In the piece of text we chose this time, Eric Darier, a Canadian political scientist having a deep interest in environmental issues, is looking at intellectual contributions of Foucault\u2019s life dividing them into three periods: 1) an archaeological approach to scientific discourse and knowledge, 2) a genealogical approach to analysing social practices, and 3) ethical considerations of the possible conditions for the creation of self by itself. In addition to examining the influential ideas of these periods, Darier masterfully follows the development of Foucault\u2019s thinking by linking the ideas and themes arising in Foucault\u2019s earlier works to his later writings and vice versa. Furthermore, following the theme of the book, Foucault\u2019s ideas are examined for their possible applicability to environmental issues.<\/p>\n
\u2022 In Foucault\u2019s archaeological approach, knowledge is relative to the historical context from which it emerges. Focus is on the emic statements of \u2018objective reality\u2019, scientific discourses, and how objects of scientific investigation emerge. Historicity of all of knowledge is emphasised. Foucault\u2019s archaeology has been critiqued e.g. for being actually quite structural in approach despite his own criticism of structuralism; and for focusing on ideal knowledge categories and ignoring social and power relations.
\n\u2022 Genealogical period is partly Foucault\u2019s attempt to respond to prior criticisms. Foucault\u2019s genealogy tries to spot different roles the ideas take, fragment and deconstruct something that is considered stable. This adds on archaeological approach by introducing a broader context of social practices and the concept of power. Foucault here defines power partly through negation; power being relational, diffused, and having normalising effects; power being both positive and repressing, constitutive and enabling. Foucault is suspicious of what he calls \u2018teleological projects\u2019 and warns against ignoring the dark side of any projects propagated as \u2018liberation\u2019.
\n\u2022 The final Foucault focused on Greek ethics and explores, in particular, how individuals can sometimes, after all, construct themselves and their conduct in the world through \u2018practices of liberation\u2019 in relative autonomy from normalisation process.
\n\u2022 For the environmental discussion, an archaeological approach can help us see and reflect how environmental claims are made, or risks constructed, and by doing so resist the \u2018fundamentalist temptation\u2019 and reductionism. Genealogical period, in turn, introduces concepts that are very useful for environmental discussion: governmentality, biopolitics and space. Governmentality deals with issues of security, techniques to control the population and new forms of knowledge. Biopolitics concerns with power relations in governing life: population\u2019s health, hygiene, natality, longevity etc. Space refers to government\u2019s control over population living in the territory rather than a territory itself. Finally, Foucault\u2019s last period is important for environmental ethics, where the idea of relatively independent self-constitution means that humans have the potential to continuously rework their relationship with themselves and their environment.<\/p>\n
The discussion started with the question on the differences between archaeological and genealogical approach, or, more precisely, on the differences between the two analogies. How archaeological analogy differs from genealogical, if both are still emphasising the historicity of knowledge, among other things? We discussed that these two periods probably have the same goal, but present a shift in approach as well as response to several critiques as Foucault\u2019s thinking developed. While archaeological approach can be compared to digging down through historical levels to uncover the roots of knowledge and scientific discourse in relation to historical contexts, genealogical approach looks at the ancestry of ideas, the situational connections between concepts as part of human practices. Though also partly historical, genealogical approach focuses more on fragmenting or unstabilizing the concepts that are considered historically stable, looking at how and through what power relations different elements of the concepts have been normalised.<\/p>\n
The discussion then touched Foucault personally and his constant struggle against normalisation. An observation was expressed that his writings might actually reflect a certain kind of process of \u2018autopsychoanalysis\u2019. Through Foucault\u2019s works, one can imagine him processing, for instance, his own sexuality (he was at least after some point of time openly homosexual) in his continuous fighting back established power relations, pressures for normalisation, and, especially in his later writings, pondering the development of the self in the context of these relations.<\/p>\n
Everybody agreed that Foucault\u2019s profound analysis of power relations is very useful and can be applied to many contexts. It is also in a way an optimistic, or at least less deterministic, approach, as power is seen operating through dispersed networks or dispositifs, which enables the resistance to take place at the multiple points of contact with this power. We also discussed certain pre-arrangements that are required for something or somebody to have power. For example, the tools for measuring the degree of somebody\u2019s healthy lifestyle will govern one\u2019s behaviour only if one sees the value in exercising healthy lifestyle. One of us noted being himself typically very sensitive and critical towards the new and again new teleological projects typical of bureaucracies, for instance, leading us often all too easily to just accept our participation in processes of normalisation; at least today, people have a tendency to switch their mode of self-governance on rather easily, without much reflective critique.<\/p>\n
The conversation then turned to the environmental issues and the points Darier makes about applying Foucault\u2019s thinking to the current (at the time) environmental discourse. Darier mentions that Foucault\u2019s ideas of biopolitics and biopower have been extended to cover ecopolitics. While Foucault\u2019s biopolitics is concerned with administration of populations by exerting positive influence on life, current environmental issues put a twist on the idea and make us consider other forms of life than human populations, namely, environment at large. Darier was of the opinion that Foucault would criticise ecocentric (anti-anthropocentric) views for ignoring the fact that they are constructed by humans, which leaves us with a problem of how legitimate is the human voice speaking \u2018in the name of nature\u2019. Following up on this thought, even though discussion on anthropocentricism was not really on the agenda of this session of TSElosophers, we wondered whether Foucault\u2019s view might have been too anthropocentric, thereby being as much a \u2018child of his time\u2019 as anybody else: During his time, the scenario of the global ecocatastrophe, and the role of humans in getting it happen, looked certainly a significantly more distant and less likely one than how we perceive it now. Another theme, arising mainly from the final Foucault period, is the concerns on how people develop sustainable identities relatively autonomously from normalization processes, for instance, in the context of the (at that time) emerging program of \u2018new ecopolitics\u2019 and its new power relations.<\/p>\n
The discussion on environment continued taking a bit more extreme turns. While Foucault argued against extremes and for self-reflecting understanding, some of us suggested that we are now living a time where radical extremes might be necessary, not least due to the ever increasing likelihood of global ecocatastrophe. The chapter is written in 1999, and Foucault himself wrote in 1960\u2019s\u201380\u2019s, which begs the question whether new insights into the very serious environmental issues would require a new, different perspective to the environmental critique? Is it viable to just routinely resist e.g. the normalisation of environmental discourse in case of existential threat at the global level, if the other likely option were a full chaos, even everybody\u2019s war against everybody else? Indeed, appealing to security issues is one of the main components of governmentality, but the typical Foucauldian approach of viewing them always as just another teleological project, on which we should by default fight back, might in such very different conditions \u2013 under drastically new global \u2018rules of the game\u2019 \u2013 could well be viewed as less warranted. We continued discussing individual\u2019s personal choice of something being normalized for the better of the society. The topic flowed into discussion on having to make trade-offs to achieve something collectively, which means taking both the good and the bad that comes with it. The bad would mean giving up some freedom, as the only way to be completely free is to be alone.<\/p>\n
The discussion ended with the topic of personal ethics under existential threat, not living up to your ethics, and not being able to act autonomously from normalisation of practices that are against your ethics but beneficial of the survival of oneself or one\u2019s kin.<\/p>\n
TSElosophers\u2019 overall impression of the text was positive: for some, Darier\u2019s analysis brought new understanding of Foucault\u2019s works in the context of his life, while for others the main interest lied in the environmental discussion and how ideas presented in 1999 would look today.<\/p>\n
In addition, during the discussions there were several recommendations for further reading: Ari Ahonen\u2019s thesis on Foucault (Liikkeenjohdollinen tieto ja disiplin\u00e4\u00e4rinen valta: tutkielma Michel Foucault’n ajattelun relevanssista johtamis-ja organisaatiotutkimuksen kannalta, 1997), Donna Haraway\u2019s Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science (available in Google Scholar), and research in accounting on governmentality, for instance the article \u201cAccounting and the construction of the governable person\u201d published in Accounting, Organizations and Society in 1987. For additional Sci-fi readings, please contact Milla.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
TSElosophers meeting 26.3.2019 Elina J\u00e4rvinen, Kari Lukka, Morgan Shaw, Ekaterina Panina, Otto Rosendahl, Milla Wir\u00e9n Darier, E. (1999). Foucault and the environment: An introduction. Discourses of the Environment, 1-33. Of which \u201dThe Three Foucaults\u201d pages 8-27. Summary In the piece of text we chose this time, Eric Darier, a Canadian political scientist having a deep […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3160,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[117,114],"class_list":["post-776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-ethics","tag-foucault","post-preview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3160"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=776"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/776\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":788,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/776\/revisions\/788"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/tselosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}