As Derrida showed in a later essay on Foucault’s relationship to psychoanalysis, Foucault displayed a marked ambivalence toward Freud, sometimes putting him on the side of the exclusion of madness and sometimes putting him on the side of those eager to listen to it. Yet, in the final stages of Foucault’s work, this ambivalence hardened into a resistance. By the time of The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, Freud is situated squarely on the side of power. It is precisely in (...) leaving Freud behind, Foucault suggests in Volume 1’s final pages, that we might begin to imagine “a different economy of bodies and pleasures”. In the late Foucault, what is necessary is thus not a reinvigorated... (shrink)

Many commentators have remarked upon the striking points of correspondence that can be found in the works of Freud and Nietzsche. However, this essay argues that on the subject of desire their work presents us with a radical choice: Freud or Nietzsche. I first argue that Freud’s theory of desire is grounded in the principle of inertia, a principle that is incompatible with his later theory of Eros and the life drive. Furthermore, the principle of inertia is not essentially (...) distinct from his later theory of the death drive. Consequently, Freud’s theory of desire can only be interpreted consistently as a monism of the death drive. I then analyze Nietzsche’s attempt to ground his theory of desire in the concept of the will to power. I argue that Nietzsche’s view of desire is fundamentally opposed to the key elements of Freud’s theory of desire: the principle of constancy, the Freudian definition of the drive, and the pleasure principle. Next, I explicate the stakes of this opposition by analyzing the social consequences of each view for morality and justice. I argue that the Freudian subject seeks to dominate the social other, and that there is an insurmountable conflict between the satisfaction of desire and the demands of social life. Consequently, Freud’s view allows only for a negative conception of the social good in which morality is defined as the intrinsically impossible task of eliminating evil, and justice can be achieved only through the equal distribution of instinctual frustration. Finally, I argue that in Nietzsche’s theory of desire there is no essential conflict between individual desire and social life. The Nietzschean subject desires to manifest power in the form of activity that is independent of external agents, not to dominate the other. Consequently, Nietzsche’s view allows for the possibility of a positively defined concept of the social good in which morality is the affirmation and enhancement of every subject’s happiness, and justice can be achieved through the promotion and protection of an equality of power among subjects. (shrink)

Freud introduces his dualistic theory of the life and death drives in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Much of that essay is devoted to the justification of the death drive, while little is said in defense of the introduction of “life drives” and “Eros,” which he claims are simply an extension of his libido theory from the psychological into the biological realm. In this essay, I argue that Eros is, on the contrary, fundamentally incompatible with Freud’s metapsychology. I (...) first show that Freud’s theory of society permits the production and preservation of social bonds only through the restraint of sexual aims rather than, as the theory of Eros would require, through the satisfaction of sexual drives. I then demonstrate that Eros is incompatible with three key elements of Freud’s metapsychology: the theories of the drives, the pleasure principle, and the principle of constancy. Finally, I argue that the death drive is indistinguishable from the early and late theories of the principle of constancy. Consequently, it is the death drive, and not Eros, that is merely an extension of the original libido theory. Because Eros is incompatible with the very foundations of Freud’s metapsychology, his drive theory can only consistently be interpreted as a monism of the death drive. (shrink)

Freud's biological notion of a death drive is not well founded but a number of closely associated notions (including those of a drive, and of aggression turned against the self) are.

In its hegemonic definition, biopolitical governmentality is characterised by a seemingly infinite capacity of expansion, susceptible to colonise the landscape and timescape of the living present in the name of capitalistic productivity. The main trait of biopower is its normative, legal and political plasticity, allowing it to reappropriate critiques and resistances by appealing to bioethical efficacy and biological accuracy. Under these circumstances, how can we invent rebellious forms-of-life and alternative temporalities escaping biopolitical normativity? In this essay, I interrogate the theoretical (...) presuppositions of biopolitical rationality. I provide a deconstruction of the conceptual and temporal structures upholding the notion of biopolitics, in view of laying the ground for new forms of resistance. The articulation between life and power has a long philosophical history, which has been largely ignored by social theorists and political thinkers using biopolitics as an interpretative model. I re-inscribe this model within the tradition of critical materialism, by articulating Foucault’s ‘critical ontology’ to recent philosophical works on biological plasticity (Malabou). In these discourses, the logic of biopower depends on a representation of life – ‘the living’ – as living present. Biopower finds itself anchored in the authority of the present, that is to say, of being-as-presence (ontology); it sustains presentist definitions of life and materiality, be it under the form of a ‘plastic’ ontology. By drawing on Derrida’s notions of ‘spectrality’ and ‘life-death’ and Francesco Vitale’s work on ‘biodeconstruction’, I deconstruct these discourses on life and materiality and attempt to dissociate them from their ontological grounding, in order to suggest new paths of resistance to biopower. In particular, I follow the tracks of “the monster” in the work of Foucault, Derrida and Malabou. Foucault tells us that the monster is a singular figure, parasitic and subversive, beckoning a life beyond life, at once organic and non-organic, located at the limit between the normal and the exceptional, and exceeding the scope of biopolitical normativity in both theoretical and practical terms. It exists at the intersection of what Foucault names “the symbolics of blood” and “the analytics of sex”. As such, it materialises a self-transformative dimension of the living which remains, I argue, inadequate to Malabou’s representation of plasticity. The monstrous is a self-deconstructive motif calling for another biopolitical rationality, before or beyond ontological reductions or reconstructions. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to provide a close reading of Deleuze's complex account of Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle in Difference and Repetition. The first part provides a reading of Beyond the Pleasure Principle itself, showing why Freud feels the need to develop a transcendental account of repetition. In the second, I show the limitations of Freud's account, drawing on the work of Weismann to argue that Freud's transcendental model mischaracterises repetition. In the third part, I show how (...) Freud's account of the death drive is shadowed by Deleuze's own non-representational transcendental account. (shrink)

In Foucault, thought is spatial, and unfolds within the density of becoming, in the void that separates the subject and the object. It is ontologically independent from the authority of the contemplating self, the ‘I’. Thought is a being of its own, and comes from the outside – the world of relationships. The present study poses to itself the following question: if thinking indeed comes from the outside, then under what condition thinking can encounter itself – its colour, texture and (...) topography? That is, under what condition can man encounter himself and the world? Since this problem does not have its origin in Foucault’s work, this work does not arrive at any conclusion merely by analysing and evaluating his work alone. Rather, it aims to explore how Foucault has incorporated Kant and Nietzsche into his thinking, on the one hand, and contextualises him within the Western tradition in general and his responses to contemporaries Deleuze and Derrida, in particular, on the other. Consequently, this study is limited by the sheer weight of its own problematisation. However, the problem of ‘under what condition thought encounters itself?’ is here posed not for the sake of constituting a form of knowledge on it, but rather, it is asked from the point of view of ethics. This, in fact, demands a reordering of the forms of ontology that Foucault has developed at different stages of his career. There are three forms of ontology in Foucault’s work: the first analyses man as the subject of truth; the second takes up man as the subject of power; and the third analyses man as an ethical being. The present study reverses the order and examines his work in its totality from the standpoint of his later writings that deal with the problem of truth and ethics. It tries to connect two problems that pop up at different stages of Foucault’s career. The Order of Things asks the question, “what is man?” and in his later writings Foucault labours on the question, “how should I live my life?” This study tries to relate these two questions, as it unfolds itself. (shrink)

This paper will attempt to assess the primary differences between what I take to be the two primary philosophical "traditions" in contemporary French philosophy, using Derrida (transcendence) and Deleuze (immanence) as exemplary representatives. The body of the paper will examine the use of these terms in three different areas of philosophy on which Derrida and Deleuze have both written: subjectivity, ontology, and epistemology. (1) In the field of subjectivity, the notion of the subject has been critiqued in two manners, either (...) by appealing either to the transcendence of the other (Levinas, Derrida) or to the immanent jlux of experience itself, in relation to which the Ego itself is trancendent (Deleuze, Foucault, Sartre, James). (2) In the field of ontology, a purely "immanent" ontology would be an ontology in which there is neither a "beyond" or an "otherwise" Being, nor "interruptions" in Being, both of which would require an appeal to a formal element of transcendence (Deleuze). Such a "transcendent" and aporetic structure, which can never appear or be present as such within Being, is what lies at the basis of the project of deconstruction, with its attendant aporias (Derrida). (3) This distinction, finally, finds parallels in Kant's epistemology, for whom the possible experience is conditioned by purely immanent criteria (Deleuze), whereas what goes beyond the limits of possible experience is transcendent (Derrida). Drawing on these three thread of analysis, the paper concludes with an assessment of what is at stake in the ethical differences between the two traditions. The question of "transcendence" is "What mast I do?", which is the question of morality (a duty or obligation that is beyond being, an "ought" beyond the "is"). The question of "immanence" is "What can I do?" (my power or capacity as an existing individual within being). For Levinas and Derrida, ethics precedes ontology because it is derived from an element of transcendence (the Other); for Deleuze, ethics is ontology because it is derived from the immanent relation of beings to Being at the level of their existence (Spinoza). (shrink)

From Augustine’s (death) drive towards an imaginary time before speech to Marx’s drive toward an imaginary time after speech as we know it, we learn that we are always already within the bonds of the mother tongue. In the late twentieth-century, Derrida turns to both Augustine and Marx to repeat the fantasy of escaping the mother (tongue). Derrida responds to Marx’s analysis of our repeated failure to forget the mother tongue by turning to Augustine’s analysis of the (...) mother’s touch: we cannot forget the mother tongue because it is licked upon our skin. Drawing on Derrida’s relationship to Augustine and Marx on the topic of touch and language, I argue that although the bond of the mother tongue is inescapable, its very real grip upon our skin is founded upon a number of fantasies: the fantasy of the Mother, of a cut with the Mother by the Mother, which separates us from an original shared skin and binds us to the Mother tongue, the fantasy of self-articulation in the death of the Mother. I suggest that the symptoms of the fantasmatic foundation of our entrapment by the mother tongue-touch is expressed in barely perceptible glitches—a shiver passing over one’s skin, a stutter in one’s speech. (shrink)

This essay draws on the work of Jacques Derrida and Angela Y. Davis towards a philosophical resistance to the death penalty in the U.S. I find promise in Derrida’s claim that resistance to the death penalty ought to contest a political structure that founds itself on having the power to decide life and death, but I move beyond Derrida’s desire to consider the abolition of the death penalty without engaging with the particular histories and geographies of (...) European colonialism. I offer a critique of Derrida’s recently published work on the death penalty by engaging with the work of Davis and argue that discussions of state violence in nations that inherit European forms of sovereignty must take seriously the racist violence on which those sovereign powers rely. (shrink)

This article argues, contra-Derrida, that Foucault does not essentialize or precomprehend the meaning of life or bio- in his writings on biopolitics. Instead, Foucault problematizes life and provokes genealogical questions about the meaning of modernity more broadly. In The Order of Things, the 1974-75 lecture course at the Collège de France, and Herculine Barbin, the monster is an important figure of the uncertain shape of modernity and its entangled problems (life, sex, madness, criminality, etc). Engaging Foucault’s monsters, I show that (...) the problematization of life is far from a “desire for a threshold,” à la Derrida. It is a spur to interrogating and critiquing thresholds, a fraught question mark where we have “something to do.” As Foucault puts it in “The Lives of Infamous Men,” it an ambiguous frontier where beings lived and died and they appear to us “because of an encounter with power which, in striking down a life and turning it to ashes, makes it emerge, like a flash [...]. (shrink)

Les pensées de la différence selon Gilles Deleuze et Jacques Derrida se touchent dans leur sujet même, le Sujet qui « fait des histoires et des scènes » construisant le même système différentiel, le monde. C’est ce qui assure une sorte de continuité entre les deux philosophies. Concernant les « thèses » il n’y a aucune différence entre Deleuze et Derrida. Et pourtant, ils ne se laissent pas unir dans une seule et même philosophie de la différence. Les deux histoires (...) ne se laissent pas identifier dans un seul et même discours, elles exigent deux discours différents. Leur Sujet se raconte de deux façons, se joue sur deux scènes parallèlement, alternativement – cela relève d’une différence minime, différence de genre, de style, de geste, qui pourtant change tout. Penser pour Deleuze consiste à entrer dans le jeu, dans l’acte de la différence, à « faire la différence » – pour Derrida c’est comprendre la différence. Une philosophie comme celle de Derrida suspend les philosophies comme celle de Deleuze – une philosophie comme celle de Deleuze ne prend pas au sérieux une philosophie comme celle de Derrida. Leurs pensées s’excluent réciproquement tout en faisant signe l’une vers l’autre - comme le dirait Derrida : selon un certain graphique de la supplémentarité. Renverser le platonisme : changer son ontologie « en hauteur » pour une ontologie « en profondeur » , c’est un jeu immanent de l’ontologie. Le renversement deleuzien du platonisme est de se déplacer insidieusement en lui, mais aussi de se décaler légèrement par rapport à lui, lui ouvrir la porte, y instaurer une autre série de pensée divergente, constituer un para-platonisme, en d’autres mots : le déconstruire. L’effet en sera, selon Foucault, un « Theatrum Philosophicum » de fantasmes, de simulacres, d’événements, d’effets corporels où Freud et Artaud entrent en résonance même en s’ignorant. Derrida joue un tout petit peu différemment, du dehors, ou plutôt à la limite de son dehors. Si on se sert de l’allégorie de Rodolphe Gasché : Derrida s’installe au bord de la réflexion, dans le tain du miroir – on peut dire alors que Deleuze se déplace dans le miroitement, entre les images reflétées. Ils tiennent tous les deux, chacun à leur manière, à la limite de la réflexion, limites internes et externes. L’exemplarité de la relation Deleuze/Derrida réside en ceci : c’est une image de la doublure en soi de la pensée qui tente ses limites. Elle « illustre » la doublure inévitable de la pensée – doublure qui, par ailleurs, appelle à la déconstruction et à son mimétisme. (shrink)

In 1977, Deleuze and Foucault found themselves in opposite camps in the public dispute among French intellectuals, resulting in a parting of the ways between two colleagues who had for many years been friends. This article argues that Deleuze considered the reason for the split to have been their differing views on the connection between the historical situation and philosophical thought. In his view, the split was occasioned by the debate over the New Philosophers, in which Foucault supported those intellectuals (...) who opposed the creative thinking of philosophy. After Foucault's death in 1984, Deleuze sought to reconcile the two positions, but his attempt only highlighted the depth of the division between them. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to explore the close link between technology and death in the philosophical writings of Lewis Mumford. Mumford famously argued that throughout the history of western civilization we find intertwined two competing forms of technics; the democratic biotechnic form and the authoritarian monotechnic form. The former technics were said to be strongly compatible with an organic form of life while the latter were said to be allied to a mechanical power complex. What is perhaps (...) less well known is the extent to which Mumford characterizes the authoritarian technical form as being a technics of death. This article will argue that the connection between death and technics is a key theme in Mumford’s philosophy of technology. In addition to elaborating this theme and detailing how it informs Mumford’s other positions on the nature of technology, this article will also argue that Mumford’s theory of a technics of death bears witness, both implicitly and explicitly, to the influence of Sigmund Freud’s theory of the death instinct. Freud’s account of the death instinct will be outlined briefly and its influence on Mumford’s writings will be explained. Death, in Mumford’s technological writings, has a generally negative function and serves to warn humanity of the perilous course that its technological civilization is set upon. However it also has a positive function in that it encourages man to transcend its biological existence in acts of creativity and purpose. Death, in this positive sense, serves the purpose of life whereas, in the negative sense, it hinders it. The role of death, in both aspects, will be explored and related to Mumford’s overall perspective on technics and life. It is argued that Mumford’s philosophy of technology cannot be fully understood without an awareness of his views on death and its role in the life of technological society. (shrink)

In this article, I bring Lacan and Foucault into a conversation to show that both theorized the hysteric subject as the moment of the limit in power, where power fails to subordinate us. Moreover, both thinkers theorized the hysteric as the paradigmatic example of a political subject that not only rebels but radically transforms power structures. Next, I show that Freud's Dora case refers to a psychoanalytic discourse on hysteria, which turned into the master's discourse. Such master's discourse aimed to (...) discipline Dora into the norm of female, bourgeois, and heterosexual subjectivity. However, Dora successfully rebelled against the master's discourse. Finally, I expose that only a collective of hysterics could bring down psychiatric power down in the asylum. (shrink)

Following one of Jacques Derrida’s early questions — namely, How is writing involved in speech? — this essay reconsiders the role of the tongue and the sense of taste in the oral phenomena of speaking and saying. The contact the tongue makes with the mouth or teeth is just as much a materialization of language as what is commonly called “writing.” The tongue acts as a pen and the mouth, as a blank page (or palimpsest). Mouthed writing is accompanied by (...) sense experiences. There are various selftastes to the tastes of speaking, the tastes of words, or, even, the tastes of thoughts. Freud’s notes on speaking in one’s sleep, telepathy, the mystic writing-pad, and memory are revisited and supplemented with the writings of Hélène Cixous on the taste of words, telephoning, saying-to-oneself, and forgetting. The auto-affection of tasting-oneself-speakwriting is offered as an alternative to the metaphysical presumptions Derrida implicates in Husserl’s understanding of speech based on the auto-affection of hearing-oneself-speak. As such, writing (haunted by the trace of death) and speech (invested with living presence) is now confronted with the selftastes of speakwriting with one’s stylangue in and on the mouth as the scene of writing (ever accompanied by tastes of life-death). (shrink)

Finally published 34 years after his death, Foucault's book Confessions of the Flesh sheds new light on the debate about freedom and power that shaped the reception of his works. Many contributors to this debate argue that Foucault's theory of power did not allow for freedom in the 'genealogical phase,' but that he corrected himself and presented a solution to the problem of freedom in his later works, especially through his reflection on ancient ethics and technologies of the self (...) in volumes two and three of History of Sexuality, as well as the concept of parrhesia. In contrast to this view, I argue that Confessions of the Flesh shows that a concept of freedom as self-critical hermeneutics that aims at identifying a foreign power within the subject was only developed in Foucault's analysis of Christian practices of penance and confession. This interpretation of Confessions of the Flesh opens a new field of inquiry into the genealogy of critique and both the repressive and emancipative effects of truth-telling and juridification. (shrink)

In this book I show that science suffers from a damaging but rarely noticed methodological disease, which I call rationalistic neurosis. It is not just the natural sciences which suffer from this condition. The contagion has spread to the social sciences, to philosophy, to the humanities more generally, and to education. The whole academic enterprise, indeed, suffers from versions of the disease. It has extraordinarily damaging long-term consequences. For it has the effect of preventing us from developing traditions and institutions (...) of learning rationally devoted to helping us learn how to make progress towards a wiser, more civilized world. On our fragile earth, overcrowded, fraught with injustice, inequality and conflict, menaced by unprecedented and terrifying technological and industrial means for change and destruction, we urgently need to acquire a little more wisdom and civilization if we are to avoid repeating horrors of the kind suffered by so many during the 20th century (and already suffered by many in the first few years of the 21st century). We can ill afford to have in our hands instruments of learning botched and bungled from the standpoint of helping us learn how to live more wisely. It may seem scarcely credible that something as important as our institutions of learning can suffer from wholesale, structural defects. Why has this not been noticed before? Why have not armies of scientists and scholars appreciated the point and, long ago, put the matter right? The answer will emerge as my argument unfolds. I will show that one of the most damaging features of rationalistic neurosis is that it has built-in methodological and institutional mechanisms which effectively conceal that anything is wrong. But there is also an immediately obvious reason: specialization, and the resulting fragmentation of academia, has resulted in a situation in which hardly anyone takes responsibility for the overall ideals, the overall aims and methods, of academic inquiry. Academics, these days, are specialists, furiously trying to keep abreast of developments in their own specialist fields. They have no time, and no inducement, to lift their eyes from their particular disciplines, and look at the whole endeavour. Science has long been under attack, at least since the Romantic movement. Blake objected to “Single vision & Newton’s sleep” and declared that “Art is the Tree of Life... Science is the Tree of Death”. Keats lamented that science will “clip an Angel’s wings” and “unweave a rainbow”. Whereas the Enlightenment had valued science and reason as tools for the liberation of humanity, Romanticism found science and reason oppressive and destructive, and instead valued art, imagination, inspiration, individual genius, emotional and motivational honesty rather than careful attention to objective fact. Much subsequent opposition to science stems from, or echoes, the Romantic opposition of Blake, Wordsworth, Keats and many others. There is the movement Isaiah Berlin has described as the “Counter-Enlightenment” (Berlin, 1979, ch. 1). There is existentialism, with its denunciation of the tyranny of reason, its passionate affirmation of the value and centrality of irrationality in human life, from Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche to Heidegger and Sartre (see, for example, Barrett, 1962). There is the attack on Enlightenment ideals concerning science and reason undertaken by the Frankfurt school, by postmodernists and others, from Horkheimer and Adorno to Lyotard, Foucault, Habermas, Derrida, MacIntyre and Rorty (see Gascardi, 1999). The soul-destroying consequences of valuing science and reason too highly is a persistent theme in literature: it is to be found in the works of writers such as D.H. Lawrence, Doris Lessing, Max Frisch, Y. Zamyatin. There is persistent opposition to modern science and technology, and to scientific rationality, often associated with the Romantic wing of the green movement, and given expression in such popular books as Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man, Roszak’s Where the Wasteland Ends, Berman’s The Reenchantment of the World and Appleyard’s Understanding the Present. There is the feminist critique of science and conceptions of science: see, for example, Fox Keller (1984) and Harding (1986). And there are the corrosive implications of the so-called “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge, and of the work of social constructivist historians of science, which depict scientific knowledge as a belief system alongside many other such conflicting systems, having no more right to claim to constitute knowledge of the truth than these rivals, the scientific view of the world being no more than an elaborate myth, a social construct (see Barnes and Bloor, 1981; Bloor, 1991; Barnes, Bloor and Henry, 1996; Shapin and Schaffer, 1985; Shapin, 1994; Pickering, 1984; Latour, 1987). This latter literature has provoked a counter-attack by scientists, historians and philosophers of science seeking to defend science and traditional conceptions of scientific rationality: see Gross and Levitt (1994), Gross, Levitt and Lewis (1996), and Koertge (1998). This debate between critics and defenders of science came abruptly to public attention with the publication of Alan Sokal’s brilliant hoax article ‘Transgressing the boundaries’ in a special issue of the cultural studies journal Social Text in 1996 entitled Science Wars: see Sokal and Bricmont (1998). What does this book have to contribute, given the above avalanche of criticism of science? The criticisms of science developed in this book are diametrically opposed to the above, in so far as the above criticisms oppose scientific rationality, seek to diminish or restrict its influence, or hold that it is unattainable. My central point is that we suffer, not from too much scientific rationality, but from not enough. What is generally taken to constitute scientific rationality is actually nothing of the kind. It is rationalistic neurosis, a characteristic, influential and damaging kind of irrationality masquerading as rationality. Science is damaged by being trapped within a widely upheld but severely defective philosophy of science; free science from this defective philosophy, provide it with a more intellectually rigorous philosophy, and it will flourish in both intellectual and humanitarian terms. And more generally, as we shall see, academic inquiry as a whole is damaged by being trapped within an intellectually defective philosophy of inquiry; free it from this defective philosophy, from its rationalistic neurosis, and it will flourish in intellectual and human terms. It is not reason that is damaging, but defective pretensions to reason — rationalistic neurosis —masquerading as reason. Thus what I seek to do here is the exact opposite of what all those who oppose science and scientific rationality do. I shall argue that Reason, the authentic article, arrived at by generalizing the progress-achieving methods of science, can have profoundly liberating and enriching consequences for all worthwhile, problematic aspects of life, and thus deserves to enter into every aspect of life. The bare bones of the argument of this book can be stated quite simply like this. Science cannot proceed without making the substantial metaphysical assumption that the universe is physically comprehensible (to some extent at least). But this conflicts with the orthodox view that in science everything is assessed impartially with respect to evidence, nothing being permanently assumed independently of evidence. So the metaphysical assumption of comprehensibility is repressed. Science pretends that no such assumption is made. But this damages science. For the assumption is substantial, influential and highly problematic. It needs to be made explicit within science so that it can be critically scrutinized, so that alternatives can be developed and considered. Pretending the assumption is not being made undermines the intellectual rigour of science, its intellectual value and success. And it does not stop there. For science also makes value assumptions. Quite properly, science is concerned to discover that which is of value. New factual knowledge devoid of all value (whether intellectual or practical) does not contribute to science. But the orthodox view of science holds that values have no place within science. As in the case of metaphysics, here too, science pretends that values have no role to play within the intellectual domain of science. And this damages science. For values are, if anything, even more influential and problematic than metaphysics (in influencing the direction of research). Here too, values need to be made explicit within science so that they can be scrutinized, so that alternatives can be developed and assessed. Pretending that values play no role within the intellectual domain damages science; both the intellectual and the practical aspects of science are adversely affected. Science fails to pursue those avenues of research that lie in the best interests of humanity. And it goes further. Science is pursued in a social, cultural, economic and political context. It is a part of various social, economic and political projects which seek to achieve diverse human objectives. But the idea that science is an integral part of humanitarian or political enterprises with political ends clashes, once again, with the official view of science that the aim of science is to improve factual knowledge. The political objectives of science are repressed. And, once again, this damages science. For, of course, the political objectives of science, like all our political objectives, are profoundly problematic. These need to be made explicit so that they can be scrutinized, so that alternatives can be developed and considered. The pretence that science does not have this political dimension once again undermines the intellectual rigour of science, and its human value. It lays science open to becoming a part of economic, corporate and political enterprises that are not in the best interests of humanity. The upshot of the line of argument just indicated is that we need to bring about a revolution in the aims and methods of science, and of academic inquiry more generally. Natural science needs to change; its relationship with the rest of academic inquiry, with social inquiry and the humanities, needs to change; and most importantly and dramatically, academic inquiry as a whole needs to change. The basic task of the academic enterprise needs to become to help humanity learn how to tackle its problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways than at present. We need to put the intellectual tasks of articulating our problems of living, and proposing and critically assessing possible solutions, possible and actual actions, at the heart of academic inquiry. The basic task needs to be to help humanity learn a bit more wisdom – wisdom being the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom including knowledge and technological know-how, but much else besides. Natural science, despite its flaws, has massively increased our knowledge and technological know-how. This in turn has led to a massive and sometimes terrifying increase in our power to act. Often this unprecedented power to act is used for human good, as in medicine or agriculture. But it is also used to cause harm, whether unintentionally (initially at least) as when industrialization and modern agriculture lead to global warming, destruction of natural habitats and rapid extinction of species, or intentionally, as when the technology of war is used by governments and terrorists to maim and kill. Before the advent of modern science, when we lacked the means to do too much damage to ourselves and the planet, lack of wisdom did not matter too much. Now, with our unprecedented powers to act, bequeathed to us by science, lack of wisdom has become a menace. This is the crisis behind all the other current global crises: science without wisdom. In these circumstances, to continue to pursue knowledge and technological know-how dissociated from a more fundamental quest for wisdom can only deepen the crisis. As a matter of urgency, we need to free science and academia of their neuroses; we need to bring about a revolution in the academic enterprise so that the basic aim becomes to promote wisdom by intellectual and educational means. At present science and the humanities betray both reason and humanity. The argument of this book, which I have just summarized, begins with a discussion of the philosophical and methodological problems that beset theoretical physics. At once, many of those who are concerned about moral, political and environmental issues that plague our world today, will feel impatient. What have the methodological problems of theoretical physics to do with third world poverty, war and the threat of war, pollution, extinction of species, the menace of conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear armaments? I can only plead with such a reader: patience. The root cause of the sickness of our times does indeed lie, I claim, with a methodological sickness of natural science or, even more specifically, of physical science. What makes the modern world so utterly different from all previous ages is our possession of modern science and technology. This is the instrument that has changed the conditions of human life almost beyond all recognition, and put unprecedented, and sometimes terrifying, powers into our hands. One should not dismiss out of hand the suggestion that a part of our problem may lie with this instrument, this engine, of rapid change. We see, here, too, the way in which intellectual specialization, referred to above, has effectively concealed from view the nature and extent of the problem that confronts us. The argument that I shall develop in what follows begins with physics, with problems concerning the aims and methods of physics. But it then leaps to social science, to philosophy, to the humanities, to education, to psychotherapy, and to politics: in the end there is scarcely an aspect of modern life that is not touched and, potentially, affected by the argument. How many academic experts are prepared to follow, to take seriously, an argument that ranges so recklessly across such a wide range of academic disciplines? How many non-academic non-experts? But just this is what the argument and message of this book requires. I hope that the reader will endure with patience the somewhat esoteric discussion concerning the aims and methods of physics pursued in chapter one. This may not seem to have anything much to do with the urgent problems of our times, but it does. This is in part how the intellectual disaster I seek to expose in this book conceals itself from view: it buries itself in the obscure, recondite field of the philosophy of physics. Those who devote their lives to the philosophy of physics are, by and large, too myopic to see how their specialized field of study has anything to do with the great and dreadful humanitarian problems and disasters of our age; and those who are above all concerned with these humanitarian disasters have no time at all for abstruse issues concerning the aims and methods of physics. And so the connection is never made. As it happens, the methodological neurosis of physics, with which we begin in chapter one, is actually a quite simple matter to grasp. It does not require any real knowledge of physics to understand. Indeed, physicists and philosophers of physics are much more likely to find the argument difficult to follow than are non-experts. We non-scientists can stand back and see the whole wood; scientists, trained to think in terms of the current orthodox conception of science, trapped in the thickets of research, will find this much harder to do. In an attempt to take this peculiar circumstance into account, I have arranged the exposition as follows. In chapter one I give a simple exposition of the case for declaring natural science to suffer from what I call "rationalistic neurosis"; this avoids all technicalities, and goes straight to the heart of the matter. In the appendix I tackle a host of more technical objections that may be made to the elementary argument of chapter one. So, those experts in the fields of the philosophy of physics and philosophy of science who find the argument of chapter one naïve and unconvincing, should consult the appendix before tossing the book away in disgust. I write in the hope that there will be a few who will not dismiss out of hand the suggestion that the question of how we are to go about learning how to live in wiser and more civilized ways might have something to learn from scientific learning, and will take the trouble to pursue the line of argument traced out in this book. I write in the hope that these few will grasp just how desperate our situation is, how urgent the need to change the status quo, and will do everything in their power to alert others to the need to heal the methodological sickness from which our institutions and traditions of learning at present suffer. To begin with, we need a campaigning organization, modelled perhaps on "Friends of the Earth", which might be called something like "Friends of Wisdom". (shrink)

Foucault and Absolute Power - Irfan Ajvazi -/- Table of Contents: -/- Chapter I: Foucault and Nietzsche Chapter II: Foucault’s Discourse Chapter III: The Definition of Resistance Chapter IV: Foucault’s Power Relations Chapter V: Foucault and Neoliberalism Chapter VI: Foucault’s Theories Chapter VII: Defining Others Chapter VIII: Foucault and multiplicity Chapter IX: Biopower and governmentality Chapter X: The Origin of Power -/- Foucault actually explicitly stated he was a follower of Nietzsche: "I am simply a Nietzschean, and I try to (...) see, on a number of points, and to the extent that it is possible, with the aid of Nietzsche's text -- but also with anti-Nietzschean theses (which are the nevertheless Nietzschean!) -- what can be done in this or that domain. I'm not looking for anything else but l'm really searching for that". But thought Foucault considered himself thoroughly Nietzschean, most would argue that there is quite a bit of Heidegger in his work and that he was at least greatly influenced by his interactions with post-structuralism, if not an explicitly post-structuralist thinker. (shrink)

This essay develops a new account of the work the self must perform on itself in disciplinary relations through the cultivation of resources from Foucault’s later work. By tracing the ethical self-relation from Greco-Roman antiquity to the Benedictine monastery, I am able to provide insight into the relationship of self-renunciation that underlies disciplinary docility and obedience. This self-renunciation undermines individuals’ ability to lead themselves and makes them reliant on another who has mastery of the truth through which the subject must (...) be constituted. Disciplinary relations were thus seen to be doubly efficacious in producing relations of domination: they attempt to eliminate the self- leadership of the individual which not only un- dermines the individual’s potential to resist; it leaves them in need of the dominating training that disciplinary relations institute. This insight into the activity of the individual in the produc- tion of their own docility was then used to clarify and develop aspects of two perennially enigmatic but powerful areas of Foucault’s work, his focus on “bodies and pleasures” and his turn to the “aesthetics of existence.”. (shrink)

Η μοντέρνα φιλοσοφία στράφηκε απευθείας στη φύση (Francis Bacon), στράφηκε απευθείας στο νου (René Descartes), στράφηκε απευθείας στην εμπειρία (Thomas Hobbes). Από αυτή τη βασική διαφωνία ως προς τις πηγές της φιλοσοφικής γνώσης προέκυψε η «διαμάχη των αρχαίων με τους σύγχρονους». -/- Η σύγχρονη φιλοσοφία αποστασιοποιήθηκε από το παγιωμένο γνωσιολογικό παρελθόν και ενστερνίστηκε την αρχή ότι η γνώση προοδεύει ιστορικά και κατατείνει στη διεύρυνση της ανθρώπινης κατανόησης μέσω της λογικής μεθόδου ή μέσω της εμπειρίας. Στη διαμάχη μεταξύ των ηπειρωτικών ορθολογιστών (...) φιλοσόφων (Descartes, Nicolas Malebranche, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz και Benedict de Spinoza) και των Βρετανών εμπειριστών (Hobbes, John Locke και David Hume) στο τέλος του Διαφωτισμού του δέκατου όγδοου αιώνα, ο Immanuel Kant επιχείρησε να συμφιλιώσει τις αντιθέσεις και να διατυπώσει μια νέα κριτική φιλοσοφία. Ο Immanuel Kant συγκέντρωσε στην «κριτική» του φιλοσοφία τις δεσμεύσεις για την αναλυτική άσκηση του νου, από τη μια, και την εμπειρική πρόσληψη μέσω των αισθήσεων, από την άλλη. Με τον Καντ, η σύγχρονη φιλοσοφία συνδύασε την «υπερβατική ενότητα της αντίληψης» με την «πολλαπλότητα της εμπειρίας». Η σύγχρονη φιλοσοφία δεν βασιζόταν πλέον σε μια θεωρία αναπαράστασης -αναπαράσταση του νου μέσω της λογικής ή αναπαράσταση του νου μέσω της εμπειρίας- αλλά στη σύνδεση της υπερβατικής υποκειμενικότητας και της εμπειρικής αντικειμενικότητας. Αυτό το «διπλό», όπως το ονόμασε ο Michel Foucault, αντιπροσώπευε έναν εντελώς νέο τρόπο φιλοσοφίας. Ο μοντερνισμός διακρίνεται από τη σύγχρονη φιλοσοφία στο ότι συνδέεται με ορισμένα κινήματα στην τέχνη και τη λογοτεχνία που ξεκίνησαν κάπου γύρω στα τέλη του δέκατου ένατου αιώνα. Ενώ βασιζόταν σε κάποια παρόμοια χαρακτηριστικά της «μοντέρνας φιλοσοφίας», ο μοντερνισμός στην τέχνη, τη λογοτεχνία και τη φιλοσοφία περιλάμβανε καινοτομία, ρήξη με την παράδοση, πρόοδο, συνεχή ανάπτυξη, γνώση που προέρχεται είτε από τη θέση του υποκειμένου είτε από αξιώσεις για αντικειμενικότητα, και ταυτόχρονα κρίση στη γνώση που παράγεται από αυτήν ακριβώς τη διχοτόμηση. Ως εκ τούτου, στον μοντερνισμό, την ίδια στιγμή που ορισμένες θεωρίες βασίζονταν στη γνώση σε μια επικεντρωμένη, υπερβατική, ερμηνευτική υποκειμενικότητα και άλλες βασίζονταν στη γνώση σε βέβαιη, ατομικιστική, αναλυτική, εμπειρική αντικειμενικότητα, η κρίση στη γνώση δημιούργησε μια αίσθηση αβεβαιότητας, παραδοξότητας, ατέλειας, ανεπάρκειας, κενό. Ο μοντερνισμός στην τέχνη και τη λογοτεχνία περιλάμβανε μια μετατόπιση από τις διχοτομίες του ρομαντισμού και του ρεαλισμού στο ρεύμα της συνείδησης, της βιωμένης και εσωτερικής συνείδησης του χρόνου, της υπερβατικής υποκειμενικότητας, της αφηγηματικής ανάμνησης και επίγνωσης, της απεικονιζόμενης ταχύτητας, των μηχανισμών, των αντικειμένων και των αφαιρέσεων. Το λανθάνον περιεχόμενο αφέθηκε να διεισδύσει μέσα από τις επιφάνειες εμφανούς περιεχομένου. Η κατανόηση θα έπρεπε να εμβαθύνει περισσότερο από τις επιφάνειες και τις απλές εμφανίσεις. Θα χρειαζόταν μια φαινομενολογία για την απογραφή του περιεχομένου της συνείδησης (Edmund Husserl) ή μια ψυχανάλυση για να διερευνήσει τα βάθη του τι σκεφτόταν πραγματικά ο νους (Sigmund Freud), ή ένας λογικός θετικισμός θα έπαιρνε την εναλλακτική οδό, αποκλείοντας κάθε γνώση που δεν μπορεί να επαληθευτεί λογικά και εμπειρικά (Bertrand Russell, πρώιμος Ludwig Wittgenstein, A. J. Ayer). Ο μοντερνισμός στη φιλοσοφία περιλάμβανε σε κάθε στάδιο τον καντιανό συνδυασμό του εμπειρικού και του υπερβατικού, του αντικειμενικού και του υποκειμενικού, του υλικού και του διανοητικού—αλλά κάθε φορά στη διπλή αυτή θεωρητική σύλληψη υπερίσχυε αξιακά και γνωσιολογικά ένας πόλος. -/- Η αποσύνθεση του μοντερνισμού στη φιλοσοφία ήταν εσωτερική. Οι ριζοσπαστικοί ισχυρισμοί του λογικού θετικισμού απέκλειαν ό,τι είχε αξία: τη μεταφυσική, την αισθητική, την αξιολογία. Η αυστηρή επιστήμη της υπερβατικής φαινομενολογίας απέκλεισε την ίδια την ύπαρξη αυτού που ερευνούσε. Ο δυϊσμός του δημιουργικού εξελικτισμού άφησε μια ανεπανόρθωτη διχοτόμηση μεταξύ βιωμένης εμπειρίας και αντικειμενικής γνώσης. Ο πραγματισμός του ριζοσπαστικού εμπειρισμού απέτυχε να προσφέρει έναν τρόπο ερμηνείας των νοημάτων της εμπειρίας. Το κέντρο του μοντερνισμού στη φιλοσοφία δεν μπορούσε να κρατήσει γιατί τα ίδια τα θεμέλιά του ήταν υπό αμφισβήτηση. Αλλά οι προσπάθειες να το ανακτήσει κανείς από τον εαυτό του με τη στροφή προς τη γλώσσα - καθημερινή γλώσσα, αναλυτικές φιλοσοφίες της γλώσσας, ερμηνευτική της γλώσσας, σημειολογίες της γλώσσαςδεν μπόρεσαν να λύσουν τα διλήμματα της ανθρώπινης ύπαρξης. Ο μοντερνισμός στη φιλοσοφία αντιμετώπισε το παράλογο, το διφορούμενο και το διαλεκτικό και εξώθησε αυτές τις θεωρίες στα όριά τους. Στα μέσα της δεκαετίας του 1960, η φιλοσοφία άρχισε να εξετάζει τους γνωσιολογικούς της, οι ανακρίσεις του Maurice Merleau-Ponty αναδιατυπώθηκαν στην αρχαιολογία της γνώσης του Foucault. Οι ανθρωπιστικές επιστήμες έθεσαν υπό αμφισβήτηση τις αισιοδοξίες της σύγχρονης φιλοσοφίας παρακάμπτοντας τη θεωρία του «ανθρώπου». Οι σχηματισμοί γνώσης αρθρώθηκαν με όρους πολλαπλών χώρων παραγωγής γνώσης και όχι πλέον σύμφωνα με μια κεντρική πηγή ή θέση, ή εγώ, ή εαυτός, ή υποκείμενο, ούτε σύμφωνα με μια πληθώρα αισθητηριακών δεδομένων, αντικειμενικών κριτηρίων, υλικών στοιχείων ή συμπεριφορών . Οι σχηματισμοί γνώσης διέσχιζαν τους κλάδους και λειτούργησαν σε πολλαπλούς χώρους όπου τα ερωτήματα της δομής, του πλαισίου, του περιθωρίου, του ορίου, της άκρης, του ορίου κ.λπ. θα σημάδευαν οποιαδήποτε πρακτική λόγου. Με άλλα λόγια, η γνώση δεν παράγεται πλέον από ένα κέντρο, θεμέλιο, έδαφος, βάση, ταυτότητα, εξουσία ή υπερβατική ικανότητα. Η γνώση ήταν διάσπαρτη, πολλαπλή, κατακερματισμένη και θεωρητικά ποικίλη. Η γνώση δεν βασιζόταν πλέον στη συνέχεια, την ενότητα, την ολότητα, την πληρότητα και τη συνέπεια. Η γνώση άρχισε να γίνεται κατανοητή με όρους ασυνέχειας, διαφοράς, διάδοσης και διαφορετικών. Στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1970, ο μεταμοντερνισμός - ένας όρος που χρησιμοποίησε ο Daniel Bell σε σχέση με τη μεταβιομηχανική κοινωνία τη δεκαετία του 1950, τον οποίο έκαναν έκκληση οι αρχιτέκτονες στη δεκαετία του 1960 και που οι ιστορικοί της τέχνης και της λογοτεχνίας επικαλέστηκαν τη δεκαετία του 1970 - δεν είχε ακόμη επικαλεστεί σε σχέση με τη φιλοσοφία. -/- Η γραμματολογία και η θεωρία της «διαφοράς» του Ζακ Ντεριντά το 1967 (με βάση την αφήγηση του Μάρτιν Χάιντεγκερ για το «τέλος της φιλοσοφίας και το έργο της σκέψης») μετατράπηκαν σε πλήρη αποδόμηση τη δεκαετία του 1970. Η έννοια του Gilles Deleuze και του Felix Guattari για τη ριζωματική σκέψη (σε αντίθεση με την ιεραρχική, εξουσιοδοτημένη δενδρώδη σκέψη) σηματοδότησε μια κίνηση ενάντια στις ψυχαναλυτικές θεωρίες που βασίζονται στην Οιδιπόδεια αυθεντία και την πατρική επιμονή. Η ιδέα τους για τον νομαδισμό έδωσε έμφαση στη γνώση, την εμπειρία και τις σχέσεις που δεν ήταν οργανωμένες γύρω από μια κεντρική έννοια. Η αφήγηση του J. Kristeva για την επανάσταση στην ποιητική γλώσσα σηματοδότησε τη διάκριση μεταξύ του σημειωτικού και του συμβολικού. Όπου η συμβολική —επιστημονική, θεωρητική, φαλλική, πατρική— σκέψη είχε διαποτίσει τη φιλοσοφία και την επιστήμη, η Kristeva επικαλέστηκε τη σημειωτική ως την ποιητική, ρευστή, σαν υποδοχέα, μητρική σκέψη που έχει κρυφτεί στη σύγχρονη σκέψη. Ωστόσο, το μεταμοντέρνο δεν ήταν σχεδόν ο όρος που χρησιμοποιήθηκε για να περιγράψει αυτό το είδος φιλοσοφίας. Αντίστοιχα, η πιο περιορισμένη μελέτη της φαινομενολογίας και του υπαρξισμού στη φιλοσοφία έδωσε τη θέση της στις πιο πολλαπλές και ποικιλόμορφες θεωρίες που υπονοούνται στην ηπειρωτική φιλοσοφία: αποδόμηση, αρχαιολογία της γνώσης, σημασιολογική ανάλυση, σχιζανάλυση, φεμινιστική θεωρία κ.λπ. Ωστόσο, ενώ ο μεταστρουκτουραλισμός (σε σχέση με τους Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Kristeva, et al.) χαιρετίστηκε ως ο διάδοχος του στρουκτουραλισμού (Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, Louis Althusser) και της υπαρξιακής φαινομενολογίας (Heidegger, Jean -Paul Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Simone de Beauvoir), ο μεταμοντερνισμός δεν ήταν ακόμα μια σχετική κατηγορία στη φιλοσοφία μέχρι και τη δεκαετία του 1980. Καθώς περνούσε ο καιρός, ο μεταμοντερνισμός και η μεταμοντέρνα σκέψη άρχισαν να υπερισχύουν του μεταστρουκτουραλισμού ως η κυρίαρχη θεωρητική διατύπωση. -/- . (shrink)

This is the first book-length philosophical study of Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and Freud’s theory of the unconscious. The book investigates the possibility for Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology to clarify Freud’s concept of the unconscious with a focus on the theory of repression as its centre. Repression is the unconscious activity of pushing something away from consciousness, while making sure that it remains active as something foreign within us. How this is possible is the main problem addressed in the work. Unlike previous (...) literature (including Ricœur, Merleau-Ponty and Derrida) this book makes full use of the resources of genetic phenomenology and passivity in the attempt to clarify the Freudian unconscious. The central argument developed is that the structure of the lebendige Gegenwart as the core of Husserl’s theory of passivity consists of preliminary forms of bodily kinaesthesia, feelings and drives in a constantly ongoing process where repression occurs as a necessary part of all constitution. The clarification of Freudian repression thus takes place by showing how it presupposes a broad conception of consciousness such as that presented by Husserl’s genetic phenomenology. By arguing that “repression” is central to any philosophical account of subjectivity, this book takes on the most distinct challenge to philosophy posed by Freud. (shrink)

Failing -- Ontology and desire in Dionysius the Areopagite -- Apophatic theology and its vicissitudes -- The death drive: from Freud to Žižek -- The gift and violence -- Divine violence as trauma -- Mystical theology and the four discourses -- Theology as failure.

First published in 1991. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Le discours psychiatrique s’établit au XIXe siècle par un corps médical qui reproduit des relations de pouvoir : dans le cas de l’hystérie, le corps médical (majoritairement masculin) impose un discours de vérité sur un corps féminin qui est celui de la patiente. C’est la dimension genrée de ce phénomène que nous chercherons à clarifier en ce qui a trait aux relations de pouvoir, en avançant la thèse que les hystériques se dressent comme figure de résistance devant le pouvoir psychiatrique (...) – cette résistance étant rendue possible par la réappropriation d’une parole dérobée dans la production d’un discours de vérité. Pour ce faire, nous présenterons en premier lieu les démarches de Charcot, puis de Freud et Breuer dans les études sur l’hystérie. Nous emprunterons ensuite le cadre conceptuel foucaldien pour analyser les relations de pouvoir qui se trouvent au cœur de ces deux exemples, et nous tenterons finalement de montrer comment les hystériques peuvent être vues comme « militantes », à partir d’une perspective critique et féministe. (shrink)

FEEL FREE TO CITE - IGNORE IN-PDF REQUEST The eight year gap between the publication of Volume I (1976) of The History of Sexuality and Volumes II and III (1984) has provoked a fair amount of debate within scholarly circles. Does it represent a fundamental rethinking of the analysis of power and knowledge begun in Volume I, or is something else at stake? And what does the shift in emphasis regarding power and resistance after these eight years ultimately entail? James (...) Miller’s influential, if often flawed, biography of Foucault has provided one of the leading interpretations of this gap in Foucault’s publishing career. On Miller’s account, the turn towards governmentality and technologies of the self represents something of a tacit admission of failure on Foucault’s part regarding his Volume I rendering of power and resistance.1 Now, it seems to me that there is something right about this reading – we can map a shift in Foucault’s consideration of power and resistance in this period, culminating in the 1982 essay, “The Subject and Power,” which it seems to me can be read as a perverse re-writing of the themes of Volume I. However, the idea that this eight year period represents a ‘hard break,’ or an introduction of an incommensurability between resistance as tactical reversal (Volume I) and resistance as.. (shrink)

In this paper, I will provide an interpretation of Foucauldian theoretical understanding on natures of power from sovereign power to biopolitics. In order to give further depth and texture to what he means by biopolitics, I will attempt to connect biopolitics with his earlier work Discipline and Punish. The term ‘biopolitics’ was actually mentioned by Foucault on the last chapter of his History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction, where he also claimed it as a technology of power linked to (...) biopower. Foucault wrote that the highest function of biopolitics is not to kill, but to invest life through and through in the machineries of production. If that is the case, then, biopolitics aims to ensure the longevity, health, and wellness of the social bodies. However, if biopolitics is the politics that safeguard life, how come that the innumerable individuals are situated in dire condition? To answer this question, the work of Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt will be used to understand further the nature of biopolitics and its effects in the social terrain specially in the contemporary society. (shrink)

Auschwitz is still the greatest challenge for philosophy and reason, rather than representing their end, as Lyotard most prominently seems to imply. The article shows how the evolution of the question of dialectics from Hegel to postmodernism must be thought in relation to Auschwitz. The critics of reason and Hegel such as Lyotard, Derrida and Foucault are highlighting the break between reason and unspeakable suffering, for which Auschwitz is the most prominent symbol, but reintroduce ‘behind’ the scene much more speculative (...) concepts than Hegel himself (Plasma by Lyotard, khora by Derrida and power as an absolute by Foucault). Adorno for his part thought that only a negative dialectics could address the problem adequately but transferred the unity of opposites just in the realm of utopia. But there is no negative (Adorno) or positive dialectics, only dialectics which mediates and posit the positive and the negative on a higher level. (shrink)

In his Philosophy of Redemption (1876) Philipp Mainländer transforms the Schopenhauerian will-to-life into his own concept of will-to-death, preceding Freud’s investigations into the death drive in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920). Mainländer’s post-Schopenhauerian conception that non-being is preferable to being anticipates Cioran’s discussion of suicide from A Short History of Decay (1949) and his vision of the “catastrophe” of birth from The Trouble with Being Born (1973). If, from a Nietzschean perspective, Mainländer’s and Cioran’s obsession with (...) class='Hi'>death was a symptom of passive nihilism, their thanatophilia may resonate with our anxious crepuscular mentality, prefiguring contemporary Antinatalism. (shrink)

This article shows that Paul Ricoeur and Carol Gilligan develop their theories of the self by borrowing critically from Freudian aesthetics, adding an ethical dimension missing in it. Ricoeur critiques, completes and endorses the Freudian interpretation of the Oedipus, while Gilligan rejects it, since she considers it distorted by patriarchal ideology. Both are reclaiming the Freudian theory of culture by focusing on what Freud called the «life drive» as opposed to the «death drive». But Ricoeur does not (...) pay the same attention as Gilligan to patriarchal ideology conveyed by Greek tragedies. Thus, his ethics remains deeply rooted in the language of the tragic conflict (Oedipus, Antigone), while Gilligan’s ethics seeks to renew the language of pleasure (Cupid and Psyche). -/- ----------- Cet article montre que Paul Ricœur et Carol Gilligan développent leurs théories du soi en puisant de manière critique à l’esthétique freudienne, y ajoutant la dimension éthique manquante. Si Ricœur critique, complète et entérine l’interprétation freudienne de l’Œdipe, Gilligan se distingue davantage de Freud, qu’elle juge biaisé par l’idéologie patriarcale. Tous deux se réapproprient la théorie freudienne de la culture en mettant l’accent sur ce que Freud appelait la «pulsion de vie» par opposition à la «pulsion de mort». Mais comme Ricœur n’accorde pas la même attention que Gilligan à l’idéologie patriarcale véhiculée par les tragédies grecques, son éthique reste profondément enracinée dans le langage du conflit tragique (Œdipe, Antigone), alors que celle de Gilligan cherche à renouveler le langage du plaisir (Cupidon et Psyché). (shrink)

In this article, I engage with Derrida’s deconstructive reading of theories of performativity in order to analyse Max Weber’s sovereignty–legitimacy paradigm. First, I highlight an essential articulation between legitimacy and sovereign ipseity (understood, beyond the sole example of State sovereignty, as the autopositioned power-to-be-oneself). Second, I identify a more originary force of legitimation, which remains foreign to the order of performative ipseity because it is the condition for both its position and its deconstruction. This suggests an essential fallibility of the (...) performative, which implies a ‘mystical’ legitimacy and a paradoxical, divisible and self-differential representation of sovereignty. The structural differentiality of legitimacy and sovereignty signifies an irreducible coloniality of law and language, but also suggests the possibility of an unconditional resistance located in the radical interpretability of the law, beyond determined representations of powers, dominations, sovereignties or resistances. This reflection is triggered by a reading of Cynthia Weber’s theory of ‘performative states’, describing sovereignty under the form of an impossible ontology, which leads me to elaborate the notion of legitimation-to-come as a non-ontological ‘concept’: this notion of unconditional legitimacy, beyond sovereignty, binds beliefs and phantasms to the unpresentable force of the event. Pursuing the efforts of scholars such as Rob Walker and Cynthia Weber, I sketch the implications of this archi-performative legitimacy regarding the methodological protocols of International Relations and sociology, in view of elucidating the persistent ontological presuppositions of these disciplines. (shrink)

Few scholars have explored the founding documents to identify the deliberate social change strategy that led to America's independence and a new form of government that was of, by, and for the people. This study aimed to apply a post-hoc polytheoretical framework of power to the findings of a democratic social change study to understand the dynamics of power between Great Britain and the American colonists. The original study employed the constructivist grounded theory tradition to explore democracy in the Declaration (...) of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, and the United States Constitution. This produced two frameworks of power strategies, one empowering and the other demoralizing: principles of democracy and anti-democratic tenets. To gain a holistic perspective of the interplay of power, a polytheoretical framework of power consisting of theories of power proposed by Marx and Engels, Bourdieu, and Foucault was employed to discuss the findings. The findings suggested that democratic social change interacts with structural forces, culture, and power strategy selection. This could provide an alternative lens through which to explore whether people of color in America were used instrumentally to sustain democracy. (shrink)

En el presente artículo se abordarán los aportes de Nietzsche, Freud y Marx, como fundadores de discurso, desde la perspectiva foucaultiana. Para ello, se trabajará con la ponencia "Nietzsche, Freud y Marx" realizada por Foucault en 1964. Foucault condensa en esta ponencia una obra que resulta muy rica, debido a que sintetiza de manera clara los aportes realizados por los "maestros de la sospecha". La riqueza de la obra radica en que expone un giro en las técnicas de la interpretación (...) que permite comprender a la hermenéutica, lejos del descifrado oculto de signos, como una estrategia de producción de nuevos símbolos, en la creación de nuevos imaginarios que construyen diversos y variados sentidos (Grüner, 1995: 11). De esta manera, en el presente escrito se planteará un acercamiento al empleo de las técnicas interpretativas que han llevado a cabo Nietzsche, Freud y Marx, como una forma de acceder a la hermenéutica de la sospecha propuesta por este trío. Para el desarrollo de esta propuesta partiremos de la caracterización general de los tres fundadores de discurso, para puntualizar en la impronta propia de la hermenéutica de cada uno. (shrink)

Many commentators have claimed that Nietzsche views the “sublimation” (Sublimierung) of drives as a positive achievement. Against this tradition, I argue that, on the dominant if not universal Nietzschean use of Sublimierung and its cognates, sublimation is just a broad psychological analogue of the traditional (al)chemical process: the “vaporization” of drives into a finer or lighter state, figuratively if not literally. This can yield ennobling elevation, or purity in a positive sense—the intensified “sublimate” of an unrefined original sample. But it (...) can also yield drives that are attenuated or otherworldly, in a pejorative sense. One (but only one) kind of Nietzschean sublimation is the “translation” of drives to “imaginative and spiritual” (Imaginative und Seelische) modes of expression. I con­clude that, despite certain appearances to the contrary, Nietzsche ultimately values basic drives’ powerful expression, without preferring either that this occur specifically as “higher culture” or as “savage” natural impulse. (shrink)

This response focuses on Balibar’s method of thinking transindividuality through multiple figures, in their similarities as well as their productive differences. His essay ‘Philosophies of the Transindividual: Spinoza, Marx, Freud’ combines the three titular figures in order to better think the multifaceted idea of ‘classical’ transindividuality. Balibar’s method combines the three but nonetheless maintains their dissimilarities as real differences. This response attempts to test or apply that method in two ways. The first application links Balibar’s analysis of Freud’s hypnotic leader (...) with a theme Balibar does not here discuss: wonder’s connection to superstition in Spinoza. At the level of their effects, superstitious wonder and hypnosis are nearly identical transindividual processes which lead to affective mass formation. However, their causes are quite distinct. This response details the similar effects and different causes, then asks the question: does their difference render them irreconcilable or complementary? Given the prominent role Spinoza plays in Balibar’s work, and the strong overall equivalence of wonder and hypnosis, this first application of Balibar’s method of multiple combination likely presents a complementarity rather than a conflict. This response’s second application, attempting to integrate another figure into the transindividual multiple, presents greater difficulties: what role, if any, could Foucault play in Balibar’s transindividuality? With Foucault, the tensions or differences perhaps amount to fundamental and thoroughgoing incompatibilities. However, combining Foucault with ‘classical’ transindividuality potentially extends and deepens each. This response concludes with examples of these problematic tensions as well as possibly fruitful combinations. (shrink)

This article presents a new account of the relationship between Michel Foucault’s work and neoliberalism, aiming to show that the relationship is significantly more complicated than either Foucault’s critics or defenders have appreciated in the recent controversy. On the one hand, I argue that Foucault’s salutary response to some of Gary Becker’s ideas in the lecture course from 1979 should be read together with the argument of Discipline and Punish. By means of this contextualization I show that Foucault’s sympathetic response (...) to Becker is limited to the domain of penal practices, specifically concerning the question of how to resist their rationality of normalization, and thus it involves no broader commitment to neoliberal economic theory or its political implications. On the other hand, however, I argue that there is a strategic allegiance between Foucault’s work and the ascendance of the neoliberal rationality of governing, although it has nothing to do with his sympathetic engagement with Becker’s work. Instead, I explain how Foucault’s focus on the political stakes of subjectivity has helped to congeal, in the posthumous neoliberal context, a conception of politics that leaves out the topic of economic equality. To explain how Foucault’s work has had this unintended yet lasting effect, I introduce the concept of topical exclusion. It designates a social mechanism of producing ignorance, which operates by directing attention instead of creating false consciousness. The strategic relationship between Foucault’s work and neoliberalism today illustrates that this type of explanation is essential in the analysis of power relations. Thus, my account motivates the adoption of topical exclusion as a conceptual supplement that equips the Foucaultian framework to study cases in which relations of power harness, produce, and sustain ignorance, not knowledge. (shrink)

Although Foucault’s 1979 lectures on The Birth of Biopolitics promised to treat the theme of biopolitics, the course deals at length with neoliberalism while mentioning biopolitics hardly at all. Some scholars account for this elision by claiming that Foucault sympathized with neoliberalism; I argue on the contrary that Foucault develops a penetrating critique of the neoliberal claim to preserve individual liberty. Following Foucault, I show that the Chicago economist Gary Becker exemplifies what Foucault describes elsewhere as biopolitics: a form of (...) power applied to the behavior of a population through the normalizing use of statistics. Although Becker’s preference for indirect intervention might seem to preserve the independence of individuals, under biopolitics individual liberty is itself the means by which populations are governed indirectly. In my view, by describing the history and ambivalence of neoliberal biopolitics, Foucault fosters a critical vigilance that is the precondition for creative political resistance. (shrink)

Nietzsche sometimes praises the drive to order—to simplify, organize, and draw clear boundaries—as expressive of a vital "classical" style, or an Apollonian artistic drive to calmly contemplate forms displaying "epic definiteness and clarity." But he also sometimes harshly criticizes order, as in the pathological dialectics or "logical schematism" that he associates paradigmatically with Socrates. I challenge a tradition that interprets Socratism as an especially one-sided expression of, or restricted form of attention to, the Apollonian: they are more radically (...) disparate. Beyond strengthening the case for this basic point, I develop a distinctive account of what, exactly, distinguishes the Apollonian-classical and Socratic forms of order. To this end, I advance interrelated interpretations of Apollonian-classical simplicity and the "cold" calm that it elicits, by contrast to superficially similar Socratic phenomena. This illuminates Nietzsche's broader ambivalence toward science, in part by clarifying the nature and value of an idealized Apollonian science. (shrink)

This paper argues for a distinctive concept of "infopolitics" as a theoretical tool for understanding how new regimes of data are exerting increasing political control of our lives. It seems almost undeniable today that there is a politics at stake in such ubiquitous features of our society as social media interaction, electioneering (and election hacking) through those interactions, cell phone addiction, personal information monetization, the lack of security in personal data markets, and massively-scaled state surveillance. Yet, even if the fact (...) of the politics of these domains is now in view, what is insufficiently understood is how such a politics functions. What characterizes the politics of all of this data that is driving so much of our lives? To put the question in the terms afforded us by the political philosophy of Michel Foucault: what is the modality of power expressed in our contemporary politics of information? In response to these questions, this paper argues that the modality of "infopower" operates on us through the formats of data. (shrink)

Foucault's theory of power and subjectification challenges common concepts of freedom in social philosophy and expands them through the concept of 'freedom as critique': Freedom can be defined as the capability to critically reflect one's own subjectification, and the conditions of possibility for this critical capacity lie in political and social institutions. The article develops this concept through a critical discussion of the standard response by Foucault interpreters to the standard objection that Foucault's thinking obscures freedom. The standard response interprets (...) Fou-cault's later works, especially The Subject and Power, as a solution to the problem of freedom. It is mistaken, because it conflates different concepts of freedom that are present in Foucault's work. By differentiating these concepts, this paper proposes a new institutionalist approach to solve the problem of freedom that breaks with the partly anarchist underpinnings of Foucault scholarship: As freedom as critique is not given, but itself a result of subjectification, it entails a demand for 'modal robustness' and must therefore be institutionalized. This approach helps to draw out the consequences of Foucault's thinking on freedom for postfoundationalist democratic theory and the general social-philosophical discussion on freedom. (shrink)

The classical theory of sovereignty describes sovereignty as absolute and undivided yet no early modern state could claim such features. Historical record instead suggests that sovereignty was always divided and contested. In this article I argue that Foucault offers a competing account of sovereignty that underlines such features and is thus more historically apt. While commentators typically assume that Foucault’s understanding of sovereignty is borrowed from the classical theory, I demonstrate instead that he offers a sui generis interpretation, which results (...) from the application of his general strategic conception of power to sovereignty itself. In construing sovereignty through a “matrix” of civil war, Foucault thus deprives it of the absoluteness traditionally attributed to it. Instead, he views sovereignty as constituted by conflictual and mobile power relations, a precarious political technology that deploys violence to restore its authority. I also motivate Foucault’s contention that popular sovereignty remains fundamentally continuous with the absolutist sovereignty it succeeds, insofar as it masks and thereby perpetuates unequal power relations in conditions of social conflict. According to Foucault, sovereignty is not a fact of power but a contestory claim, a discourse whose mutability helps to explain its persistence today. (shrink)

Freud held complex and fascinating views on the question of mental causation. In this chapter, I propose an interpretation of Freud's views on this question, bringing together ideas from psychoanalysis, philosophy of psychoanalysis, and philosophy of mind. Faced with the impasse of the problem of how the mind interacts with the body, Freud created a two-dimensional picture of mental causation, with one dimension involving mechanistic causes and the other involving intentional causes. My thesis is that Freud's best-developed picture of mental (...) causation thesis describes mental causes as intentional causes using psychological vocabulary. I analyze three moments in Freud's work with a focus on mental causation. In the first topography, Freud uses a hybrid vocabulary, describing the mind in terms of both mechanistic causes and intentional causes. In his second topography, the mind increasingly assumes an intentional description. The third moment is Freud’s theory of anxiety, in which the arational cause of the unconscious drives, initially presented as a motor of the mind, gives rise to anxiety as an affective state that forces the self to find a solution for its mental conflicts. In the last part, I argue that Freud’s theory gradually moves from a reductionist approach to the mind-body problem on which mental causation is understood in terms of physical mechanisms, to a non-reductionist view where the mental becomes causally efficacious in its own right. (shrink)

This paper elaborates some of the conceptual implications of Derrida’s call for “another thinking of life” in Voyous: Deux essais sur la raison. The paper first argues that Derrida’s deconstruction of the opposition between metaphorical and literal uses of the discourse of life in La vie la mort is radicalized in Voyous when he argues that democracy’s “autoimmunitary suicide” should be the point of departure for rethinking life in general. To understand further these autoimmune-suicidal tendencies, the paper turns to Derrida’s (...) engagement with Aristotle’s conceptual figure of the prime mover in Voyous. The paper argues that Derrida turns to Aristotle because the prime mover illustrates the ways in which the concept of life remains historically and structurally informed by the philosophical value of ipseitocratic sovereignty, which is allergic to the disseminatory, proliferating, and improper qualities that the philosophical tradition has always ascribed to democracy. Autoimmunity thus provides a way for thinking of a democratic life that is not entirely determined by the teleological power of any divinely good life. (shrink)

Beyond the eras a dialogue seems to have been established between Bruegel the Elder (1525-1569) and Antonin Artaud (1896-1948). The poet’s wonder at the « painting of the North », both realistic and emblematic, reveals his deepest ideal as an artist : painting, a « magical » operation, deploys a power of expression based on signs and no longer on words, which the theatre is also called upon to seize. The juxtaposition of Bruegel’s Triumph of Death and a famous (...) drawing by Artaud, Le Théâtre de la cruauté [The Theatre of Cruelty], highlights the striking convergences between the two artists. Through their pictorial works, both of them renew over the centuries the funerary and mythical symbolism of death, inherited from the macabre scenes of medieval paintings, but also from ancient times. Studying the references to theatrical iconography in Bruegel’s painting, where carnival and crudity of death reinforce each other, allows us to deepen the meaning of these resonances. For the two artists, form and poetic momentum meet so that representation, as a structure common to painting and theatre, fixes a moment of the world, while animating that moment to infinity, thanks to signs conceived as « true hieroglyphs » (Artaud), a problem that Michel Foucault associated with the strongest truth that the experience of madness carries. (shrink)

In this essay I propose a new reading of Michel Foucault’s main thesis about biopower and biopolitics. I argue that organisation represents the neglected key to Foucault’s new conceptualisation of power as something that is less political and more organisational. This unique contribution was lost even on his closest interlocutors. Foucault’s work on power had a strong influence on organisation and management theory but interestingly not for the reasons I am proposing. In fact, although theorists in management and organisation studies (...) have emphasised power in relation to discipline, control and subjectivity they have overlooked the transformative meaning of Foucault’s organisation. His work on biopolitics has attracted opposition, too, as evidenced by the controversy sparked by Giorgio Agamben about Foucault’s biopolitics. From Agamben’s critique, it appears that Foucault’s notions of politics and power do not allow a deconstruction of the violence of the concentration camp. However, a critical reading of Primo Levi’s biographical narratives reveals the camp as a place where the prisoners’ability to organise their daily lives secured survival. To make sense of Levi’s revelation, I use John Dewey’s notion of habits as forms of organisation and reconnect it to Foucault’s organisation. A shared understanding of the objective conditions of human activity and experience highlights the similarities between Dewey’s pragmatism and Foucault’s pragmatic metaphysics. In the end, however, Foucault’s metaphysical background has caught up with him, pushing him away from his own most radical proposal that organisation was the new form of power and the new substance of politics. (shrink)

In de jaren vijftig raakte Michel Foucault gefascineerd door de fenomenologische psychologie. Vanaf de jaren zestig echter presenteert hij zichzelf als een ‘structuralist’ die slechts anonieme talige en architectonische structuren wil analyseren en die met nadruk wil afzien van elke interesse in de mens als individu of als subject. De psycholoog in hemzelf wordt als het ware hartstochtelijk verdrongen. Toch is er ook in het geval van Foucault sprake van een onvermijdelijke terugkeer van het verdrongene. Een belangrijk symptoom hiervan vormt (...) zijn opvallend ambivalente houding jegens de psychoanalyse. In zijn werk tekent zich een levenslange polemiek af met Freud, soms expliciet, doorgaans impliciet. Ondanks onmiskenbare sporen van latente bewondering en fascinatie blijft wantrouwen domineren. Steen des aanstoots vormen Freuds Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie uit 1905. Volgens Foucault spreekt hieruit een medicalisering van de seksualiteit, die zich uit in medicaliserende technieken zoals het oprakelen en uitspreken van verlangens en de classificatie van ‘normale’ en ‘perverse’ vormen van seksualiteit. (shrink)