The goal of Michel Foucault’s work over the last 20 years has been to create a history of the different ways that human beings are made subjects in our culture. He identified two main ways that this happens: “dividing practices” and “scientific classification.” “Dividing practices” involve the use of science or pseudo-science to categorize and exclude certain groups of people, often in a spatial sense but always in a social one. This is the subject matter of Foucault’s earlier books, such as “Madness and Civilization” and “The Birth of the Clinic.” “Scientific classification” involves the use of disciplines such as linguistics, economics, and biology to study and categorize different aspects of human life. This is the subject matter of Foucault’s book “The Order of Things.”
Michel Foucault’s work examines the ways that human beings are made into subjects in our culture through three modes: “dividing practices,” “scientific classification,” and “subjectification.” “Dividing practices” involves using science or pseudo-science to categorize and exclude certain groups of people. “Scientific classification” involves using disciplines such as linguistics, economics, and biology to study and categorize different aspects of human life. “Subjectification” is Foucault’s most original contribution, it involves the process of a human being turning themselves into a subject. It differs from the other two modes in that it involves the person being active in the process of self-formation, and it has been primarily focused on the dominant classes, such as the 19th century French bourgeoisie. Foucault does not provide casual explanations for these changes and leaves his readers to evaluate the interplay of intentional action, socioeconomic changes, particular interests, and accidents.
Foucault’s work examines the ways in which human beings come to understand themselves through external authority figures such as confessors or psychoanalysts. He shows how during the 19th century there was a proliferation of scientific discourses about “sex” and how this led to a growing obsession with sexuality, the health of the individual and the race, and the growth of medical discourses about sexuality. The individual and the race were joined in a common set of concerns. He also points out how the three modes of objectification of the subject (those that categorize, distribute, and manipulate; those through which we have come to understand ourselves scientifically; those that we have used to form ourselves into meaning-giving selves) designates the problematic of Foucault’s inquiries. The twin terms of power and knowledge are closely related to the problem of the subject and are central to Foucault’s work. He does not seek a general theory of history, instead, he is interested in analyzing the statements of the social sciences without judging their “progress” or lack of it, and without reducing their relative discursive and conceptual autonomy to something else seen to be more basic. He is consistently anti-Hegelian and anti-Marxist in this area and does not reject reason.
The text discusses the work of Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and historian. Foucault’s work focuses on the ways in which human beings are made into subjects through different modes of objectification, such as “dividing practices” and “scientific classification.” He also discusses the relationship between power and knowledge, and how the state has changed over time in its relationship to the individual. He argues that his work is not meant to be a reflection of something deeper and more real, but is instead focused on the effective operation of institutions. He also mentions that he is not an irrationalist, but rather an anti-ontological thinker who believes that reason is historical and political. He also talks about the new political form of power that has been continuously developing since the 16th century, the state, which combines individualization techniques and totalization procedures.
Foucault’s work centers around the idea of power and knowledge, and how they are interconnected. He analyzes how these concepts have been used throughout history to create and control subjects, and how this has led to a shift in the way that states govern and control their populations. He argues that the state’s power is both an individualizing and totalizing form of power, and that the rise of bio-power, or the management of life and its processes, is a key aspect of this. He also critiques traditional theories of sovereignty, and highlights how the concerns of the government have shifted from the prince and his territory to the management of society and its resources. He also argues that this shift has led to a new political rationality that is still very much present today.
Foucault argues that the state’s power, which is the “bio-power”, has been continuously developing since the 16th century. The state’s power is both an individualizing and a totalizing form of power, where the state is concerned with both individuals and the interests of the total population. With the rise of the state, there has been a shift in political thinking, where the state is concerned with introducing economy and order through all aspects of social life, and society becomes a political target. He also argues that the growth of capitalism is linked to the growth of the state, and that the two are mutually dependent. He also introduces the concept of “disciplinary technologies” which are the preconditions for the success of capitalism and the growth of the state. He also talks about the panopticon as a disciplinary technology, a visual order that clarifies the mechanisms of power, which are being deployed.
Foucault does not present himself as an intellectual prophet, who speaks on behalf of Reason, Justice, Progress or any other universal concepts. He believes that the role of the universal intellectual, who speaks truth to power, is no longer a viable cultural figure and that the last one was Jean-Paul Sartre. He is not a scientist, who holds key positions in society, but rather is a professor of the History of Systems of Thought at the College de France. He does not participate in the Parisian game of the “writer” as it has been defined in recent years, and does not claim any special rights or direct and privileged relationship between his intellectual work and his actions. In his essay “What Is an Author?” Foucault explains that his authority does not come from Reason and Justice, Science, or courtly Art, but rather from his position as an author and the changing historical importance of the author in literature and science.
Foucault argues that truth in literature and science have taken different paths. In literature, the identity of the author was not important until the 19th century, but now the identity of the author is closely linked to the evaluation of the work. In contrast, in science, the identity of the author is less important, and the focus is on the content of the work. He also mentions figures like Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who are considered “founders of discursivity” in the human sciences. Their texts continue to be studied and referenced despite advances in knowledge and method, and critiques of their work.
Michel Foucault may be considered as one of the “founders of discursivity” in the human sciences, meaning that his work may serve as a central organizer of social discourses in the future. The author of “The Foucault Reader”, Paul Rabiow, compares Foucault to other figures such as Thomas Kuhn and Max Weber, stating that while there are similarities between their work, Foucault’s thinking and scope is inherently different from theirs. The author argues that both Foucault and Weber share a clarity about the historical nightmare of modern capitalism, and have both committed their lives to forging intellectual tools for the analysis of modern rationality, social and economic organization, and subjectivity. Both also see a form of critical historicism as the only road to preserving reason and the obligation-difference of freedom.