Final Exam (Take-home)
Student Essay
Foucault’s Anti-Method and Genealogy of Power-Knowledge
The French philosopher, critic, and historian Michel Foucault is an original and creative thinker who has made significant contributions to the study of the history of ideas. Yet he is not a philosopher or historian in the conventional way. Foucault’s notion of history is characterized by discontinuity, rupture and arbitrariness—a departure from the traditional belief in an integrated and unified history. His works on sexuality, madness, medicine and punishment are more than just an account of their development or a philosophy about their foundations. This essay attempts to give an introduction to Foucault’s anti-method, or genealogy, which is adopted in his study of the history of ideas, including such key concepts as subjectivity, power-knowledge and discipline.
In the study of the history of ideas, Foucault offers a new method of his own—the anti-method, which challenges conventional methods that usually demonstrate their objectivity, comprehensiveness and desperately in search of apolitical nature. Foucault’s method is an anti-method in the sense that it has a clear and strong statement of its political purpose and intends to dispel the illusion of the existence of an apolitical method. The political question in Foucault’s scholarship has nothing to do with electoral or even ideological performance but with the politics of truth, in terms of “what kinds of discourse are true, what the mechanism and sanctions are for distinguishing true from false, the techniques for acquiring truth and the status of those who are empowered to say what is true” (131).
Foucault at first called his new method “archaeology” and not until the beginning of the 1970s did he develop his more adequate “genealogy” to denote his anti-method. Foucault believes that there are many forms of subjugated knowledges, that is, knowledges which have been excluded and rejected by the mainstream knowledge. For Foucault, archaeology is the process of digging out and analyzing the “theoretical system of knowledge,” whereas genealogy is a method dealing with “power and real practical struggles” (O’Farrell 64). In other words, archaeology is about discourses while genealogy is about power relations. If we take archaeology as an analysis of subjugated knowledges, the aim of genealogy is to activate them so that they can be effective for people’s struggles. The missions of archaeology and genealogy are essentially the same, but a shift from the former to the latter reveals Foucault’s growing concern for power relations and disregard of the “origin-continuity-subject-event” matrix of the traditional history of ideas.
Traditional historians are always trying to seek the origin of an idea or institution, assuming that an essence always exists and is first revealed in the founding era; the continuous development would then be considered as “the progress of ‘fall’—away from the original and essential meaning”; the “events” thus, in the case of the history of ideas, are the “work” or “theory”, and they are closely associated with the idea of “subject” or the “author”, as Larry Shiner puts it, “the individual as creator and bearer of history (387). Foucault’s genealogy rejects the “origin-continuity-subject-event” complex at every point, which is opposed to the traditional search for ahistorical foundations and metaphysical essence. His genealogy traces not “origin,” but “descent.” He frees us from the illusion of a presupposing essence or truth, and without an origin, continuity is also impossible. “Genealogy is the analysis of how on
By rejecting “origin” as well as “continuity,” genealogy also rejects the idea of a priori and transcendental “subject,” best illustrated by Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” For Descartes, subject is a person who thinks about and perceives an objective world, and subjectivity is independent of material conditions. In other words, the thinking subject is split from an external world of objects that he thinks about and it is a transcendental existence unaffected by material conditions. The Cartesian theory of subjectivity is challenged by later thinkers who see subject as not a truly free agent but bound by specific exterior material conditions. The major influence on these later thinkers is Francis Bacon who questions the notion of “a truly autonomous subject” and argues that “institutions, language and even biology” all serve to establish a subject which is “shaped by acculturation” (Decker 18-19). Following the tradition of Baconian subjectivity, Foucault also opposes the notion of a universal and timeless subject and sees subject as a changing form created by power relations. His rejection of subject as the creator of history shows his intention to organize history in a different way which “can account for the constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects, etc., without having to make reference to a [transcendental] subject…” (Shiner 387). In place of subject, Foucault proposes organizing principles and governing rules which are a part of power relations. Therefore, in the study of the history of ideas, it is not a matter of analyzing the “subject” who is the originator or author of a certain work, but in looking at what principles and rules underlie the formation of this history.
If on
Foucault proposes several historical forms of his web of power relations, on
To summarize, Foucault’s anti-method, or genealogy of power-knowledge, is a sharp new tool in the study of intellectual history. Rejecting the Cartesian assumption of a transcendental subject, Foucault largely incorporates the Empirical tradition of subjectivity, and goes beyond it with the analysis of power-knowledge relations. Foucault should not be viewed as a methodologist or theorist, since he develops neither an overall method nor any definitive theory in the sense of a set of unambiguous answers to a set of time-worn questions. What Foucault promotes is an interrogatory practice rather than a search for essentials in the study of history and philosophy.
Works Cited
Decker, James M. Ideology. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon, 1980.
O’Farrell, Clare. Michel Foucault. London: Sage Publications, 2005.
Shiner, Larry. “Reading Foucault: Anti-Method and the Genealogy of Power-Knowledge.” History and Theory, 21.3 (1982): 382-398.
评论