18th-century view of madness as a renouncing of reason); moreover, he argued that the alleged scientific neutrality of modern medical treatments of insanity are in fact covers for controlling challenges to a conventional bourgeois morality’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003, online article). In other words, the improvement of the condition of mental ill was not the priority for governments of the specific period; rather the isolation of people suffering from madness was attempted; madness was not considered as an ‘illness’ but as a reason for the limitation of social relationships only between people that are considered as ‘healthy’ – referring to their mental abilities. However, ‘health’ was not related only with mental abilities; it was also related with the ability of people to participate within the various aspects of social life. In other words, a progress was supposed to made for the treatment of these people (patients) but instead their isolation from the society was promoted in order for the latter to be kept ‘clean’ for the ‘healthy’ people – as this term was also related with the financial status of a person. In accordance with the above, we could state that Foucault played a catalytic role in the improvement of the level of medical treatment provided to the public; the continuous criticism of Foucault on governments around the world regarding the particular issue can be naturally considered as having a role in the restructuring of the national health systems internationally. In fact, another work of Foucault, the Birth of a Clinic (1963) can be considered as supporting the views of Foucault regarding the quality of medical services provided by the state to the public (civilians). The above work referred extensively to the clinical medicine of that specific period emphasizing the need for extensive changes across all the system. Another similar effect of Foucault’s work can be observed in the case of genealogy. For this reason, it is suggested by Owen (1995, 489) that ‘genealogy (as it is elaborated and practised in the work of Foucault) is an exemplary form of critique; Foucaults anti-humanism, mode of historical consciousness and perspectivism reproduce the substantive commitment of genealogy to the value of autonomy within the structure of genealogical reflection’. In accordance with the above, the extensive criticism of modern medicine by Foucault could be explained by his desire to actively involve in all aspects of personal life making the appropriate suggestions for improvement when failures are identified. However, the work of Foucault is not related only with medicine and the medical support provided by the state to the citizens (as one of their fundamental rights); it was neither limited to the criticism over the various aspects of personal life. In this context, we could refer to Foucault’s work ‘Discipline and Punish’, which was first published approximately around 1975. In this work, Foucault suggests an alternative policy for behaving towards the criminals (tortures and death are considered as absolutely inappropriate methods regarding the efforts of the state to limit criminal behaviour). More specifically, it is noticed by Foucault that the methods of reform applied by the State are in fact ‘a vehicle of more effective control; the new mode of punishment becomes the model for control of an entire society, with factories, hospitals, and schools modeled on the modern prison’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003, online article). Moreover, as Foucault admits ‘the extreme point of penal justice under the Ancien Regime was …. a manifestation of the strongest power over the body of the greatest criminal.. The ideal point of penality today would be an indefinite discipline: an investigation that would be extended without limit to a meticulous and ever more analytical observation…’(Foucault, 1995). The above issues highlighted by Foucault could be used possibly in order to explain the disciplinary methods applied by states around the world. It is clear that the ‘correction’ of the prisoners (in terms of their trend for the development of criminal activity) is not the priority for states internationally; rather the need for disciplinary measures can be used as a reason for the development of surveillance and control of people’s life around the world (the use of biometrics and other systems for ‘marking’ the people that have been imprisoned proves the relevance of Foucault’s views regarding the mission of disciplinary power within modern society). The views of Foucault have helped towards the development of a series of sciences. Literary history is an indicative example of the above case. The specific issue has been examined by Nethersole (1987, 1) who came to the conclusion that ‘although Literary History after Foucault is a chimera, his critiques of history, constituting fundamentally a critique of reason and the transcendental/sovereign subject as the sites of meaning are useful to Literary Theory because they afford insights into history as a construct of language and especially of discursive practices’. The development of Literary History under the influence of Foucault has been achieved through the use of the ‘Archaeology’ in the explanation of the various aspects of life (including the scientific research). Following the above issues it should be noticed that one of the most characteristic features of Foucault’s work has been the use of archaeology. In fact, it is clearly noticed that ‘Archaeology was an essential method for Foucault because it supported a historiography that did not rest on the primacy of the consciousness of individual subjects; it allowed the historian of thought to operate at an unconscious level that displaced the primacy of the subject found in both phenomenology and in traditional historiography’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003, online article). Archaeology as mentioned above, it is no more one of the traditional sciences, related with the roots of civilizations; it is rather a tool for the development of specific views that can be used in order to interpret the current decisions of political powers around the world. On the other hand, in no case the work of Foucault could be regarded as offering the necessary basis for the development of movements for the ‘elimination’ or even the ‘change’ of political powers within a specific state. The particular issue has been examined by Barratt (2002, 189) who supported that ‘the suggestion that “Foucauldianism” necessarily leads inter alia to a denial of the significance of legal and economic powers and relations in the employment relationship, to a postmodern indifference to forms of evidence and proof in analysis, is called into question’. The ‘Foucauldianism’ as mentioned above refers to the whole work of the specific historian as used and developed further by modern theorists and historians. Foucault has been extensively involved in the explanation and the analysis of political decisions during the 20th century. In this context, it is noticed by Paolini (1993, 98) that ‘the work of Michel Foucault highlights the need to rethink the assumptions of disciplines such as international relations which have tended to remain narrow, universalist and positivist; in particular, the key concept of power has largely escaped critical inquiry’. The direct criticism of political power by Foucault has led – through the years - to the development of a series of ‘trends’ – like the ‘Foucauldianism’ presented above – but mostly it has led to the increase of criticism over the decisions of states regarding the regulation of various social activities and rights. The work and the views of Foucault have influenced many philosophical and political aspects within modern society. Referring especially to the role of Foucault in the development of neoliberalism, Peters (2007, 165) notices that ‘among Foucaults great insights in his work on governmentality was the critical link he observed in liberalism between the governance of the self and government of the state; liberal modes of governing are distinguished by the ways in which they utilize the capacities of free acting subjects and, consequently, modes of government differ according to the value and definition accorded the concept of freedom’. In fact, the views of Foucault regarded the various aspects of political and social activities have helped towards the creation of the specific political trend, the ‘neoliberalism’, which however soon lost its initial power to confront with the interests developed within most sectors of political and social life. Another area which has strongly influenced by the views of Foucault is the management sector. The specific issue is highlighted by Barratt (2004, 191) who states that ‘in the context of a growing interest in more engaged forms of scholarly practice among management academics, further consideration of Foucault might have something more to offer despite the fact that we know Foucault primarily as a social theorist, genealogist, neo-Weberian, and postmodernist’. In accordance with the above, the work of Foucault cannot be used only when criticizing the political decisions or the social trends; because organizations are part of the daily life (their various operational activities influence the lives of people daily – if people in this case are regarded either as employees or customers of these organizations) the evaluation of the activities of modern organizations can be made using specific concepts of Foucault; managers of modern organizations could be regarded as being benefited the most from such an initiative. The active involvement of Foucault in the social and political life of the 20th century can be characterized as of significant importance not only because this criticism referred to as many aspects as possible of people’s lives but also because his criticism played a catalytic role to the reform of many governmental decisions and projects internationally. The state and the administration of the various public activities were the main issues on which the criticism of Foucault was focused; the benefits from this interaction are significant. The development of legitimization of governmental activities worldwide has been examined by Doxiadis (1997, 518) who concluded that ‘the true theoretical and political importance of these issues is revealed by connecting them to Foucaults approach to the question of sovereignty an legitimation, and by considering his work as a continuation of Kantian critique’. Foucault is considered to be – along with Kant – one of the most important historians/ philosophers of the 20th century. His unique approach – as developed above – regarding the identification and the analysis of the various aspects of social and political life has helped primarily towards the development of the relationship between the state and the citizen – at a next level the development of scientific research has been also significantly supported. References/ Bibliography Barratt, E. (2002) Foucault, Foucauldianism and human resource management. Personnel Review, 31(2): 189-204 Barratt, E. (2004) Foucault and the politics of critical management studies. Culture and Organization, 10(3): 191-202 Doxiadis, K. (1997) Foucault and the three-headed king: state, ideology and theory as targets of critique. Economy and society, 26(4): 518-545 Foucault, Michel Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (NY: Vintage Books 1995) pp. 195-228, available at http://www.cartome.org/foucault.htm Gratton, P. (2006) A ‘Retro-version’ of Power: Agamben via Foucault on Sovereignty. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 9(3): 445-459 Neohumanism (2004) Michel Foucault, online, available at http://www.neohumanism.org/m/mi/michel_foucault.html Nethersole, R. (1987) Literary History after Foucault? Journal of Literary Studies, 3(2): 1-11 Owen, D. (1995) Genealogy as exemplary critique: reflections on Foucault and the imagination of the political. Economy and Society, 24(4): 489-506 Paolini, A. (1993) Foucault, realism and the power discource in international relations. Australian Journal of Political Science, 28(1): 98-117 Peters, M. (2007) Foucault, biopolitics and the birth of neoliberalism. Critical Studies in Education, 48(2): 165-178 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) Michel Foucault, online, available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/#1 Tadros, V. (1998) Between Governance and Discipline: The law and Michel Foucault. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 18(1): 75-103 Read More