Sorry its taken so long for a new post. But here we go.
In a recent lecture I attended, a question involving the status of relevance of post-colonial and post-structural theory was asked. The lecturer, a post-colonial theorist from Northwestern University argued that it Foucault's genealogies involving the evolution of the modern era tend to romanticize the pre-modern. Although I hadn't really considered it, I agree with this statement. Foucault does little to describe the life lead by individuals before the market system develops. If any of you know of lectures or writing where he critiques the state of Europe before the development of the market system please let me know! This is important because Giorgio Agamben argues that his 'state of exception' and the existence of an excluded people within a population has always existed, that it hadn't developed out of the creation of a market system. I use both in my thesis so I would love a basis for comparison.
Second, the lecturer argued that post-colonial theory, for example theory developed by Gayatri Spivak cannot be relevant because it does not challenge the patriarchal, misogynistic structure that exists and has existed. This is a critique of Spivak that I haven't heard out of the readings I have researched. From what I've understood of Spivak, she aims to critique a male-dominated, euro-centric critique of hegemonic discourse, for example Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari. I wish I would have been able to ask more questions about this position, but this was not the main idea of the lecture. Please if anyone could expand it would be very useful.
Hopefully I can keep up with the discussion. Cheers!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Camus' The Stranger: Absurdity and the Creating of Meaning
Recently I re-read Albert Camus' The Stranger (L'Etranger). Most of us were forced to read the book in high school, though I don't think I ever got through it (Sorry Mr. Clancy). Reading it now, and understanding the philosophy behind Camus' story of Monsieur Meursault, I began to question connections between Camus' Absurdity and Foucault's Knowledge and Power. Camus' philosophy of absurdity, influenced by Soren Kirkegaard, is highly debated and critiqued. Both thinkers struggled with the understanding of the absurd, arbitrariness of the world around them and the attempt to give oneself meaning in this aburd world. What is the point of living, when there is no meaning to life?
In The Stranger, Meursault lives his life day to day, not searching for deeper meaning in his everyday actions or emotions. His neighbors and the reader are able to describe him as out of touch, or insensitive to life (i.e. his reaction ot his mother's death and his indifference toward his lover Marie). Through the altercation and murder of 'the Arab' and the subsequent trial, Meursault finds himself a stranger in his own story. His interrogation, the court room spectacle, and his encounter with the chaplain reveal the arbitrariness of life. He accepts his public death because he sees that the world around him is meaningless.
It is man that gives meaning to the absurd and arbitrary 'nature'. Jean-Paul Sartre addresses the idea of absurdity in existentialism in his book The Nausea. In one specific scene, Roquentin observes the root of a chestnut tree. He is no longer able to understand the root as a root because the complete significance of the word is now in question. He is troubled by the way that something can only exist when man can define it in certain terms.
This is where I start to see Foucault. If we look at the absurdity of the world, that 'nature' only makes sense when we define it in terms that we create, then power is held by those who create those definitions. Power is knowledge, and it is a power over language. Language defines and creates meaning in the world. Those who hold power, create what we know, how we are able to define and understand the world, our relationship to one another, and how we are able to exsist. This is the root of discursive power.
Edward Said digs deeper into this argument. In Orientalism, Said argues that the Western hegemonic power is what creates and gives meaning to the Orient, which does not exist in material reality. It is a constituted idea that has been created in order to define the West as the hegemonic power by creating an Other, that is subordinate to the Self. The Other is unable to define its own essence because it is defined by the hegemon.
It may be a stretch, attempting to make connections between these different philosophers. Those who have studied more in-depth, the relationship between these thinkers may be able to dismiss my assumptions. What I hope to understand is if the world is absurd and lacks meaning in its 'natural' state, then who and what gives the world its meaning? Sartre argues that man gives meaning to the world around him, and himself. Foucault argues that it is a discursive structure that gives meaning to the world around us and it gives value and positions individuals within the structure. Said then argues that it is a hegemonic Western structure that positions the Orient as the Other that is opposite to the Self.
*These authors lack a gendered analysis of the Other and the absurd. I hope to look at a gendered critique in a later post.
Sources:
Camus, Albert. 1989. The Stranger. New York: Vintage Books.
Dawkins, Sabrina. 2010. "The Absurd - Redeeming Soren Kirkegaard and Albert Camus" Suite101. http://western-philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/the-absurd---redeeming-soren-kierkegaard-and-albert-camus (Accessed 21-Aug-2010).
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 2007. The Nausea. New York: Vintage Books.
In The Stranger, Meursault lives his life day to day, not searching for deeper meaning in his everyday actions or emotions. His neighbors and the reader are able to describe him as out of touch, or insensitive to life (i.e. his reaction ot his mother's death and his indifference toward his lover Marie). Through the altercation and murder of 'the Arab' and the subsequent trial, Meursault finds himself a stranger in his own story. His interrogation, the court room spectacle, and his encounter with the chaplain reveal the arbitrariness of life. He accepts his public death because he sees that the world around him is meaningless.
It is man that gives meaning to the absurd and arbitrary 'nature'. Jean-Paul Sartre addresses the idea of absurdity in existentialism in his book The Nausea. In one specific scene, Roquentin observes the root of a chestnut tree. He is no longer able to understand the root as a root because the complete significance of the word is now in question. He is troubled by the way that something can only exist when man can define it in certain terms.
This is where I start to see Foucault. If we look at the absurdity of the world, that 'nature' only makes sense when we define it in terms that we create, then power is held by those who create those definitions. Power is knowledge, and it is a power over language. Language defines and creates meaning in the world. Those who hold power, create what we know, how we are able to define and understand the world, our relationship to one another, and how we are able to exsist. This is the root of discursive power.
Edward Said digs deeper into this argument. In Orientalism, Said argues that the Western hegemonic power is what creates and gives meaning to the Orient, which does not exist in material reality. It is a constituted idea that has been created in order to define the West as the hegemonic power by creating an Other, that is subordinate to the Self. The Other is unable to define its own essence because it is defined by the hegemon.
It may be a stretch, attempting to make connections between these different philosophers. Those who have studied more in-depth, the relationship between these thinkers may be able to dismiss my assumptions. What I hope to understand is if the world is absurd and lacks meaning in its 'natural' state, then who and what gives the world its meaning? Sartre argues that man gives meaning to the world around him, and himself. Foucault argues that it is a discursive structure that gives meaning to the world around us and it gives value and positions individuals within the structure. Said then argues that it is a hegemonic Western structure that positions the Orient as the Other that is opposite to the Self.
*These authors lack a gendered analysis of the Other and the absurd. I hope to look at a gendered critique in a later post.
Sources:
Camus, Albert. 1989. The Stranger. New York: Vintage Books.
Dawkins, Sabrina. 2010. "The Absurd - Redeeming Soren Kirkegaard and Albert Camus" Suite101. http://western-philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/the-absurd---redeeming-soren-kierkegaard-and-albert-camus (Accessed 21-Aug-2010).
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 2007. The Nausea. New York: Vintage Books.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
At A Glance: Who was Michel Foucault?
Michel Foucault (born Paul-Michel Foucault) was born in Poitiers, France on October 15, 1926. Foucault studied structures of power through a historical, philosophical, sociological and political lens. Foucault analyzed the institutions of the hospital, prison, psychiatry facilities. He was able to reveal a discursive power operating to organize and structure the world around us (hence, his association as a Structuralist, from which he eventually distanced himself).
By excelling in his studies, Foucault was admitted to France's highest academic institution, l'Ecole Normale Superieure. Foucault was inspired by the philosophies of Kant and Nietzsche. In his early career, he taught in different universities across France, teaching a variety of courses in the fields of psychology, sociology and philosophy.
Throughout his life, Foucault lived for social activism. In the mid-1950s he affilated with the Communist Party in France but later disagreed with their political motivations. In May of 1968, he witnessed the student riots in Tunisia. These riots inspired him to support a variety of while teaching in France. He joined the Maoist group Gauche Proletarienne and founded Prison Information Group, which was inspired by his work Discipline and Punish. In 1979, Foucault participated in an extensive analysis and critique of the Iranian Revolution.
Living as a gay man, Foucault experienced serious depression in his youth. In the 1970s, his work lead him to study the structures of gender and understanding of sexuality and the body. Only openly gay in his inner-circle, he remained quietly active in gay politics and activism. After his death on June 25th, 1984, it was discovered that he was a victim of the AIDS virus. It is debated whether or not he was aware of his illness.
Foucault's work has been challenged and critiqued during his life and posthumously. Though problematic, his work is a useful tool and starting point for revealing the underlying structures that organize the world around us.
Image taken from: http://www.manoelmotta.com.br/livros/repensar-a-politica-o-novo-e-sexto-dos-ditos-e-escritos-de-michel-foucault
Sources:
Wikipedia. n.d. Michel Foucault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault (Accessed 18-AUG-2010).
Filllingham, Lydia Alix. 1993. Foucault For Beginners. Danbury, CT: For Beginners LLC.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Welcome!
This blog has been an idea of mine for several months now. My goal is to make theory and philosophy accessible to the everyday critical thinker. I look forward to posting questions, articles, miscellaneous thoughts, photos, etc. Please, do not let the title of this blog, "What the Fouc?!", deter you from exploring other theoretical avenues. Comments and discussion are encouraged, but please respect other members questions, comments and ideas.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)