Michel Foucault: The Revolutionary Postmodernist - Essay Example

Michel Foucault: The Revolutionary Postmodernist What is the role of Michel Foucault in revolutionizing the postmodern philosophy? The history of human intellectual development will convey several names that have created immense influence over human capacity of philosophizing and intellectual development. However, there are not many names that have created such immense influence over people to introduce a complete change in the thought pattern of a whole generation at dynamic rate. Michel Foucault, the revolutionary French philosopher is one such figure, who with the exercising of his intellectual capacity introduced a great deal of change in the society at a drastic rate, as well as in every aspect of the human life or observation over a short period of time. Postmodernism and Foucault have become such integrally related terms that none can exist without the other. Due to this reason it is essential for us to understand what actually postmodernism means. In his philosophical reflection Foucault has deconstructed all the conceived notions about human existence by penetrating within the layers of people’s intellectual capacity. At the same time, through such process, he also has attempted to explore whether there is any existence of Truth at the philosophical and spiritual level of human existence. The term Postmodernism is used most frequently in the cultural, philosophical and literary domain of today’s world. According to social observers the Western civilization and its cultural outlook are experiencing a change. This changing or the process of transition is known as the shifting from modernism to postmodernism. Though postmodernism is one of the most interesting field of study and research these days, but there is no such definition that can actually define postmodernism in the complete sense. One hand, it is quite difficult to provide proper description of the periods when the transitions are happening and on the other hand it is also not possible to figure out properly the main signs of postmodernism. Perhaps it is in the 30s, when the first time the term postmodernism was used. During this time postmodernism actually referred to change in historical spectrum of the Western world as well as certain changes that became conspicuous in the prevailing Art forms. It is the 1970s, when postmodernism drew huge attention from scholars in every field. In his book, A Primer on Postmodernism, the author Stanley J. Grenz has commented about prevailing influence of postmodernism, “First it denoted a new style of architecture. Then it invaded academic circles, originally as a label of theories expounded in University English and philosophy departments. Eventually it surfaced as the description for a broader cultural phenomenon.” (Grenz, 1996, p. 2) If an attempt is made to find the basic concept of postmodernism, it is quite clear from the term itself that postmodernism signifies a movement that seeks to go beyond the modernism and widen the scope as well as significance of modernism. Postmodernism basically follows the main principles of modernism but at the same time it rejects just the modern process of thinking and introduces more aspects to the whole matter. So, in order to understand postmodernism it is important to understand the modernism at the same time. It is the basic tendency of modernist perspective understand knowledge that is good, certain and objective. A modern person also believes in this principle that human mind has the capacity to access knowledge. It is the quest for knowledge of a modern man that leads him to search for a basic pattern “…of demonstrating the essential correctness of philosophic, scientific, religious, moral and political doctrines.”(Grenz, 1996, p. 4) Reason and analytical capacity are considered as the greatest virtues of a modern man as he tends to judge all the affairs that happen around him over the foundation of reason. He also invents various methods to judge the affairs of the world and enhances his knowledge at the same time. These are some of the important traits that can be found among a postmodern intellectual also but it is his quest for more knowledge as well as attempt to look at the truth from a closer perspective, that a postmodern analytical mind goes beyond the capacity real of modernist quest for knowledge. The postmodernist quest for knowledge differs from modernism at a basic ground. Postmodernism, at the first place, simply denies the modernist enlightenment and all types of assumptions or modernist myths that were introduced in the intellectual arena. Such philosophic tendency of deconstructing the modern myth was initiated with philosophical arguments of Friedrich Nietzsche. The theory of deconstruction emerged as a novel literary theory and a new philosophical movement was initiated. This theory also gave birth to the theory of structuralism in literature and supporters of this theory came up with such philosophical arguments that introduced a huge change in the total literary discourse of that time. Structuralists came up with the point of argument that language has been constructed by the society and “…that people develop literary documents-texts-in an attempt to provide structures of meaning that will help them make sense out of the meaninglessness of their experience.” (Grenz, 1996, p. 5) Supporters of the Deconstructionist theory said quite in contradiction to the Structuralists’ interpretation that “Meaning is not inherent in a text itself … but emerges only as the interpreter enters into dialogue with the text.” (Grenz, 1996, p. 5) As meaning of a text is perspective dependent thus, it varies from person to person, whoever reads it and interpret it in his/her own ways. Thus, a text can have multiple layers of meaning. But application of such theory was not only confined in the context of literature. It was the genius of postmodern philosophers that they started applying the theories of deconstruction to the daily affairs and started interpreting them accordingly. Finally such questioning and various interpretation of a particular subject lead to the understanding among philosophers that Truth is transcendental and the world as well as existence is meaningless. This very postmodern decline of accepting Truth as something substantial prepared the ground for philosophers like Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault to exercise their respective philosophical and intellectual capacity. The postmodernist approach received further boost through logical abandonment of ‘onto-theology’ and ‘metaphysics of presence’ from French philosopher Jacques Derrida. According to Derrida’s theory, as “… nothing transcendent inheres in reality,…all that emerges in the knowing process is the perspective of the self who interprets reality.” (Grenz, 1996, p. 6) Michel Foucault added further development to Derrida’s theory by introducing a great deal of moral elements. To some extent, in the context of interpretation of reality, he agreed with Derrida but at the same time he suggested that every time the reality is interpreted, it is done in accordance with power. Moreover, Foucault also said that knowledge is generated with the use of power only. Thus, whenever a person is talking or utter about something, he is actually exercising his power and at the same time exhorting violence. With this theoretical empowerment, Foucault criticized the social institutions by saying that all such institutions actually encourage violence as they always intend to impose their understanding or way of interpretation over others. If we follow the pattern of development since the ancient till modern and finally to postmodern approach, we will realize that intellectual development was happening in such a manner that had a thread of coherence. However, since the time thought processes and intellectual application of philosophers like Michel Foucault was initiated, that is the climax of postmodern intellectual development we find a complete alteration in the total situation. Such alteration does not have any relevance with that of the developments, which have already happened in the past. Foucault not only reflected over different aspects of the human life but at the same time, till the era of modernism all the intellectual development that occurred, though his philosophy, reflection and quest for Truth, he has deconstructed the total approach. Such strong was his influence over the intellectual development in the postmodern era that his death in the year 1984 is considered a great void not only in the arena of French intellectual movement but at the same time for the intellectual backdrop across the world. At the same time it has also been widely admitted among the postmodern thinkers that, “No other thinker in recent history had so dynamically influenced the fields of history, philosophy, literature and literary theory, the social sciences, even medicine.” (Kritzman, 1990, p. ix) Great scholars, philosophers and psychologists like Marx, Freud, Jean Paul Sartre and Fredrick Nietzsche have hugely impacted the process of intellectual cultivation of this postmodernist philosopher. However, it is remarkable on Foucault’s part that though he received the essence of their respective philosophical and psychological discourse but at the same time through his ingenuity he also contradicted the basic essence of their respective observation and at the same time implemented the newly implemented philosophical discourse in a completely different manner on the postmodern socio-political-cultural backdrop. “His genealogical method uncovered the variety of discursive practices such as the technologies of normalization and control through which social relations take shape; it radically challenged Western political epistemology and thereby forged a new role of critical thought that is independent of utopian models.” (Kritzman, 1990, p. ix) Here lies the genius of Foucault’s observation that through his individual intellectual orientation he created a completely different literary discourse that was completely established over rationality and practical approach. Hoe deep and prevailing was such observation? Marxism is considered as one of the most important philosophical discourse of all times and it is also regarded that in the development of modernist thoughts Marxist approach has a great role to play. However in the year 1968, Foucault interpreted in a completely different manner, clearly stating that in the Post World War II era one of the major reasons that Marxism has received a less important treatment from people because it has now been regarded as “….dogmatic framework” and it has also been powerless “… to confront a whole series of questions that were not traditionally a part of its statutory domain (questions about women, about relations between sexes, about medicine, about mental illness, about the environment, about minorities, about delinquency)”. (Foucault; Kritzman, 1990, p. ix-x) He was correct because with the social transformation, the human civilization has encountered different types of problems to which Marxist approach was incapable of providing any solution or answer, though it has often been claimed that answers to all types of problems can only be sorted by Marxist approach, which is not the fact. Now if it is questioned that since inception of the Marxist philosophy in the field of politics, sociology, even on many respects of science when it comes to its application in the context of social development, relevance and pervasiveness of this discipline has never been challenged but what happened so suddenly that Foucault, with his philosophical arguments, completely deconstructed the relevance and application of this discipline in the postmodern society? Logical analysis of the conception will help us to find out the truth behind such observation. First, since the time modernism started we see dynamic changes in the psycho-socio elements that were not that explicit till initiation of the era. It was during this period several new social concepts or diversion of the already existing ideas took place. Marxist philosophy was incapable of solving all the issues or grounds of problems that are associated with newer social developments. Second, being one of the major disciplines of modern philosophy, before inception of the modernism it was capable of explaining all changes in the society from socio-cultural-economic perspective. However, it always had a drawback that Marxism never put enough emphasis over psychological aspects. In the post modern society psychological factors played a great part in determining people’s actions on at the social level. Third, due to its tremendous impact over socio-economic factors a myth generated at the psychical level of intellectuals that they denied to think about anything beyond the scope of Marxist influence. Foucault, through his analytical power not only pointed out at the issues of problems at the social plain but at the same time he demythified Marxism form all types of intellectual prejudices and pointed out to factors that are responsible for decline of Marxism as a major branch of social philosophy. It is the quest to interpret or look at diverse aspects from new angle, creating a novel philosophical angle of his won and new dimension of interpretation that is completely separate and independent in its own way, were key factors that helped Foucault to introduce a newer intellectual discipline in the postmodern thinking process. Change, physically, mentally, emotionally, and intellectually, is one of the most important features for all human beings. Perhaps, it is due to this reason Foucault in his The Archeology of Knowledge, at a very personal level, has mentioned, “Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.” (Foucault and Kritzman, 1990, p. ix) It is interesting to observe that he has always spoken or criticized against any form of institutions, even all those intellectual approaches that were considered to be essential for understanding human affairs on the social plain were considered by him as some form of institution. His intellect and novel philosophy acted as one of the major sources that helped him to deconstruct the conceptions that have already developed in the society and finally interpreting those aspects in a completely new light and those interpretations were completely founded on the principles of altogether new ideas that have never been witnessed before by the history of human intellectual development. The discipline of feminist politics commenced long before both in literary and global context with Emily Bronte and it reached its culmination with the works of authors like Virginia Woolf and Catherine Mansfield. On the other hand, in the American context the feminist movement took a strong form due to the writings of several Afro American women authors as well as authors of general discipline. By the end of the Great War II feminism became one of the major areas of philosophic controversy in the Western epistemology. The main area of feminist discussion in the Western context was, “That women are sex, that they represent the body side of the mind/body dualism ….” (Hekman, 1996, p. 4) “Foucault’s approach deconstructs this dualism, redefining sexuality and its truth….Foucauldian-inspired feminists have not, however, tried to move “woman” to the other side of the dichotomy by claiming that women are just as rational as men. Rather they have attempted to subvert the categories that define women inferiority.” (Hekman, 1996, p. 4) Now, despite being inspired by Foucault’s ideological approaches why the feminists have returned to the same place that feminists from general discipline pursue? Here the process of mythification is again responsible. Since time immemorial women have been assigned with certain specific or typical roles that they were compelled to fulfill, being pressurized by the patriarchy. Such particular types of roles played by women were actually created certain archetypical images at the psychical level of human beings from every section of the society and even women are not exceptions to all these boundaries. These boundaries finally emerged as myths and people lack sufficient intellectual capacities to go beyond these myths to interpret females as human beings rather than feminine creatures. Foucault stressed over all those aspects that can deconstruct the social myths about women and take them out of the realm of the roles that society has imposed over them. Various aspects about sexism and interpretation of women, depending entirely over their physical identity have repeatedly been emphasized in the Foucauldian philosophical discourse. Foucault, being one of the major poststructuralist and deconstructionist in the field has attempted to destroy all the myths that were actually centered at female body politic. Reason or questioning is the only way to deconstruct the myth that has developed regarding female body politic. However in the context of such reasoning he has clearly suggested, “If it is extremely dangerous to say that Reason is the enemy that should be eliminated, it is just as dangerous to say that any critical questioning of this rationality risks sending us into irrationality.” (Foucault; Hekman, 1996, p. 172) It is clear from such observation that Foucault always stressed over the aspect of questioning and rationality from a broader perspective and at the same time he also stressed over the possibility that in the name of rationality, no matter how much intellectuals follow the process of questioning to sharpen their skill of rationality but at the same time there is a high possibility that such process of reasoning can also develop a myth and it can generate the possibility of reasoning for the sake of reasoning. Ultimately it will give birth to the boundary that would restrict the scope of intellectual exercising or analyzing all the possibilities that lead an individual to the existence or non-existence of the Truth. Though in the post modern philosophical discourse Foucauldain approach refuted the possibility of the existence of Truth but at the same time he asserted that what we actually perceive to be Truth is actually a myth that germinated long time back and with the gradual development of the society, along with the due process of time people fail to distinguish between the myth and the truth. While reflecting over spirituality, he clearly suggested, “By spirituality, I understand … that which precisely refers to a subject acceding to certain mode of being and to the transformations which the subject must make of himself in order to accede to this mode of being. I believe that, in ancient spirituality, there was identity or almost so between spirituality and philosophy.”(Foucault, Carrette, 1999, p. 1) It is his presumption about the presence of the “identity or so” that he actually refuted or argued to deconstruct in the post modern era. In the conclusion it can be said that Michael Foucault, though his novel philosophical discourse, has practically penetrated through different layers of human existence in post modern era. He also clearly segregated between two separate realms of myth and truth, though it is a matter of universal discussion if Truth actually exists or not. Reasoning and capacity to look at different aspects of the human existence from a completely different perspective, denying all the existing approaches that developed in the society were the key features of Foucault’s approach. However, at the same time, though Foucault has spoken about deconstruction of myth as it is perceived in the social context but at the same time if it is argued that Foucault, with his novel philosophical discourse has actually created a myth about regarding the deconstructionist approach that will not be wrong. Myth, according to the common conception, is something that is “… false, fictitious and irrational.” (Rosemann, 1999, p. 48) Going by this definition, people also consider the Truth to be divine or sublime, which according to several intellectual discourses is also fictitious or irrational. On certain occasions, the myths often are considered as institutions or some establishments. In the same manner Foucault’s approach, as it has been specifically categorized as “Foucauldian approach,” is automatically elevated at the level of some “-ism” or myth in the post modern context. People have assumed that his approach is the sole way to deconstruct and finally realize whether Truth actually exists or not. Though Foucault has always challenged all types of conventional ideas or “ism” but it is quite unfortunate to see that his philosophical approach has also been mythified. Despite all these reasons, there is no denial of the fact that Foucault and his philosophical discourse is considered as one of the most dynamic as well as revolutionary approach in the context of post modern philosophical arena. Works Cited 1. Carrette, J. M., Foucault, M., 1999, Religion and culture, Manchester: Manchester University Press ND 2. Grenz, S.J., 1996, A primer on postmodernism, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 3. Hekman, S.J., 1996, Feminist interpretations of Michel Foucault, Pennsylvania: Penn State Press 4. Rosemann, P.W., 1999, Understanding scholastic thought with Foucault, New York: Palgrave Macmillan 5. Sheridan, A., Kritzman, L.D. Foucault, M, 1990, Politics, philosophy, culture: interviews and other writings, 1977-1984, London: Routledge Read More