Мишель Фуко

«Фуко» перенаправляется сюда. Чтобы узнать о других значениях, см. Фуко (значения) .

Мишель Фуко
Фуко в 1974 году
Рожденный	Поль-Мишель Фуко 15 октября 1926 г. Пуатье , Франция
Умер	25 June 1984(1984-06-25) (aged 57) Paris, France
Education	École normale supérieure (BA, MA) University of Paris (BA, SpDip, PhD)
Notable work	Madness and Civilization (1961) The Birth of the Clinic (1963) The Order of Things (1966) Discipline and Punish (1975) The History of Sexuality (1976)
Partner	Daniel Defert
Region	Western philosophy
School	Continental philosophy French Nietzscheanism Post-structuralism Non-representational theory
Institutions	École Normale Supérieure (1951–55) Université de Lille (1953–54) Uppsala University University of Warsaw Institut français Hamburg University of Clermont-Ferrand Tunis University University of Paris VIII Collège de France University at Buffalo University of California, Berkeley New York University
Doctoral advisor	Georges Canguilhem
Main interests	Ethics, historical epistemology, history of ideas, philosophy of literature, philosophy of technology, political philosophy
Notable ideas	Biopower (biopolitics), disciplinary institution, discourse analysis, discursive formation, dispositif, épistémè, "archaeology", "Carceral archipelago", "genealogy", governmentality, heterotopia, gaze, limit-experience, power-knowledge, panopticism, subjectivation (assujettissement), parrhesia, epimeleia heautou, visibilités, Regimes of truth
Signature

Поль-Мишель Фуко (англ. Великобритания : / ˈ f uː k oʊ / FOO -koh , США : / f uː ˈ k oʊ / foo- KOH ; Французский: [pɔl miʃɛl fuko] ; 15 октября 1926 — 25 июня 1984) — французский историк идей и философ, писатель, литературный критик , политический деятель и педагог. Теории Фуко в первую очередь касались отношений между властью , знаниями и свободой , и он проанализировал, как они используются в качестве формы социального контроля через множество институтов. Хотя Фуко часто называют структуралистом и постмодернистом , он отверг эти ярлыки и стремился критиковать авторитет без ограничений для себя. Его мысли оказали влияние на ученых в большом количестве противоположных областей исследования, особенно на тех, кто работает в области антропологии , коммуникативных исследований , криминологии , культурологии , феминизма , теории литературы , психологии и социологии . Его усилия против гомофобии и расовых предрассудков , а также против других идеологических доктрин также сформировали исследования критической теории и марксизма-ленинизма наряду с другими темами.

Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing, which he called "archaeology".

From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and other violations of human rights, focusing on struggles such as penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.

Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS. He became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease, with his charisma and career influence changing mass awareness of the pandemic. This occurrence influenced HIV/AIDS activism; his partner, Daniel Defert, founded the AIDES charity in his memory. It continues to campaign as of 2024 despite the deaths of both Defert and Foucault.

Early life

Early years: 1926–1938

Paul-Michel Foucault was born on 15 October 1926 in the city of Poitiers, west-central France, as the second of three children in a prosperous, socially conservative, upper-middle-class family. Family tradition prescribed naming him after his father, Paul Foucault (1893–1959), but his mother insisted on the addition of Michel; referred to as Paul at school, he expressed a preference for "Michel" throughout his life.

His father, a successful local surgeon born in Fontainebleau, moved to Poitiers, where he set up his own practice. He married Anne Malapert, the daughter of prosperous surgeon Dr. Prosper Malapert, who owned a private practice and taught anatomy at the University of Poitiers' School of Medicine. Paul Foucault eventually took over his father-in-law's medical practice, while Anne took charge of their large mid-19th-century house, Le Piroir, in the village of Vendeuvre-du-Poitou. Together the couple had three children—a girl named Francine and two boys, Paul-Michel and Denys—who all shared the same fair hair and bright blue eyes. The children were raised to be nominal Catholics, attending mass at the Church of Saint-Porchair, and while Michel briefly became an altar boy, none of the family was devout. Michel is not related to the physicist Léon Foucault.

In later life, Foucault revealed very little about his childhood. Describing himself as a "juvenile delinquent", he said his father was a "bully" who sternly punished him. In 1930, two years early, Foucault began his schooling at the local Lycée Henry-IV. There he undertook two years of elementary education before entering the main lycée, where he stayed until 1936. Afterwards, he took his first four years of secondary education at the same establishment, excelling in French, Greek, Latin, and history, though doing poorly at mathematics, including arithmetic.

Teens to young adulthood: 1939–1945

In 1939, the Second World War began, followed by Nazi Germany's occupation of France in 1940. Foucault's parents opposed the occupation and the Vichy regime, but did not join the Resistance. That year, Foucault's mother enrolled him in the Collège Saint-Stanislas, a strict Catholic institution run by the Jesuits. Although he later described his years there as an "ordeal", Foucault excelled academically, particularly in philosophy, history, and literature. In 1942 he entered his final year, the terminale, where he focused on the study of philosophy, earning his baccalauréat in 1943.

Returning to the local Lycée Henry-IV, he studied history and philosophy for a year, aided by a personal tutor, the philosopher Louis Girard. Rejecting his father's wishes that he become a surgeon, in 1945 Foucault went to Paris, where he enrolled in one of the country's most prestigious secondary schools, which was also known as the Lycée Henri-IV. Here he studied under the philosopher Jean Hyppolite, an existentialist and expert on the work of 19th-century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hyppolite had devoted himself to uniting existentialist theories with the dialectical theories of Hegel and Karl Marx. These ideas influenced Foucault, who adopted Hyppolite's conviction that philosophy must develop through a study of history.

University studies: 1946–1951

I wasn't always smart, I was actually very stupid in school ... [T]here was a boy who was very attractive who was even stupider than I was. And to ingratiate myself with this boy who was very beautiful, I began to do his homework for him—and that's how I became smart, I had to do all this work to just keep ahead of him a little bit, to help him. In a sense, all the rest of my life I've been trying to do intellectual things that would attract beautiful boys.

— Michel Foucault, 1983

In autumn 1946, attaining excellent results, Foucault was admitted to the élite École Normale Supérieure (ENS), for which he undertook exams and an oral interrogation by Georges Canguilhem and Pierre-Maxime Schuhl to gain entry. Of the hundred students entering the ENS, Foucault ranked fourth based on his entry results, and encountered the highly competitive nature of the institution. Like most of his classmates, he lived in the school's communal dormitories on the Parisian Rue d'Ulm.

He remained largely unpopular, spending much time alone, reading voraciously. His fellow students noted his love of violence and the macabre; he decorated his bedroom with images of torture and war drawn during the Napoleonic Wars by Spanish artist Francisco Goya, and on one occasion chased a classmate with a dagger. Prone to self-harm, in 1948 Foucault allegedly attempted suicide; his father sent him to see the psychiatrist Jean Delay at the Sainte-Anne Hospital Center. Obsessed with the idea of self-mutilation and suicide, Foucault attempted the latter several times in ensuing years, praising suicide in later writings. The ENS's doctor examined Foucault's state of mind, suggesting that his suicidal tendencies emerged from the distress surrounding his homosexuality, because same-sex sexual activity was socially taboo in France. At the time, Foucault engaged in homosexual activity with men whom he encountered in the underground Parisian gay scene, also indulging in drug use; according to biographer James Miller, he enjoyed the thrill and sense of danger that these activities offered him.

Although studying various subjects, Foucault soon gravitated towards philosophy, reading not only Hegel and Marx but also Immanuel Kant, Edmund Husserl and most significantly, Martin Heidegger. He began reading the publications of philosopher Gaston Bachelard, taking a particular interest in his work exploring the history of science. He graduated from the ENS with a B.A. (licence) in Philosophy in 1948 and a DES (diplôme d'études supérieures, roughly equivalent to an M.A.) in Philosophy in 1949. His DES thesis under the direction of Hyppolite was titled La Constitution d'un transcendental dans La Phénoménologie de l'esprit de Hegel (The Constitution of a Historical Transcendental in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit).

In 1948, the philosopher Louis Althusser became a tutor at the ENS. A Marxist, he influenced both Foucault and a number of other students, encouraging them to join the French Communist Party. Foucault did so in 1950, but never became particularly active in its activities, and never adopted an orthodox Marxist viewpoint, rejecting core Marxist tenets such as class struggle. He soon became dissatisfied with the bigotry that he experienced within the party's ranks; he personally faced homophobia and was appalled by the anti-semitism exhibited during the 1952–53 "Doctors' plot" in the Soviet Union. He left the Communist Party in 1953, but remained Althusser's friend and defender for the rest of his life. Although failing at the first attempt in 1950, he passed his agrégation in philosophy on the second try, in 1951. Excused from national service on medical grounds, he decided to start a doctorate at the Fondation Thiers in 1951, focusing on the philosophy of psychology, but he relinquished it after only one year in 1952.

Foucault was also interested in psychology and he attended Daniel Lagache's lectures at the University of Paris, where he obtained a B.A. (licence) in psychology in 1949 and a Diploma in Psychopathology (Diplôme de psychopathologie) from the university's institute of psychology (now Institut de psychologie de l'université Paris Descartes) in June 1952.

Early career (1951–1960)

In the early 1950s, Foucault came under the influence of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who remained a core influence on his work throughout his life.

France: 1951–1955

Over the following few years, Foucault embarked on a variety of research and teaching jobs. From 1951 to 1955, he worked as a psychology instructor at the ENS at Althusser's invitation. In Paris, he shared a flat with his brother, who was training to become a surgeon, but for three days in the week commuted to the northern town of Lille, teaching psychology at the Université de Lille from 1953 to 1954. Many of his students liked his lecturing style. Meanwhile, he continued working on his thesis, visiting the Bibliothèque Nationale every day to read the work of psychologists like Ivan Pavlov, Jean Piaget and Karl Jaspers. Undertaking research at the psychiatric institute of the Sainte-Anne Hospital, he became an unofficial intern, studying the relationship between doctor and patient and aiding experiments in the electroencephalographic laboratory. Foucault adopted many of the theories of the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, undertaking psychoanalytical interpretation of his dreams and making friends undergo Rorschach tests.

Embracing the Parisian avant-garde, Foucault entered into a romantic relationship with the serialist composer Jean Barraqué. Together, they tried to produce their greatest work, heavily used recreational drugs and engaged in sado-masochistic sexual activity. In August 1953, Foucault and Barraqué holidayed in Italy, where the philosopher immersed himself in Untimely Meditations (1873–1876), a set of four essays by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Later describing Nietzsche's work as "a revelation", he felt that reading the book deeply affected him, being a watershed moment in his life. Foucault subsequently experienced another groundbreaking self-revelation when watching a Parisian performance of Samuel Beckett's new play, Waiting for Godot, in 1953.

Interested in literature, Foucault was an avid reader of the philosopher Maurice Blanchot's book reviews published in Nouvelle Revue Française. Enamoured of Blanchot's literary style and critical theories, in later works he adopted Blanchot's technique of "interviewing" himself. Foucault also came across Hermann Broch's 1945 novel The Death of Virgil, a work that obsessed both him and Barraqué. While the latter attempted to convert the work into an epic opera, Foucault admired Broch's text for its portrayal of death as an affirmation of life. The couple took a mutual interest in the work of such authors as the Marquis de Sade, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Franz Kafka and Jean Genet, all of whose works explored the themes of sex and violence.

I belong to that generation who, as students, had before their eyes, and were limited by, a horizon consisting of Marxism, phenomenology and existentialism. For me the break was first Beckett's Waiting for Godot, a breathtaking performance.

— Michel Foucault, 1983

Interested in the work of Swiss psychologist Ludwig Binswanger, Foucault aided family friend Jacqueline Verdeaux in translating his works into French. Foucault was particularly interested in Binswanger's studies of Ellen West who, like himself, had a deep obsession with suicide, eventually killing herself. In 1954, Foucault authored an introduction to Binswanger's paper "Dream and Existence", in which he argued that dreams constituted "the birth of the world" or "the heart laid bare", expressing the mind's deepest desires. That same year, Foucault published his first book, Maladie mentale et personalité (Mental Illness and Personality), in which he exhibited his influence from both Marxist and Heideggerian thought, covering a wide range of subject matter from the reflex psychology of Pavlov to the classic psychoanalysis of Freud. Referencing the work of sociologists and anthropologists such as Émile Durkheim and Margaret Mead, he presented his theory that illness was culturally relative. Biographer James Miller noted that while the book exhibited "erudition and evident intelligence", it lacked the "kind of fire and flair" which Foucault exhibited in subsequent works. It was largely critically ignored, receiving only one review at the time. Foucault grew to despise it, unsuccessfully attempting to prevent its republication and translation into English.

Sweden, Poland, and West Germany: 1955–1960

Foucault spent the next five years abroad, first in Sweden, working as cultural diplomat at the University of Uppsala, a job obtained through his acquaintance with historian of religion Georges Dumézil. At Uppsala he was appointed a Reader in French language and literature, while simultaneously working as director of the Maison de France, thus opening the possibility of a cultural-diplomatic career. Although finding it difficult to adjust to the "Nordic gloom" and long winters, he developed close friendships with two Frenchmen, biochemist Jean-François Miquel and physicist Jacques Papet-Lépine, and entered into romantic and sexual relationships with various men. In Uppsala he became known for his heavy alcohol consumption and reckless driving in his new Jaguar car. In spring 1956 Barraqué broke from his relationship with Foucault, announcing that he wanted to leave the "vertigo of madness". In Uppsala, Foucault spent much of his spare time in the university's Carolina Rediviva library, making use of their Bibliotheca Walleriana collection of texts on the history of medicine for his ongoing research. Finishing his doctoral thesis, Foucault hoped that Uppsala University would accept it, but Sten Lindroth, a positivistic historian of science there, remained unimpressed, asserting that it was full of speculative generalisations and was a poor work of history; he refused to allow Foucault to be awarded a doctorate at Uppsala. In part because of this rejection, Foucault left Sweden. Later, Foucault admitted that the work was a first draft with certain lack of quality.

Again at Dumézil's behest, in October 1958 Foucault arrived in the capital of the Polish People's Republic, Warsaw and took charge of the University of Warsaw's Centre Français. Foucault found life in Poland difficult due to the lack of material goods and services following the destruction of the Second World War. Witnessing the aftermath of the Polish October of 1956, when students had protested against the governing communist Polish United Workers' Party, he felt that most Poles despised their government as a puppet regime of the Soviet Union, and thought that the system ran "badly". Considering the university a liberal enclave, he traveled the country giving lectures; proving popular, he adopted the position of de facto cultural attaché. Like France and Sweden, Poland legally tolerated but socially frowned on homosexual activity, and Foucault undertook relationships with a number of men; one was with a Polish security agent who hoped to trap Foucault in an embarrassing situation, which therefore would reflect badly on the French embassy. Wracked in diplomatic scandal, he was ordered to leave Poland for a new destination. Various positions were available in West Germany, and so Foucault relocated to the Institut français Hamburg (where he served as director in 1958–1960), teaching the same courses he had given in Uppsala and Warsaw. Spending much time in the Reeperbahn red light district, he entered into a relationship with a transvestite.

Growing career (1960–1970)

Madness and Civilization: 1960

Histoire de la folie is not an easy text to read, and it defies attempts to summarise its contents. Foucault refers to a bewildering variety of sources, ranging from well-known authors such as Erasmus and Molière to archival documents and forgotten figures in the history of medicine and psychiatry. His erudition derives from years pondering, to cite Poe, 'over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore', and his learning is not always worn lightly.

— Foucault biographer David Macey, 1993

In West Germany, Foucault completed in 1960 his primary thesis (thèse principale) for his State doctorate, titled Folie et déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique (trans. "Madness and Insanity: History of Madness in the Classical Age"), a philosophical work based upon his studies into the history of medicine. The book discussed how West European society had dealt with madness, arguing that it was a social construct distinct from mental illness. Foucault traces the evolution of the concept of madness through three phases: the Renaissance, the later 17th and 18th centuries, and the modern experience. The work alludes to the work of French poet and playwright Antonin Artaud, who exerted a strong influence over Foucault's thought at the time.

Histoire de la folie was an expansive work, consisting of 943 pages of text, followed by appendices and a bibliography. Foucault submitted it at the University of Paris, although the university's regulations for awarding a State doctorate required the submission of both his main thesis and a shorter complementary thesis. Obtaining a doctorate in France at the period was a multi-step process. The first step was to obtain a rapporteur, or "sponsor" for the work: Foucault chose Georges Canguilhem. The second was to find a publisher, and as a result Folie et déraison was published in French in May 1961 by the company Plon, whom Foucault chose over Presses Universitaires de France after being rejected by Gallimard. In 1964, a heavily abridged version was published as a mass market paperback, then translated into English for publication the following year as Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.

Folie et déraison received a mixed reception in France and in foreign journals focusing on French affairs. Although it was critically acclaimed by Maurice Blanchot, Michel Serres, Roland Barthes, Gaston Bachelard, and Fernand Braudel, it was largely ignored by the leftist press, much to Foucault's disappointment. It was notably criticised for advocating metaphysics by young philosopher Jacques Derrida in a March 1963 lecture at the University of Paris. Responding with a vicious retort, Foucault criticised Derrida's interpretation of René Descartes. The two remained bitter rivals until reconciling in 1981. In the English-speaking world, the work became a significant influence on the anti-psychiatry movement during the 1960s; Foucault took a mixed approach to this, associating with a number of anti-psychiatrists but arguing that most of them misunderstood his work.

Foucault's secondary thesis (thèse complémentaire), written in Hamburg between 1959 and 1960, was a translation and commentary on German philosopher Immanuel Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798); the thesis was titled Introduction à l'Anthropologie. Largely consisting of Foucault's discussion of textual dating—an "archaeology of the Kantian text"—he rounded off the thesis with an evocation of Nietzsche, his biggest philosophical influence. This work's rapporteur was Foucault's old tutor and then-director of the ENS, Hyppolite, who was well acquainted with German philosophy. After both theses were championed and reviewed, he underwent his public defense of his doctoral thesis (soutenance de thèse) on 20 May 1961. The academics responsible for reviewing his work were concerned about the unconventional nature of his major thesis; reviewer Henri Gouhier noted that it was not a conventional work of history, making sweeping generalisations without sufficient particular argument, and that Foucault clearly "thinks in allegories". They all agreed however that the overall project was of merit, awarding Foucault his doctorate "despite reservations".

University of Clermont-Ferrand, The Birth of the Clinic, and The Order of Things: 1960–1966

In October 1960, Foucault took a tenured post in philosophy at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, commuting to the city every week from Paris, where he lived in a high-rise block on the rue du Dr Finlay. Responsible for teaching psychology, which was subsumed within the philosophy department, he was considered a "fascinating" but "rather traditional" teacher at Clermont. The department was run by Jules Vuillemin, who soon developed a friendship with Foucault. Foucault then took Vuillemin's job when the latter was elected to the Collège de France in 1962. In this position, Foucault took a dislike to another staff member whom he considered stupid: Roger Garaudy, a senior figure in the Communist Party. Foucault made life at the university difficult for Garaudy, leading the latter to transfer to Poitiers. Foucault also caused controversy by securing a university job for his lover, the philosopher Daniel Defert, with whom he retained a non-monogamous relationship for the rest of his life.

Foucault adored the work of Raymond Roussel and wrote a literary study of it.

Foucault maintained a keen interest in literature, publishing reviews in literary journals, including Tel Quel and Nouvelle Revue Française, and sitting on the editorial board of Critique, In May 1963, he published a book devoted to poet, novelist, and playwright Raymond Roussel. It was written in under two months, published by Gallimard, and was described by biographer David Macey as "a very personal book" that resulted from a "love affair" with Roussel's work. It was published in English in 1983 as Death and the Labyrinth: The World of Raymond Roussel. Receiving few reviews, it was largely ignored. That same year he published a sequel to Folie et déraison, titled Naissance de la Clinique, subsequently translated as The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Shorter than its predecessor, it focused on the changes that the medical establishment underwent in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Like his preceding work, Naissance de la Clinique was largely critically ignored, but later gained a cult following. It was of interest within the field of medical ethics, as it considered the ways in which the history of medicine and hospitals, and the training that those working within them receive, bring about a particular way of looking at the body: the 'medical gaze'. Foucault was also selected to be among the "Eighteen Man Commission" that assembled between November 1963 and March 1964 to discuss university reforms that were to be implemented by Christian Fouchet, the Gaullist Minister of National Education. Implemented in 1967, they brought staff strikes and student protests.

In April 1966, Gallimard published Foucault's Les Mots et les Choses (Words and Things), later translated as The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Exploring how man came to be an object of knowledge, it argued that all periods of history have possessed certain underlying conditions of truth that constituted what was acceptable as scientific discourse. Foucault argues that these conditions of discourse have changed over time, from one period's épistémè to another. Although designed for a specialist audience, the work gained media attention, becoming a surprise bestseller in France. Appearing at the height of interest in structuralism, Foucault was quickly grouped with scholars such as Jacques Lacan, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Roland Barthes, as the latest wave of thinkers set to topple the existentialism popularized by Jean-Paul Sartre. Although initially accepting this description, Foucault soon vehemently rejected it, because he "never posited a universal theory of discourse, but rather sought to describe the historical forms taken by discoursive practices". Foucault and Sartre regularly criticised one another in the press. Both Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir attacked Foucault's ideas as "bourgeois", while Foucault retaliated against their Marxist beliefs by proclaiming that "Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought as a fish exists in water; that is, it ceases to breathe anywhere else."

University of Tunis and Vincennes: 1966–1970

I lived [in Tunisia] for two and a half years. It made a real impression. I was present for large, violent student riots that preceded by several weeks what happened in May in France. This was March 1968. The unrest lasted a whole year: strikes, courses suspended, arrests. And in March, a general strike by the students. The police came into the university, beat up the students, wounded several of them seriously, and started making arrests ... I have to say that I was tremendously impressed by those young men and women who took terrible risks by writing or distributing tracts or calling for strikes, the ones who really risked losing their freedom! It was a political experience for me.

— Michel Foucault, 1983

In September 1966, Foucault took a position teaching psychology at the University of Tunis in Tunisia. His decision to do so was largely because his lover, Defert, had been posted to the country as part of his national service. Foucault moved a few kilometres from Tunis, to the village of Sidi Bou Saïd, where fellow academic Gérard Deledalle lived with his wife. Soon after his arrival, Foucault announced that Tunisia was "blessed by history", a nation which "deserves to live forever because it was where Hannibal and St. Augustine lived". His lectures at the university proved very popular, and were well attended. Although many young students were enthusiastic about his teaching, they were critical of what they believed to be his right-wing political views, viewing him as a "representative of Gaullist technocracy", even though he considered himself a leftist.

Foucault was in Tunis during the anti-government and pro-Palestinian riots that rocked the city in June 1967, and which continued for a year. Although highly critical of the violent, ultra-nationalistic and anti-semitic nature of many protesters, he used his status to try to prevent some of his militant leftist students from being arrested and tortured for their role in the agitation. He hid their printing press in his garden, and tried to testify on their behalf at their trials, but was prevented when the trials became closed-door events. While in Tunis, Foucault continued to write. Inspired by a correspondence with the surrealist artist René Magritte, Foucault started to write a book about the impressionist artist Édouard Manet, but never completed it.

In 1968, Foucault returned to Paris, moving into an apartment on the Rue de Vaugirard. After the May 1968 student protests, Minister of Education Edgar Faure responded by founding new universities with greater autonomy. Most prominent of these was the Centre Expérimental de Vincennes in Vincennes on the outskirts of Paris. A group of prominent academics were asked to select teachers to run the centre's departments, and Canguilheim recommended Foucault as head of the Philosophy Department. Becoming a tenured professor of Vincennes, Foucault's desire was to obtain "the best in French philosophy today" for his department, employing Michel Serres, Judith Miller, Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancière, François Regnault, Henri Weber, Étienne Balibar, and François Châtelet; most of them were Marxists or ultra-left activists.

Lectures began at the university in January 1969, and straight away its students and staff, including Foucault, were involved in occupations and clashes with police, resulting in arrests. In February, Foucault gave a speech denouncing police provocation to protesters at the Maison de la Mutualité. Such actions marked Foucault's embrace of the ultra-left, undoubtedly influenced by Defert, who had gained a job at Vincennes' sociology department and who had become a Maoist. Most of the courses at Foucault's philosophy department were Marxist–Leninist oriented, although Foucault himself gave courses on Nietzsche, "The end of Metaphysics", and "The Discourse of Sexuality", which were highly popular and over-subscribed. While the right-wing press was heavily critical of this new institution, new Minister of Education Olivier Guichard was angered by its ideological bent and the lack of exams, with students being awarded degrees in a haphazard manner. He refused national accreditation of the department's degrees, resulting in a public rebuttal from Foucault.

Later life (1970–1984)

Collège de France and Discipline and Punish: 1970–1975

Foucault desired to leave Vincennes and become a fellow of the prestigious Collège de France. He requested to join, taking up a chair in what he called the "history of systems of thought", and his request was championed by members Dumézil, Hyppolite, and Vuillemin. In November 1969, when an opening became available, Foucault was elected to the Collège, though with opposition by a large minority. He gave his inaugural lecture in December 1970, which was subsequently published as L'Ordre du discours (The Discourse of Language). He was obliged to give 12 weekly lectures a year—and did so for the rest of his life—covering the topics that he was researching at the time; these became "one of the events of Parisian intellectual life" and were repeatedly packed out events. On Mondays, he also gave seminars to a group of students; many of them became a "Foulcauldian tribe" who worked with him on his research. He enjoyed this teamwork and collective research, and together they published a number of short books. Working at the Collège allowed him to travel widely, giving lectures in Brazil, Japan, Canada, and the United States over the next 14 years. In 1970 and 1972, Foucault served as a professor in the French Department of the University at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York.

In May 1971, Foucault co-founded the Groupe d'Information sur les Prisons (GIP) along with historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet and journalist Jean-Marie Domenach. The GIP aimed to investigate and expose poor conditions in prisons and give prisoners and ex-prisoners a voice in French society. It was highly critical of the penal system, believing that it converted petty criminals into hardened delinquents. The GIP gave press conferences and staged protests surrounding the events of the Toul prison riot in December 1971, alongside other prison riots that it sparked off; in doing so it faced a police crackdown and repeated arrests. The group became active across France, with 2,000 to 3,000, members, but disbanded before 1974. Also campaigning against the death penalty, Foucault co-authored a short book on the case of the convicted murderer Pierre Rivière. After his research into the penal system, Foucault published Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison) in 1975, offering a history of the system in western Europe. In it, Foucault examines the penal evolution away from corporal and capital punishment to the penitentiary system that began in Europe and the United States around the end of the 18th century. Biographer Didier Eribon described it as "perhaps the finest" of Foucault's works, and it was well received.

Foucault was also active in anti-racist campaigns; in November 1971, he was a leading figure in protests following the perceived racist killing of Arab migrant Djellali Ben Ali. In this he worked alongside his old rival Sartre, the journalist Claude Mauriac, and one of his literary heroes, Jean Genet. This campaign was formalised as the Committee for the Defence of the Rights of Immigrants, but there was tension at their meetings as Foucault opposed the anti-Israeli sentiment of many Arab workers and Maoist activists. At a December 1972 protest against the police killing of Algerian worker Mohammad Diab, both Foucault and Genet were arrested, resulting in widespread publicity. Foucault was also involved in founding the Agence de Press-Libération (APL), a group of leftist journalists who intended to cover news stories neglected by the mainstream press. In 1973, they established the daily newspaper Libération, and Foucault suggested that they establish committees across France to collect news and distribute the paper, and advocated a column known as the "Chronicle of the Workers' Memory" to allow workers to express their opinions. Foucault wanted an active journalistic role in the paper, but this proved untenable, and he soon became disillusioned with Libération, believing that it distorted the facts; he did not publish in it until 1980.

In 1975 he had an LSD experience with Simeon Wade and Michael Stoneman in Death Valley, California, and later wrote "it was the greatest experience of his life, and that it profoundly changed his life and his work". In front of Zabriskie Point they took LSD while listening to a well-prepared music program: Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs, followed by Charles Ives's Three Places in New England, ending with a few avant-garde pieces by Stockhausen. According to Wade, as soon as he came back to Paris, Foucault scrapped the second The History of Sexuality's manuscript, and totally rethought the whole project.

The History of Sexuality and Iranian Revolution: 1976–1979

In 1976, Gallimard published Foucault's Histoire de la sexualité: la volonté de savoir (The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge), a short book exploring what Foucault called the "repressive hypothesis". It revolved largely around the concept of power, rejecting both Marxist and Freudian theory. Foucault intended it as the first in a seven-volume exploration of the subject. Histoire de la sexualité was a best-seller in France and gained positive press, but lukewarm intellectual interest, something that upset Foucault, who felt that many misunderstood his hypothesis. He soon became dissatisfied with Gallimard after being offended by senior staff member Pierre Nora. Along with Paul Veyne and François Wahl, Foucault launched a new series of academic books, known as Des travaux (Some Works), through the company Seuil, which he hoped would improve the state of academic research in France. He also produced introductions for the memoirs of Herculine Barbin and My Secret Life.

Foucault's Histoire de la sexualité concentrates on the relation between truth and sex. He defines truth as a system of ordered procedures for the production, distribution, regulation, circulation, and operation of statements. Through this system of truth, power structures are created and enforced. Though Foucault's definition of truth may differ from other sociologists before and after him, his work with truth in relation to power structures, such as sexuality, has left a profound mark on social science theory. In his work, he examines the heightened curiosity regarding sexuality that induced a "world of perversion" during the elite, capitalist 18th and 19th century in the western world. According to Foucault in History of Sexuality, society of the modern age is symbolized by the conception of sexual discourses and their union with the system of truth. In the "world of perversion", including extramarital affairs, homosexual behavior, and other such sexual promiscuities, Foucault concludes that sexual relations of the kind are constructed around producing the truth. Sex became not only a means of pleasure, but an issue of truth. Sex is what confines one to darkness, but also what brings one to light.

Similarly, in The History of Sexuality, society validates and approves people based on how closely they fit the discursive mold of sexual truth. As Foucault reminds us, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Church was the epitome of power structure within society. Thus, many aligned their personal virtues with those of the Church, further internalizing their beliefs on the meaning of sex. However, those who unify their sexual relation to the truth become decreasingly obliged to share their internal views with those of the Church. They will no longer see the arrangement of societal norms as an effect of the Church's deep-seated power structure.

There exists an international citizenry that has its rights, and has its duties, and that is committed to rise up against every abuse of power, no matter who the author, no matter who the victims. After all, we are all ruled, and as such, we are in solidarity.

— Michel Foucault, 1981

Foucault remained a political activist, focusing on protesting government abuses of human rights around the world. He was a key player in the 1975 protests against the Spanish government who were set to execute 11 militants sentenced to death without fair trial. It was his idea to travel to Madrid with six others to give a press conference there; they were subsequently arrested and deported back to Paris. In 1977, he protested the extradition of Klaus Croissant to West Germany, and his rib was fractured during clashes with riot police. In July that year, he organised an assembly of Eastern Bloc dissidents to mark the visit of Soviet general secretary Leonid Brezhnev to Paris. In 1979, he campaigned for Vietnamese political dissidents to be granted asylum in France.

In 1977, Italian newspaper Corriere della sera asked Foucault to write a column for them. In doing so, in 1978 he travelled to Tehran in Iran, days after the Black Friday massacre. Documenting the developing Iranian Revolution, he met with opposition leaders such as Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari and Mehdi Bazargan, and discovered the popular support for Islamism. Returning to France, he was one of the journalists who visited the Ayatollah Khomeini, before visiting Tehran. His articles expressed awe of Khomeini's Islamist movement, for which he was widely criticised in the French press, including by Iranian expatriates. Foucault's response was that Islamism was to become a major political force in the region, and that the West must treat it with respect rather than hostility. In April 1978, Foucault traveled to Japan, where he studied Zen Buddhism under Omori Sogen at the Seionji temple in Uenohara.

Graves of Michel Foucault, his mother (right) and his father (left) in Vendeuvre-du-Poitou

Final years: 1980–1984

Although remaining critical of power relations, Foucault expressed cautious support for the Socialist Party government of François Mitterrand following its electoral victory in 1981. But his support soon deteriorated when that party refused to condemn the Polish government's crackdown on the 1982 demonstrations in Poland orchestrated by the Solidarity trade union. He and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu authored a document condemning Mitterrand's inaction that was published in Libération, and they also took part in large public protests on the issue. Foucault continued to support Solidarity, and with his friend Simone Signoret traveled to Poland as part of a Médecins du Monde expedition, taking time out to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp. He continued his academic research, and in June 1984 Gallimard published the second and third volumes of Histoire de la sexualité. Volume two, L'Usage des plaisirs, dealt with the "techniques of self" prescribed by ancient Greek pagan morality in relation to sexual ethics, while volume three, Le Souci de soi, explored the same theme in the Greek and Latin texts of the first two centuries CE. A fourth volume, Les Aveux de la chair, was to examine sexuality in early Christianity, but it was not finished.

In October 1980, Foucault became a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, giving the Howison Lectures on "Truth and Subjectivity", while in November he lectured at the Humanities Institute at New York University. His growing popularity in American intellectual circles was noted by Time magazine, while Foucault went on to lecture at UCLA in 1981, the University of Vermont in 1982, and Berkeley again in 1983, where his lectures drew huge crowds. Foucault spent many evenings in the San Francisco gay scene, frequenting sado-masochistic bathhouses, engaging in unprotected sex. He praised sado-masochistic activity in interviews with the gay press, describing it as "the real creation of new possibilities of pleasure, which people had no idea about previously". Foucault contracted HIV and eventually developed AIDS. Little was known of the virus at the time; the first cases had only been identified in 1980. Foucault initially referred to AIDS as a "dreamed-up disease". In summer 1983, he developed a persistent dry cough, which concerned friends in Paris, but Foucault insisted it was just a pulmonary infection. Only when hospitalized was Foucault correctly diagnosed as being HIV-positive; treated with antibiotics, he delivered a final set of lectures at the Collège de France. Foucault entered Paris' Hôpital de la Salpêtrière—the same institution that he had studied in Madness and Civilisation—on 10 June 1984, with neurological symptoms complicated by sepsis. He died in the hospital on 25 June.

Death

On 26 June 1984, Libération announced Foucault's death, mentioning the rumour that it had been brought on by AIDS. The following day, Le Monde issued a medical bulletin cleared by his family that made no reference to HIV/AIDS. On 29 June, Foucault's la levée du corps ceremony was held, in which the coffin was carried from the hospital morgue. Hundreds attended, including activists and academic friends, while Gilles Deleuze gave a speech using excerpts from The History of Sexuality. His body was then buried at Vendeuvre-du-Poitou in a small ceremony. Soon after his death, Foucault's partner Daniel Defert founded the first national HIV/AIDS organisation in France, AIDES; a play on the French word for "help" (aide) and the English- language acronym for the disease. On the second anniversary of Foucault's death, Defert publicly revealed in The Advocate that Foucault's death was AIDS-related.

Personal life

Foucault's first biographer, Didier Eribon, described the philosopher as "a complex, many-sided character", and that "under one mask there is always another". He also noted that he exhibited an "enormous capacity for work". At the ENS, Foucault's classmates unanimously summed him up as a figure who was both "disconcerting and strange" and "a passionate worker". As he aged, his personality changed: Eribon noted that while he was a "tortured adolescent", post-1960, he had become "a radiant man, relaxed and cheerful", even being described by those who worked with him as a dandy. He noted that in 1969, Foucault embodied the idea of "the militant intellectual".

Foucault was an atheist. He loved classical music, particularly enjoying the work of Johann Sebastian Bach and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and became known for wearing turtleneck sweaters. After his death, Foucault's friend Georges Dumézil described him as having possessed "a profound kindness and goodness", also exhibiting an "intelligence [that] literally knew no bounds". His life-partner Daniel Defert inherited his estate, whose archive was sold in 2012 to the National Library of France for €3.8 million ($4.5 million in April 2021).

Politics

Politically, Foucault was a leftist throughout much of his life, though his particular stance within the left often changed. In the early 1950s, while never adopting an orthodox Marxist viewpoint, Foucault had been a member of the French Communist Party, leaving the party after three years as he expressed disgust in the prejudice within its ranks against Jews and homosexuals. After spending some time working in Poland, which was a Communist state ostensibly governed by the Polish United Workers' Party but actually was an abject police-state satellite of the Soviet Union, he became further disillusioned with communist ideology. As a result, in the early 1960s, Foucault was considered to be "violently anticommunist" by some of his detractors, even though he was involved in leftist campaigns along with most of his students and colleagues.

Philosophical work

See also: Michel Foucault bibliography

Foucault's colleague Pierre Bourdieu summarized the philosopher's thought as "a long exploration of transgression, of going beyond social limits, always inseparably linked to knowledge and power".

The theme that underlies all Foucault's work is the relationship between power and knowledge, and how the former is used to control and define the latter. What authorities claim as 'scientific knowledge' are really just means of social control. Foucault shows how, for instance, in the eighteenth century 'madness' was used to categorize and stigmatize not just the mentally ill but the poor, the sick, the homeless and, indeed, anyone whose expressions of individuality were unwelcome.

— Philip Stokes, Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers (2004)

Philosopher Philip Stokes of the University of Reading noted that overall, Foucault's work was "dark and pessimistic". Though it does, however, leave some room for optimism, in that it illustrates how the discipline of philosophy can be used to highlight areas of domination. In doing so, as Stokes claimed, the ways in which we are being dominated become better understood, so that we may strive to build social structures that minimise this risk of domination. In all of this development there had to be close attention to detail; it is the detail which eventually individualizes people.

Later in his life, Foucault explained that his work was less about analyzing power as a phenomenon than about trying to characterize the different ways in which contemporary society has expressed the use of power to "objectivise subjects". These have taken three broad forms: one involving scientific authority to classify and 'order' knowledge about human populations; the second has been to categorize and 'normalise' human subjects (by identifying madness, illness, physical features, and so on); and the third relates to the manner in which the impulse to fashion sexual identities and train one's own body to engage in routines and practices ends up reproducing certain patterns within a given society.

Literature

In addition to his philosophical work, Foucault also wrote on literature. Death and the Labyrinth: The World of Raymond Roussel, published in 1963 and translated in English in 1986, is Foucault's only book-length work on literature. He described it as "by far the book I wrote most easily, with the greatest pleasure, and most rapidly". Foucault explores theory, criticism, and psychology with reference to the texts of Raymond Roussel, one of the first notable experimental writers. Foucault also gave a lecture responding to Roland Barthes' famous essay "The Death of the Author" titled "What Is an Author?" in 1969, later published in full. According to literary theoretician Kornelije Kvas, for Foucault, "denying the existence of a historical author on account of his/her irrelevance for interpretation is absurd, for the author is a function of the text that organizes its sense".

Power

Foucault's analysis of power comes in two forms: empirical and theoretical. The empirical analyses concern themselves with historical (and modern) forms of power and how these emerged from previous forms of power. Foucault describes three types of power in his empirical analyses: sovereign power, disciplinary power, and biopower.

Foucault is generally critical of "theories" that try to give absolute answers to "everything". Therefore, he considered his own "theory" of power to be closer to a method than a typical "theory". According to Foucault, most people misunderstand power. For this reason, he makes clear that power cannot be completely described as:

• A group of institutions and/or mechanisms whose aim it is for a citizen to obey and yield to the state (a typical liberal definition of power);
• Yielding to rules (a typical psychoanalytical definition of power); or
• A general and oppressing system where one societal class or group oppresses another (a typical feminist or Orthodox Marxist definition of power).

Foucault is not critical of considering these phenomena as "power", but claims that these theories of power cannot completely describe all forms of power. Foucault also claims that a liberal definition of power has effectively hidden other forms of power to the extent that people have uncritically accepted them.

Foucault's power analysis begins on micro-level, with singular "force relations". Richard A. Lynch defines Foucault's concept of "force relation" as "whatever in one's social interactions that pushes, urges or compels one to do something". According to Foucault, force relations are an effect of difference, inequality or unbalance that exists in other forms of relationships (such as sexual or economic). Force, and power, is however not something that a person or group "holds" (such as in the sovereign definition of power), instead power is a complex group of forces that comes from "everything" and therefore exists everywhere. That relations of power always result from inequality, difference or unbalance also means that power always has a goal or purpose. Power comes in two forms: tactics and strategies. Tactics is power on the micro-level, which can for example be how a person chooses to express themselves through their clothes. Strategies on the other hand, is power on macro-level, which can be the state of fashion at any moment. Strategies consist of a combination of tactics. At the same time, power is non-subjective according to Foucault. This posits a paradox, according to Lynch, since "someone" has to exert power, while at the same time there can be no "someone" exerting this power. According to Lynch this paradox can be solved with two observations:

• By looking at power as something which reaches further than the influence of single people or groups. Even if individuals and groups try to influence fashion, for example, their actions will often get unexpected consequences.
• Even if individuals and groups have a free choice, they are also affected and limited by their context/situation.

According to Foucault, force relations are constantly changing, constantly interacting with other force relations which may weaken, strengthen or change one another. Foucault writes that power always includes resistance, which means there is always a possibility that power and force relations will change in some way. According to Richard A. Lynch, the purpose of Foucault's work on power is to increase peoples' awareness of how power has shaped their way of being, thinking and acting, and by increasing this awareness making it possible for them to change their way of being, thinking and acting.

Sovereign power

With "sovereign power" Foucault alludes to a power structure that is similar to a pyramid, where one person or a group of people (at the top of the pyramid) holds the power, while the "normal" (and oppressed) people are at the bottom of the pyramid. In the middle parts of the pyramid are the people who enforce the sovereign's orders. A typical example of sovereign power is absolute monarchy.

In historical absolute monarchies, crimes had been considered a personal offense against the sovereign and his/her power. The punishment was often public and spectacular, partly to deter others from committing crimes, but also to reinstate the sovereign's power. This was however both expensive and ineffective—it led far too often to people sympathizing with the criminal. In modern times, when disciplinary power is dominant, criminals are instead subjected to various disciplinary techniques to "remold" the criminal into a "law abiding citizen".

According to Chloë Taylor, a characteristic for sovereign power is that the sovereign has the right to take life, wealth, services, labor and products. The sovereign has a right to subtract—to take life, to enslave life, etc.—but not the right to control life in the way that later happens in disciplinary systems of power. According to Taylor, the form of power that the philosopher Thomas Hobbes is concerned about, is sovereign power. According to Hobbes, people are "free" so long they are not literally placed in chains.

Disciplinary power

What Foucault calls "disciplinary power" aims to use bodies' skills as effectively as possible. The more useful the body becomes, the more obedient it also has to become. The purpose of this is not only to use the bodies' skills, but also prevent these skills from being used to revolt against the power.

Disciplinary power has "individuals" as its object, target and instrument. According to Foucault, "individual" is however a construct created by disciplinary power. The disciplinary power's techniques create a "rational self-control", which in practice means that the disciplinary power is internalized and therefore doesn't continuously need external force. Foucault says that disciplinary power is primarily not an oppressing form of power, but rather so a productive form of power. Disciplinary power doesn't oppress interests or desires, but instead subjects bodies to reconstructed patterns of behavior to reconstruct their thoughts, desires and interests. According to Foucault this happens in factories, schools, hospitals and prisons. Disciplinary power creates a certain type of individual by producing new movements, habits and skills. It focuses on details, single movements, their timing and speed. It organizes bodies in time and space, and controls every movement for maximal effect. It uses rules, surveillance, exams and controls. The activities follow certain plans, whose purpose it is to lead the bodies to certain pre-determined goals. The bodies are also combined with each other, to reach a productivity that is greater than the sum of all bodies activities.

Disciplinary power has according to Foucault been especially successful due to its usage of three technologies: hierarchical observation, normalizing judgement and exams. By hierarchical observation, the bodies become constantly visible to the power. The observation is hierarchical since there is not a single observer, but rather so a "hierarchy" of observers. An example of this is mental asylums during the 19th century, when the psychiatrist was not the only observer, but also nurses and auxiliary staff. From these observations and scientific discourses, a norm is established and used to judge the observed bodies. For the disciplinary power to continue to exist, this judgement has to be normalized. Foucault mentions several characteristics of this judgement: (1) all deviations, even small ones, from correct behavior are punished, (2) repeated rule violations are punished extra, (3) exercises are used as a behavior correcting technique and punishment, (4) rewards are used together with punishment to establish a hierarchy of good and bad behavior/people, (5) rank/grades/etc. are used as punishment and reward. Examinations combine the hierarchical observation with judgement. Exams objectify and individualize the observed bodies by creating extensive documentation about every observed body. The purpose of the exams is therefore to gather further information about each individual, track their development and compare their results to the norm.

According to Foucault, the "formula" for disciplinary power can be seen in philosopher Jeremy Bentham's plan for the "optimal prison": the panopticon. Such a prison consists of a circle-formed building where every cell is inhabited by only one prisoner. In every cell there are two windows—one to let in light from outside and one pointing to the middle of the circle-formed building. In this middle there is a tower where a guard can be placed to observe the prisoners. Since the prisoners will never be able to know whether they are being watched or not at a given moment, they will internalize the disciplinary power and regulate their own behavior (as if they were constantly being watched). Foucault says this construction (1) creates an individuality by separating prisoners from each other in the physical room, (2) since the prisoners cannot know if they are being watched at any given moment, they internalize the disciplinary power and regulate their own behavior as if they were always watched, (3) the surveillance makes it possible to create extensive documentation about each prisoner and their behavior. According to Foucault the panopticon has been used as a model also for other disciplinary institutions, such as mental asylums in the 19th century.

Biopower

Further information: Biopower

With "biopower" Foucault refers to power over bios (life)—power over populations. Biopower primarily rests on norms which are internalized by people, rather than external force. It encourages, strengthens, controls, observes, optimizes and organize the forces below it. Foucault has sometimes described biopower as separate from disciplinary power, but at other times he has described disciplinary power as an expression of biopower. Biopower can use disciplinary techniques, but in contrast to disciplinary power its target is populations rather than individuals.

Biopower studies populations regarding (for example) number of births, life expectancy, public health, housing, migration, crime, which social groups are over-represented in deviations from the norm (regarding health, crime, etc.) and tries to adjust, control or eliminate these norm deviations. One example is the age distribution in a population. Biopower is interested in age distribution to compensate for future (or current) lacks of labor power, retirement homes, etc. Yet another example is sex: because sex is connected to population growth, sex and sexuality have been of great interest to biopower. On a disciplinary level, people who engaged in non-reproductive sexual acts have been treated for psychiatric diagnoses such as "perversion", "frigidity" and "sexual dysfunction". On a biopower-level, the usage of contraceptives has been studied, some social groups have (by various means) been encouraged to have children, while others (such as poor, sick, unmarried women, criminals or people with disabilities) have been discouraged or prevented from having children.

In the era of biopower, death has become a scandal and a catastrophe, but despite this biopower has according to Foucault killed more people than any other form of power has ever done before it. Under sovereign power, the sovereign king could kill people to exert his power or start wars simply to extend his kingdom, but during the era of biopower wars have instead been motivated by an ambition to "protect life itself". Similar motivations has also been used for genocide. For example, Nazi Germany motivated its attempt to eradicate Jews, the mentally ill and disabled with the motivation that Jews were "a threat to the German health", and that the money spent on healthcare for mentally ill and disabled people would be better spent on "viable Germans". Chloë Taylor also mentions the Iraq War was motivated by similar tenets. The motivation was at first that Iraq was thought to have weapons of mass destruction and connections to Al-Qaeda. However, when the Bush and Blair administrations did not find any evidence to support either of these theories, the motivation for the war was changed. In the new motivation, the cause of the war was said to be that Saddam Hussein had committed crimes against his own population. Taylor means that in modern times, war has to be "concealed" under a rhetoric of humanitarian aid, despite the fact that these wars often cause humanitarian crises.

During the 19th century, slums were increasing in number and size across the western world. Criminality, illness, alcoholism and prostitution was common in these areas, and the middle class considered the people who lived in these slums as "unmoral" and "lazy". The middle class also feared that this underclass sooner or later would "take over" because the population growth was greater in these slums than it was in the middle class. This fear gave rise to the scientific study of eugenics, whose founder Francis Galton had been inspired by Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. According to Galton, society was preventing natural selection by helping "the weak", thus causing a spread of the "negative qualities" into the rest of the population.

The body and sexuality

According to Foucault, the body is not something objective that stands outside history and culture. Instead, Foucault argues, the body has been and is continuously shaped by society and history—by work, diet, body ideals, exercise, medical interventions, etc. Foucault presents no "theory" of the body, but does write about it in Discipline and Punish as well as in The History of Sexuality. Foucault was critical of all purely biological explanations of phenomena such as sexuality, madness and criminality. Further, Foucault argues, that the body is not sufficient as a basis for self-understanding and understanding of others.

In Discipline and Punish, Foucault shows how power and the body are tied together, for example by the disciplinary power primarily focusing on individual bodies and their behavior. Foucault argues that power, by manipulating bodies/behavior, also manipulates people's minds. Foucault turns the platonic saying "the body is the prison of the soul" (Phaedo, 66a–67d) and instead posits that "the soul is the prison of the body".

According to Foucault, sexology has tried to exert itself as a "science" by referring to the material (the body). In contrast to this, Foucault argues that sexology is a pseudoscience, and that "sex" is a pseudo-scientific idea. For Foucault the idea of a natural, biologically grounded and fundamental sexuality is a normative historical construct that has also been used as an instrument of power. By describing sex as the biological and fundamental cause to peoples' gender identity, sexual identity and sexual behavior, power has effectively been able to normalize sexual and gendered behavior. This has made it possible to evaluate, pathologize and "correct" peoples' sexual and gendered behavior, by comparing bodies behaviors to the constructed "normal" behavior. For Foucault, a "normal sexuality" is as much of a construct as a "natural sexuality". Therefore, Foucault was also critical of the popular discourse that dominated the debate over sexuality during the 1960s and 1970s. During this time, the popular discourse argued for a "liberation" of sexuality from a cultural, moral and capitalistic oppression. Foucault, however, argues that peoples' opinions about and experiences of sexuality are always a result of cultural and power mechanisms. To "liberate" sexuality from one group of norms only means that another group of norms takes its place. This, however, does not mean that Foucault considers resistance to be futile. What Foucault argues for is rather that it is impossible to become completely free from power, and that there is simply no "natural" sexuality. Power always involves a dimension of resistance, and therefore also a possibility for change. Although Foucault considers it impossible to step outside of power-networks, it is always possible to change these networks or navigate them differently.

По Фуко, тело — это не только «послушный и пассивный объект», над которым доминируют дискурсы и власть. Тело также является «семенем» сопротивления доминирующим дискурсам и методам власти. Тело никогда не бывает полностью податливым, и переживания никогда не могут быть полностью сведены к лингвистическим описаниям. Всегда есть возможность пережить то, что невозможно описать словами, и в этом несоответствии есть и возможность сопротивления доминирующим дискурсам.

Взгляд Фуко на историческое строение тела оказал влияние на многих феминисток и квир-теоретиков . По мнению Джоанны Оксала , влияние Фуко на квир-теорию было настолько велико, что его можно считать одним из основателей квир-теории. Фундаментальная идея квир-теории заключается в том, что не существует естественной основы, лежащей в основе таких идентичностей, как гей, лесбиянка, гетеросексуальная и т. д. Вместо этого эти идентичности считаются культурными конструкциями, построенными посредством нормативных дискурсов и властных отношений. Феминистки с помощью идей Фуко изучили различные способы, которыми женщины формируют свое тело: с помощью пластической хирургии, диеты, расстройств пищевого поведения и т. д. Историзация пола Фуко также повлияла на таких феминистских теоретиков, как Джудит Батлер , которая использовала теории Фуко о взаимосвязи между предмет, власть и пол, чтобы поставить под сомнение гендерные темы. Батлер следует за Фуко, утверждая, что за гендерной идентичностью, составляющей ее биологическую и объективную основу, не существует «истинного» пола. Однако Батлер критикует Фуко, утверждая, что Фуко «наивно» представляет тела и удовольствия как основу для сопротивления власти, не распространяя свою историзацию сексуальности на гендерные субъекты/тела. Фуко подвергся критике со стороны других феминисток, таких как Сьюзен Бордо и Кейт Сопер .

Джоанна Оксала утверждает, что Фуко, говоря, что секс/сексуальность сконструированы, не отрицает существования сексуальности. Оксала также утверждает, что цель критических теорий, таких как теория Фуко, состоит не в том, чтобы освободить тело и сексуальность от угнетения, а, скорее, в том, чтобы подвергнуть сомнению и отрицать идентичности, которые постулируются как «естественные» и «существенные», показывая, насколько эти идентичности являются историческими и культурные сооружения.

В 1977 году вместе с Жан-Полем Сартром , Жаком Деррида и другими интеллектуалами Фуко подписал петицию к французскому парламенту, призывающую к декриминализации всех «согласных» сексуальных отношений между взрослыми и несовершеннолетними в возрасте до пятнадцати лет, возраста согласия. во Франции. В передаче 1978 года Фуко утверждал, что дети могут давать сексуальное согласие , заявив, что «предполагать, что ребенок неспособен объяснить, что произошло, и неспособен дать свое согласие, - это два злоупотребления, которые нетерпимы и совершенно неприемлемы».

Субъективность

Фуко считал своим основным проектом исследование того, как люди на протяжении истории превращались в «субъектов». Субъективность для Фуко — это не состояние бытия, а практика — активное «бытие». Согласно Фуко, «субъект» западными философами обычно рассматривался как нечто данное; естественно и объективно. Напротив, Фуко считает субъективность конструкцией, созданной властью. Фуко говорит об «assujettissement», французском термине, который, по мнению Фуко, относится к процессу, в котором власть создает субъектов, одновременно угнетая их с использованием социальных норм. Для Фуко «социальные нормы» — это стандарты, которым людей побуждают следовать, которые также используются для сравнения и определения людей. В качестве примера «assujettissement» Фуко упоминает «гомосексуализм», исторически случайный тип субъективности, созданный сексологией. Фуко пишет, что содомия раньше считалась серьезным сексуальным отклонением, но временным. Однако гомосексуальность стал «видом», прошлым, детством и образом жизни. «гомосексуалы» подвергаются дискриминации той же силой, которая создала эту субъективность, поскольку гомосексуальность рассматривается как отклонение от «нормальной» сексуальности. Однако, утверждает Фуко, создание такой субъективности, как «гомосексуальность», имеет не только негативные последствия для субъективизированных людей — субъективность гомосексуализма также привела к созданию гей-баров и парад гордости .

По мнению Фуко, научные дискурсы сыграли важную роль в системе дисциплинарной власти, классифицируя и классифицируя людей, наблюдая за их поведением и «леча» их, когда их поведение считалось «ненормальным». Он определяет дискурс как форму угнетения , не требующую физической силы. Он определяет его производство как «контролируемое, отобранное, организованное и перераспределенное с помощью определенного количества процедур», которые обусловлены стремлением людей к знаниям создавать «правила» и «системы», которые преобразуются в социальные коды. Более того, дискурс создает силу, выходящую за рамки социальных институтов, и ее можно обнаружить в социальных и формальных сферах, таких как системы здравоохранения, образования и правоохранительные органы. Может показаться, что формирование этих полей способствует социальному развитию; однако Фуко предостерегает от вредных аспектов дискурсов для общества.

Такие науки, как психиатрия, биология, медицина, экономика, психоанализ, психология, социология, этнология, педагогика и криминология, классифицируют поведение как рациональное, иррациональное, нормальное, ненормальное, человеческое, бесчеловечное и т. д. Поступая таким образом, все они создали различные виды поведения. виды субъективности и нормы, которые затем усваиваются людьми как «истины». Затем люди адаптировали свое поведение, чтобы приблизиться к тому, что эти науки назвали «нормальным». Например, Фуко утверждает, что психологическое наблюдение/наблюдение и психологические дискурсы создали тип субъективности, ориентированной на психологию, которая привела к тому, что люди стали считать несчастье ошибкой своей психологии, а не общества. По мнению Фуко, для общества это также был способ противостоять критике: критика общества была направлена ​​против человека и его психологического здоровья.

Самосоставляющая субъективность

По Фуко, субъективность не обязательно является чем-то, что навязывается людям извне, — это также то, что устанавливается в отношении человека к самому себе. Это может, например, произойти, когда человек пытается «найти себя» или «быть самим собой», что Эдвард МакГушин описывает как типичную современную деятельность. В этом поиске «истинного я» личность устанавливается на двух уровнях: как пассивный объект («истинное я», которое ищут) и как активный «искатель». Древние циники и философ XIX века Фридрих Ницше утверждали, что «истинное я» можно найти, только пройдя через большие трудности и/или опасности. Однако древние стоики и философ 17-го века Рене Декарт утверждали, что «самость» можно найти путем тихого и уединенного самоанализа. Еще одним примером является Сократ , который утверждал, что самосознание можно обрести только в ходе дебатов с другими, в которых участники дебатов подвергают сомнению основополагающие взгляды и мнения друг друга. Фуко, однако, утверждал, что «субъективность» — это процесс, а не состояние бытия. Таким образом, Фуко утверждал, что «истинного Я» не существует. Скорее, «самость» конституируется/создается в таких действиях, как те, которые используются для «нахождения» «самости». Другими словами, подвергание себя трудностям и опасности не «раскрывает» «истинное я», по мнению Фуко, а, скорее, создает особый тип «я» и субъективности. Однако, согласно Фуко, «форма» субъекта в значительной степени уже конституирована властью до того, как будут использованы эти самообразующие практики. Школы, рабочие места, домохозяйства, правительственные учреждения, развлекательные средства массовой информации и сектор здравоохранения — все посредством дисциплинарной власти способствуют формированию из людей конкретных типов субъектов.

Свобода

Тодд Мэй определяет концепцию свободы Фуко как: то, что мы можем сделать с собой в нашем конкретном историческом контексте. Условием этого, по мнению Фуко, является то, что мы осознаем нашу ситуацию и то, как она была создана/на нее повлияла (и продолжает влиять) власть. По словам Мэй, два аспекта того, как власть сформировала образ жизни, мышления и действий людей, описаны в книгах, где Фуко рассматривает дисциплинарную власть и историю сексуальности. Однако, утверждает Мэй, всегда будут существовать аспекты формирования людей, которые будут им неизвестны, отсюда и постоянная необходимость в таком анализе, который проводил Фуко.

Фуко утверждает, что силы, влияющие на людей, можно изменить; люди всегда имеют возможность изменить факторы, ограничивающие их свободу. Таким образом, свобода — это не состояние бытия, а практика — способ существования по отношению к себе, другим и миру. По словам Тодда Мэя, концепция свободы Фуко также включает в себя построение историй, подобных тем, которые Фуко сделал в отношении истории дисциплинарной власти и сексуальности - историй, которые исследуют и описывают силы, которые повлияли на людей, заставив их стать теми, кем они являются. На основе знаний, полученных в результате таких исследований, люди могут впоследствии решить, какие силы, по их мнению, являются приемлемыми, а какие они считают нетерпимыми и должны быть изменены. Свобода для Фуко — это своего рода «экспериментирование» с различными «преобразованиями». Поскольку эти эксперименты невозможно полностью контролировать, Мэй утверждает, что они могут привести либо к восстановлению невыносимых властных отношений, либо к созданию новых. Таким образом, утверждает Мэй, всегда необходимо продолжать подобные эксперименты и анализ Фуко.

Практика критики

«Альтернатива» Фуко современной субъективности Крессида Хейес описывает как «критику». Для Фуко не существует «хороших» и «плохих» форм субъективности, поскольку все они являются результатом властных отношений. Точно так же Фуко утверждает, что не существует «хороших» и «плохих» норм. Все нормы и институты одновременно способствуют и угнетают. Поэтому, утверждает Фуко, всегда важно продолжать практику «критики». Критика для Фуко — это практика поиска процессов и событий, которые привели к нашему образу существования, — вопрос о том, кто мы «есть» и как это «мы» появилось. Такая «критическая онтология современности» показывает, что нынешнее «бытие» народов на самом деле является исторически случайной, нестабильной и изменчивой конструкцией. Фуко подчеркивает, что, поскольку нынешний образ жизни не является необходимостью, его также возможно изменить. Критика также включает в себя исследование того, как и когда люди получают возможность, а когда они подвергаются угнетению со стороны существующих норм и институтов, поиск способов уменьшить ограничения свободы, противостоять нормализации и развивать новые и отличные способы отношения к себе и другим. Фуко утверждает, что невозможно выйти за рамки властных отношений, но всегда можно ориентироваться в властных отношениях по-другому.

Epimeleia heautou , «забота о себе».

В качестве альтернативы современному «поиску» «истинного себя», и как часть «дела свободы», Фуко обсуждает древнегреческий термин epimeleia heautou , «забота о себе» (ἐπιμέλεια ἑαυτοῦ). По мнению Фуко, среди древнегреческих философов самосознание не было самоцелью, а скорее чем-то, к чему стремились, чтобы «заботиться о себе». Забота о себе состоит из того, что Фуко называет «искусством жизни» или «технологиями себя». Целью этих техник, по мнению Фуко, было превратить себя в более этичного человека. В качестве примера Фуко упоминает медитацию . стоическая . деятельность по созерцанию прошлых и будущих действий и оценке соответствия этих действий своим ценностям и целям, а также «созерцание природы» Созерцание природы — еще одно стоическое занятие, заключающееся в размышлении о том, насколько «малым» является наше существование по сравнению с большим космосом .

Знание

Основная статья: Знание силы

Фуко описывается Мэри Бет Мэдер как эпистемологический конструктивист и историцист . Фуко критически относится к идее о том, что люди могут достичь «абсолютных» знаний о мире. Фундаментальная цель многих работ Фуко — показать, как то, что традиционно считалось абсолютным, универсальным и истинным, на самом деле исторически случайно. Для Фуко даже идея абсолютного знания является исторически случайной идеей. Однако это не ведет к эпистемологическому нигилизму; скорее, Фуко утверждает, что мы «всегда начинаем заново», когда дело касается знаний. В то же время Фуко критикует современную западную философию за отсутствие «духовности». Под «духовностью» Фуко имеет в виду определенный тип этического бытия и процессы, которые приводят к этому состоянию бытия. Фуко утверждает, что такая духовность была естественной частью древнегреческой философии, где знание рассматривалось как нечто доступное только тем, кто имел этический характер. Согласно Фуко, это изменилось в «картезианский момент», момент, когда Рене Декарт достиг «понимания», что самосознание было чем-то данным ( Cogito ergo sum , «Я мыслю, следовательно, существую»), и из этого «понимания» Декарт сделал выводы о Боге, мире и познании. По мнению Фуко, со времен Декарта знание было чем-то отдельным от этики. В наше время, утверждает Фуко, любой может достичь «знания», если он является разумным существом, образованным, желающим участвовать в научном сообществе и использовать научный метод. Фуко критически относится к этому «современному» взгляду на знание.

Фуко описывает два типа «знания»: «савуар» и «знание», два французских термина, оба из которых можно перевести как «знание», но для Фуко имеют разные значения. Под «умением» Фуко имеет в виду процесс, в котором субъекты создаются и в то же время эти субъекты также становятся объектами познания. Пример этого можно увидеть в криминологии и психиатрии. В этих науках создаются такие предметы, как «разумный человек», «психически больной», «законопослушный человек», «преступник» и т. д., и эти науки концентрируют свое внимание и знания на этих предметах. Знание об этих предметах называется «знанием», а процесс создания предметов и знаний — «знанием». Похожий термин в корпусе Фуко - «pouvoir/savoir» (власть/знание). Под этим термином Фуко имеет в виду тип знания, которое считается «здравым смыслом», но которое создается и удерживается в этом положении (как «здравый смысл») властью. Термин «власть/знание» происходит от Джереми Бентама идеи о том, что паноптикумы будут не только тюрьмами, но и будут использоваться для экспериментов, в ходе которых будет изучаться поведение преступников. Таким образом, власть/знание относится к формам власти, где власть сравнивает людей, измеряет различия, устанавливает норму, а затем навязывает эту норму подданным. Это особенно успешно, когда установленная норма интериоризируется и институционализируется (под «институционализированной» Фуко понимает ситуацию, когда норма вездесуща). Потому что тогда, когда норма интериоризируется и институционализируется, она фактически становится частью «здравого смысла» людей — «очевидного», «данного», «естественного». Когда это происходит, этот «здравый смысл» также влияет на явное знание (научное знание), утверждает Фуко. Эллен К. Федер утверждает, что примером этого является посылка «мир состоит из женщин и мужчин». Эта предпосылка, утверждает Федер, была сочтена «здравым смыслом» и привела к созданию психиатрического диагноза. расстройство гендерной идентичности (РГИ). Например, в 1970-е годы детям, чье поведение не соответствовало их полу, ставился диагноз РГИ. Тогда лечение заключалось в попытке заставить ребенка адаптироваться к преобладающим гендерным нормам. Федер утверждает, что это пример власти/знания, поскольку психиатрия, исходя из посылки «здравого смысла» «мир состоит из женщин и мужчин» (предпосылка, которая поддерживается в этом статусе властью), создала новый диагноз, новый диагноз. тип предмета и весь объем знаний, связанных с этим новым предметом.

Влияние и прием

Работы Фуко оказали мощное влияние на многие гуманистические и социальные научные дисциплины как одного из самых влиятельных и противоречивых ученых периода после Второй мировой войны. Согласно анализу Лондонской школы экономики , проведенному в 2016 году, его работы «Дисциплина и наказание» и «История сексуальности» вошли в число 25 самых цитируемых книг по общественным наукам всех времен с чуть более 100 000 цитирований. самым цитируемым ученым в области гуманитарных наук В 2007 году Фуко был назван ISI Web of Science среди большого количества французских философов, а автор сборника отметил: «Что это говорит о современной науке, должен решать читатель, и предполагается, что суждения будут варьироваться от восхищения до отчаяния, в зависимости от точки зрения».

По словам Гэри Гаттинга , «подробные исторические замечания Фуко о возникновении дисциплинарной и регулятивной биовласти оказали большое влияние». Лео Берсани писал:

«[Фуко] — наш самый блестящий философ власти. Более оригинально, чем любой другой современный мыслитель, он пытался определить исторические ограничения, в которых мы живем, и в то же время стремился объяснить их — если возможно, даже найти точки, в которых мы могли бы противостоять этим ограничениям и противодействовать некоторым действиям власти. В нынешней атмосфере циничного отвращения к осуществлению политической власти важность Фуко вряд ли можно преувеличить».

Работа Фуко о «биовласти» оказала широкое влияние на дисциплины философии и политической теории , особенно на таких авторов, как Джорджио Агамбен , Роберто Эспозито , Антонио Негри и Майкл Хардт . Его дискуссии о власти и дискурсе вдохновили многих критических теоретиков , которые считают, что анализ властных структур Фуко может помочь в борьбе с неравенством. Они утверждают, что посредством дискурс -анализа иерархии могут быть раскрыты и подвергнуты сомнению путем анализа соответствующих областей знаний, посредством которых они узаконены. Это один из способов связи работы Фуко с критической теорией. Его работа «Дисциплина и наказание» оказала влияние на его друга и современника Жиля Делеза , который опубликовал статью «Постскриптум об обществах контроля», восхваляя работу Фуко, но утверждая, что современное западное общество фактически развилось из «дисциплинарного общества» в «общество контроля». контроль'. В 1988 году Делез опубликовал книгу, посвященную идеям Фуко, под названием «Фуко» .

Обсуждения Фуко отношений между властью и знанием повлияли на постколониальную критику в объяснении дискурсивного формирования колониализма , особенно в Эдварда Саида работе «Ориентализм» . и Сорен Кристиансен сравнивают работу Фуко с работой Эрвинга Гоффмана Социологи Майкл Хвиид Якобсен , которые считают, что Гоффман оказал влияние на Фуко. Работы Фуко, особенно «История сексуальности» , также оказали большое влияние на феминистскую философию и квир-теорию, особенно на работы крупного ученого-феминистки Джудит Батлер благодаря его теориям, касающимся генеалогии мужественности и женственности, власти, сексуальности и тел.

Критика и обязательства

Дуглас Мюррей в своей книге «Война с Западом » утверждал, что «навязчивый анализ всего Фуко через квазимарксистскую призму властных отношений превратил почти все в обществе в транзакционную, карательную и бессмысленную антиутопию».

Криптонормативность, самоопровержение, пораженчество

Основная статья: Дебаты Фуко-Хабермаса

Яркая критика мысли Фуко касается его отказа предложить позитивные решения социальных и политических проблем, которые он критикует. Поскольку ни одно человеческое отношение не лишено силы, свобода становится неуловимой — даже как идеал. Эта позиция, критикующая нормативность как социально сконструированную и случайную, но опирающаяся на неявную норму для обоснования критики, привела философа Юргена Хабермаса к описанию мышления Фуко как «криптонормативистского » , скрыто полагающегося на те самые принципы Просвещения, против которых он пытается спорить. Похожая критика была выдвинута Дианой Тейлор и Нэнси Фрейзер , которые утверждают, что «критика Фуко охватывает традиционные моральные системы, он отрицает себя, обращаясь к таким понятиям, как «свобода» и «справедливость», и, следовательно, ему не хватает способности генерировать позитивные идеи. альтернативы».

Генеалогия как исторический метод и пораженчество

Философ Ричард Рорти утверждал, что «археология знания» Фуко фундаментально негативна и, следовательно, не может адекватно установить какую-либо «новую» теорию знания как таковую . Скорее, Фуко просто предлагает несколько ценных принципов, касающихся прочтения истории. Рорти пишет:

Насколько я понимаю, все, что он может предложить, — это блестящие переописания прошлого, дополненные полезными советами о том, как не попасть в ловушку старых историографических предположений. Эти намеки состоят в основном из высказываний: «Не ищите прогресса или смысла в истории; не рассматривайте историю данной деятельности, любого сегмента культуры как развитие рациональности или свободы; не используйте никакой философской лексики, чтобы охарактеризуйте сущность такой деятельности или цель, которой она служит; не предполагайте, что то, как эта деятельность осуществляется в настоящее время, дает какой-либо ключ к целям, которым она служила в прошлом».

Историки часто критиковали Фуко за недостаток строгости в его анализе. Например, Ганс-Ульрих Велер резко раскритиковал Фуко в 1998 году. Хотя Велер признает, что Фуко выдвинул на первый план некоторые проблемы современности, которые до этого были удалены или полностью игнорировались, последнего он считает плохим философом, который несправедливо получил хороший отклик со стороны гуманитарных и социальных наук. По мнению Велера, работы Фуко не только недостаточны в эмпирически-историческом аспекте, но и зачастую противоречивы и лишены ясности. Например, концепция власти Фуко «отчаянно недифференцирована», а тезис Фуко о «дисциплинарном обществе», по мнению Велера, возможен только потому, что Фуко не проводит должным образом различий между властью, силой, властью, насилием и легитимностью. Кроме того, его диссертация основана на одностороннем выборе источников (тюрьмы и психиатрические учреждения) и не учитывает другие типы организаций, например фабрики. Кроме того, Велир критикует «франкоцентризм» Фуко за то, что он не принял во внимание крупных немецкоязычных теоретиков социальных наук, таких как Макс Вебер и Норберт Элиас . В целом, Велер заключает, что Фуко «из-за бесконечной серии ошибок в его так называемых эмпирических исследованиях... интеллектуально нечестен («intellektuell unredlicher»), эмпирически абсолютно ненадежен («empirisch absolut unzuverlaessiger»), криптонормативистский соблазнитель. (« Раттенфенгер ») постмодернизма».

Феминистская критика

Хотя американские феминистки опирались на критику Фуко исторической конструкции гендерных ролей и сексуальности, некоторые феминистки отмечают ограничения маскулинистской субъективности и этической ориентации, которые он описывает. Связанный с этим вопрос, поднятый учеными Элизабет Повинелли и Кэтрин Юсофф, заключается в почти полном отсутствии каких-либо обсуждений расы в его трудах. Юсофф (2018, стр. 211) говорит: «Повинелли обращает наше внимание на провинциальность проекта Фуко в его концептуализации западноевропейской генеалогии».

Сексуальность

Философ Роджер Скрутон » (1986) утверждает в своей книге «Сексуальное желание , что Фуко был неправ, утверждая в «Истории сексуальности» , что сексуальная мораль относительна в культурном отношении. Он критикует Фуко за предположение о том, что могут существовать общества, в которых не происходит «проблематизации» сексуального, и приходит к выводу, что «ни одна история мысли не может показать, что «проблематизация» сексуального опыта свойственна определенным конкретным социальным формациям: характерно для личного опыта вообще и, следовательно, для всякого подлинного социального порядка».

Подход Фуко к сексуальности, который он считает социально сконструированным, стал влиятельным в квир-теории. Сопротивление Фуко политике идентичности и его отказ от психоаналитической концепции «выбора объекта» противоречат некоторым теориям странной идентичности.

Социальный конструктивизм и человеческая природа

Смотрите также: Социальный конструктивизм

Фуко иногда критикуют за его предполагаемый социальный конструктивизм , который некоторые считают оскорблением концепции истины . Фуко В теледебатах с Ноамом Хомским в 1971 году Фуко выступал против возможности какой-либо фиксированной человеческой природы, как это утверждается концепцией врожденных человеческих способностей Хомского. Хомский утверждал, что концепции справедливости коренятся в человеческом разуме, тогда как Фуко отвергал универсальную основу концепции справедливости. После дебатов Хомский был поражен полным отказом Фуко от возможности универсальной морали, заявив: «Он показался мне совершенно аморальным, я никогда не встречал никого, кто был бы настолько полностью аморальным [...] Я имею в виду, он мне нравился. лично я просто не мог его понять. Как будто он принадлежал к другому виду или что-то в этом роде».

Поражение в образовании и власти

Перуанский писатель Марио Варгас Льоса , признавая, что Фуко способствовал предоставлению права гражданства в культурной жизни определенным маргинальным и эксцентричным переживаниям (сексуальности, культурных репрессий, безумия), утверждает, что его радикальная критика власти нанесла ущерб образованию.

Психология себя

Одно из утверждений Фуко о субъективности личности оспаривается. Выступая против взгляда Фуко на субъективность, Терье Спарби, Фридрих Эдельхойзер и Ульрих В. Вегер утверждают, что другие факторы, такие как биологические, экологические и культурные, являются объяснениями личности.

Забудьте Фуко

Жан Бодрийяр в своем трактате « Ублие Фуко» 1977 года (пер. « Забудьте Фуко» ) утверждал, что «дискурс Фуко является зеркалом сил, которые он описывает». Поскольку «наконец-то можно с таким четким пониманием говорить о власти, сексуальности, теле и дисциплине [...], это потому, что в какой-то момент все это здесь и сейчас закончится». Следовательно, при «совпадении этой новой версии власти и новой версии желания, предложенной Делезом и Лиотаром [...] [которое было] не случайным: просто у Фуко власть занимает место желания [... ] Вот почему у Фуко нет желания: его место уже занято [...] Когда сила сливается с желанием, а желание сливается с силой, давайте забудем их обоих».

См. также

• Биополитика
• Правительственность
• Филип Рифф
• Томас Сас

Ссылки

Источники

• Эрибон, Дидье (1991) [1989]. Мишель Фуко . Бетси Винг (переводчик). Кембридж, Массачусетс: Издательство Гарвардского университета. ISBN  978-0-674-57286-7 .
• Гальперин, Дэвид М. (1997). Сен-Фуко: на пути к веселой агиографии . Оксфорд и Нью-Йорк: Издательство Оксфордского университета. ISBN  978-0-19-511127-9 .
• Мейси, Дэвид (1993). Жизни Мишеля Фуко . Лондон: Хатчинсон. ISBN  978-0-09-175344-3 .
• Миллер, Джеймс (1993). Страсти Мишеля Фуко . Нью-Йорк: Саймон и Шустер. ISBN  978-0-674-00157-2 .
• Смарт, Барри (2002). Мишель Фуко . Лондон: Рутледж. ISBN  978-0-415-28533-9 .
• Стоукс, Филип (2004). Философия: 100 выдающихся мыслителей . Кеттеринг: Индексные книги. ISBN  978-0-572-02935-7 .

Дальнейшее чтение

• Артьер, Филипп, Жан-Франсуа Бер, Фредерик Гро и Жюдит Ревель, ред. 2011. Записная книжка Фуко . Франция: Л'Эрн .
• Деррида, Жак. 1978. «Когито и история безумия». стр. 31–63 в книге «Письмо и различие» в переводе Алана Басса. Чикаго: Издательство Чикагского университета .
• Дрейфус, Герберт Л. и Пол Рабинов. 1983. Мишель Фуко: За пределами структурализма и герменевтики (2-е изд.). Чикаго: Издательство Чикагского университета .
• Фуко, Мишель. «Сексуальная мораль и закон» [первоначально опубликовано как «La loi de la pudeur»]. С. 271–285 в политике, философии, культуре .
• Фуко, Мишель, Игнасио Рамоне , Даниэль Мермет, Хорхе Майфуд и Федерико Куксо. 2018. Пять интервью с Ноамом Хомским (на испанском языке). Сантьяго: Мы все еще верим в мечты. ISBN   978-956-340-126-4 .
• Гарланд, Дэвид. 1997. «Государственность и проблема преступности: Фукальт, криминология, социология». Теоретическая криминология 1 (2): 173–214.
• Гамари-Тебризи, Бехруз . 2016. Фуко в Иране: Исламская революция после Просвещения . Миннеаполис: Издательство Университета Миннесоты .
• Делёз, Жиль . 1988. Фуко . Миннеаполис: Издательство Университета Миннесоты. Получено через U of Minnesota Press .
• Делез, Жиль и Феликс Гваттари . 1983. Анти-Эдип . Миннеаполис: Издательство Университета Миннесоты. Получено через U of Minnesota Press .
• Кузницкий, Джейсон (2008). «Фуко, Мишель (1926–1984)» . В Хамови, Рональд (ред.). Энциклопедия либертарианства . Таузенд-Оукс, Калифорния: Сейдж ; Институт Катона . стр. 180–181. дои : 10.4135/9781412965811.n110 . ISBN  978-1412965804 . LCCN   2008009151 . OCLC   750831024 .
• Макинтайр, Аласдер . 1990. Три конкурирующие версии моральных исследований: энциклопедия, генеалогия и традиция . Нотр-Дам, Индиана: Издательство Университета Нотр-Дам .
• Меркиор, JG 1987. Фуко . Беркли, Калифорния: Издательство Калифорнийского университета . Критический взгляд на творчество Фуко.
• Миллс, Сара (2003). Мишель Фуко . Лондон: Рутледж. ISBN  978-0-415-24569-2 .
• Олссен, М. 2009. На пути к глобальному тонкому сообществу: Ницше, Фуко и космополитические обязательства . Боулдер, Колорадо: Paradigm Press.
• Рудинеско, Элизабет . 2008. Философия в неспокойные времена: Кангилем, Сартр, Фуко, Альтюссер, Делёз, Деррида . Нью-Йорк: Издательство Колумбийского университета .
• Вейн, Пол . 2008. Фуко. Его мысли, его личность . Париж: Éditions Albin Michel .
• Волин, Ричард . 1987. Телос 67, Эстетический децизионизм Фуко . Нью-Йорк: Telos Press Ltd.

Внешние ссылки

• Исследования Фуко
• Йоханна Оксала. «Мишель Фуко» . В Залте, Эдвард Н. (ред.). Стэнфордская энциклопедия философии .
• Келли, Марк. «Мишель Фуко (1926–1984)» . Интернет-энциклопедия философии .
• Фуко.info. Большой ресурсный сайт, который включает выдержки из работ Фуко и обширную библиографию всех работ Фуко на французском языке.
• Новости Фуко. Большой ресурсный сайт, который включает в себя блог с новостями, связанными с исследованиями Фуко, библиографиями и другими ресурсами.
• Библиографии Фуко. Библиографии и ссылки на библиографии Фуко, касающиеся Фуко, на сайте Foucault News.
• Прогрессивная география. Блог и ресурс Стюарта Элдена. Включает обширные ресурсы по Фуко.
• Arc.Ask3.Ru Библиография книг Фуко на английском языке