What on earth is Foucault talking about?

Michel Foucault is an elusive figure, though his influence on sociology, cultural studies, politics and literature has been enormous, and he has been one of the most discussed scholars of the twentieth century. One of the problems with understanding Foucault is that his arguments cannot really be reduced to a clear-cut list of assertions; the power of Foucaults work stems more from the way he suggests we look at things such as identity, sexuality and power. The study of Foucaults thoughts is made even more difficult because his ideas developed and changed over time. When he was accused of saying different things at different stages of his career he replied Well, do you think I would have worked like that all those years to say the same thing and not to be changed? He went on to say that I dont feel it is necessary to know exactly what I am. The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning. EARLY STUDIES In his earlier studies, Foucault was concerned with the ways in which discourses of institutions, and their formally recognised experts, worked to constrain certain groups. For discourses read ways of thinking and speaking. The clearest example is from his work called Madness and Civilisation, where he argued that the discourses of psychiatrists served to define and confine those people seen as mad. Its that problem again of denying youre nuts which only confirms that you are delusional, for example in Shutter Island Rachel 2: You think I'm crazy? Teddy Daniels: No. No, no I... Rachel 2: And if I say I'm not crazy. But that hardly helps, does it? That's a Kafkaesque genius of it. People tell the world you're crazy and all your protests to the contrary just confirm what they're saying. Teddy Daniels: I'm not following you. I'm sorry. Rachel 2: Once you're declared insane, and anything you do is called part of that insanity. Reasonable protests are 'denial'. Valid fears 'paranoia'. Teddy Daniels: Survival instincts are 'defence mechanisms'. Rachel 2: You're smarter than you look, Marshal. That's probably not a good thing. LATER WORK. Here Foucault shifted the emphasis away from the ways that external forces and discourses might constrain people, towards a focus on how discourses might bring

people to police themselves. He looked at how the disciplines and surveillance of prisoners affected their own behaviour. These ideas were also applied to sexuality; social constructions of sexuality were internalised by people. Sexuality then did not have to be actively regulated by the state, as such, because people would be very careful to monitor their own behaviour themselves. In terms of identity, which is what we are interested in, Foucault argues that our identity is not just about how external discourses impose an identity on us, but about an individuals own dynamic reaction to their surroundings.

This challenges some of the ways we looked at identity in AS Comms and Culture. What do you think about this in relation to the factors below that shape our identity? The family.

Role models.

Peer pressure.

Media influence.

The key thing here is that the wider social environment remains significant, but Foucault has become more interested in peoples subjective responses to it, both as internalised constraint, and a more creative resistance. Try to think of examples of where you have developed a sense of what you should or should not do that constrains you in some way. Are there times when you have adopted some form of creative resistance?

Foucault on Power. To understand Foucault on power it is necessary to understand what went before. When we discussed feminism, how were power relations between the genders seen?

How about for Marxists?

Foucaults understanding of power is quite different. For Foucault, power is not an asset which a person can have, rather, power is something exercised within interactions. You cannot really say that someone was powerful, but you can say that they frequently find themselves in a powerful position, or had more opportunities to exercise power. Foucault says Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere ... Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society. Foucault gets complicated, but his central point is that while not everyone has equal access to power, power cannot be held by one group; power is everywhere and plays a role in all relationships and interactions. Tricky? Go back to my example of the boss who has more power than you at work. It is the institution that gives him his power. How can he exercise power over you?

Can you think of a situation where the boss becomes the powerless one in a different context? I.e. not at work.

How might these ideas relate to gender relations? Consider relations between men and women and also amongst women.

Are there similar contexts where relations of power between black and white people are challenged?

Power and Resistance One of Foucaults most important claims, and one that is frequently overlooked, is that wherever there is power there is resistance.

Choose one from either the work place, a household where one person earns more than their partner, or an institution such as school or college and discuss in your groups how power might produce resistance in everyday matters.

Because power always goes hand in hand with resistance, Foucault says that power might be productive rather than always being a negative force. For example resistance to phone use in class could produce a 5 minute phone amnesty or ways to bring phones into activities during a lesson. This brings us to Foucaults arguments about sexuality and identity in relation to power and resistance. As we discussed last week, the Victorians promoted a discourse about sexuality that tried to suppress (keep in check) certain kinds of sexual behaviour, which simultaneously gave an identity to them, and so (ironically) launched them into the public eye. Foucault argues that the appearance of discourses on sexuality made possible a strong advance of social controls into this area of perversity but it also made possible the formation of a reverse discourse: homosexuality began to speak on its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or naturality be acknowledged. The exercise of power on the one hand the labelling of deviant sexualities by authorities figures actually produced the resistance which would drive gay liberation movements in the twentieth century. Is there a contemporary label that appears in debates about Islam these days?

Sex and Identity. Foucaults thoughts on sex and identity are based on the notion that the Christian practice of confession brought sex into the spotlight. This was because all desires, not just forbidden ones became part of Christianitys discourse about the self. Desires suddenly acquired great importance. This idea of sex as the inner truth about the self spread through Western culture. Sex became a social and political as it still is today, when teen pregnancy, AIDS, sex education and pornography are thrust into the news by interested parties. What other aspect of sexuality have we frequently discussed in relation to identity, femininity and the influence of the media?

Does it make sense to say that sex is at the heart of identity? The answer is surely yes, and more so than ever before. The discourses of magazines and self-help books, TV shows and films all make knowing ones sexual identity of crucial importance to inner happiness. The media clearly suggests that in order to be fulfilled and happy, you should: Understand your own sexuality Have sex often Seek help for sexual problems Have a satisfactory sexual partner or get a new one.

What do rising divorce rates, number of people who re-marry, low take up of civil partnerships say about the above bullet points?