Thoughts on Foucault’s difficulties understanding individuals’ decisions.

Foucault’s perspective is both anti-Marxist and anti-dialectical. In Foucault’s view society does not really have a proper historical progression; rather, society goes through repetitions of the same. Foucault’s primary unit of analysis is discourse – understood as “a system of possibility for knowledge” (Philp:69). His method is to ask what rules allow certain statements to be made and “what rules allow us to identify certain individuals as authors” (Philp:68-69). He is interested in the ways that statements which are considered either true or false impact society.

Key to understanding Foucault is the notion of power. While many other theorists understand power to be something that can be acquired and exercised, Foucault suggests that power runs throughout society. Power describes “relationships in which one agent is able to get another to do what he or she would not have done otherwise” and “operates to constrain or otherwise direct action in areas where there are a number of possible courses of action open to the agents in question” (Philp:74). Because power is an inherent feature in social relations it is always potentially unstable and potentially reversible (Skinner:75). Foucault suggests that “we are subjected to the production of truth through power, and we cannot exercise power except through production of truth” (cited in Philp:75).

For Foucault, power operates relationally through institutions, normalizing procedures, and disciplining practices. Collectively, we become subjects of the power of institutions and power produces the meaning of things. It is through definitions and meanings that modern science disciplines and creates docile bodies that have internalized discipline such that punishment is no longer needed.

Though Foucault is focused on understanding power, he also suggests that there are possibilities for resistance. He suggests that resistance is internal to power and is generated by conflicts between discourses that have produced us as subjects. He suggests that resistance is always localized and operates through the will to not be governed. Because power/knowledge operates on the body, people are produced as subjects. Therefore, Foucault suggests that the body might be a place where resistance can be found. Foucault also suggests that individuals’ ‘agonism,’ or thirst for struggle, ensures they will struggle. Additionally, Foucault understands state power as being “built up from innumerable individual exercises of power which are consolidated and co-ordinated by the institutions, practice and knowledge claims” (Philp:76)

Because Foucault focuses on discourse and power relations it appears that he has a difficult time explaining the decisions that individuals make. This is compounded by the fact that knowledge/power and truth claims impact whole swaths of people in similar ways. However, this impact and the people that it impacts vary with time. Foucault is only able to analyze individual decision in such a way that historical context is ignored. Unlike Raymond Williams and his ability to contextualize decision making, Foucault is focused on discourse, definitions, and power/knowledge such that he is often unable to see some of the real life circumstances that impact decision making. Thus, I believe that Foucault is better able to explain issues of power, society and discourse than individual decision making processes.

Freud, Individuals, Civilization, and Super-egos

Word Count: 1514

Freud, Individuals, Civilization, and Super-egos

In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud examines the development of civilization by tracing the development of the individual. Drawing parallels between man and civilization, Freud suggests that the relationship between the ego and super-ego is quite similar to the relationship between man and civilization. In both cases it seems that instincts and aggression are inhibited for the greater good of the organism (either man or society). However this does not come free of negative consequences. Indeed, civilization prevents man from enjoying the full extent of possible liberties, just as the super-ego prevents the ego from full gratification.

Man strives for happiness. Though he actively pursues activities that lead to the absence of pain and unpleasure, happiness is strictly related to the goal of experiencing strong feelings of pleasure. The two aims, both a positive and negative, are what constitutes Freud’s general notion of the pleasure principle. The pleasure principle, in turn, is what Freud believes determines the purpose of life and “dominates the operation of the mental apparatus.” Unfortunately, man is prone to unhappiness and this unhappiness can be experienced in three ways:

“[1] from our own body which is doomed to decay and dissolution and which cannot even do without pain and anxiety as warning signals; [2] from the external world, which may rage against us with overwhelming and merciless forces of destruction; and [3] finally from our relations with other men. The suffering which comes from this last source is perhaps more painful to us that any other.”

Of particular importance is his understanding of the development of the individual as well as society and the suffering caused by human relations. The first source of unhappiness cannot generally be avoided – people age and decay. The second source, however, can be avoided through the creation of and participation in communities. One problem here is that by joining a community, man is put into close proximity with other men and opens himself up to the third source of unhappiness, especially if all men are actively pursuing the satisfaction of their instinctual impulses. Therefore, if man is to remain protected from the outside world he must live in a community, and if he is to protect himself from the pain of social relations then those that live in the community must work to master their instinctual impulses.

There is another complication in the justification and desirability of community: happiness due to the satisfaction of the untamed ego is more enjoyable than the satisfaction of a tamed instinct. Why, then, would men voluntarily enter into a community where they cannot readily experience untamed ego satisfaction? There are at least two answers to this question. The first is that men are capable of making economic decisions. This means that perhaps the enjoyment of untamed ego satisfaction but a short life (given the lack of community and protection from the outside world) is, in the aggregate, less than the enjoyment derived from the satisfaction of a tamed instinct over the long term. The second explanation may be that modern man has given up the pleasure principle for the reality principle – being satisfied/happy to avoid unhappiness and suffering caused by the outside world. Whichever of these two explanations might be most correct, man consistently enters communities. This is one of the most interesting paradoxes developed by Freud in Civilization and its Discontents.

Freud believes that, in general, civilization is responsible for man’s misery. He writes, “in whatever way we may define the concept of civilization, it is a certain fact that all the things with which we seek to protect ourselves against the threats that emanate from the sources of suffering are part of that very civilization.” However, the purpose of civilization is not to create misery. Instead, it is to “protect men against nature and to adjust their mutual relations” presumably to prevent such misery. Protecting men against nature is straightforward enough that it does not need further explication. The latter goal of civilization, on the other hand, is somewhat more difficult to understand.

If civilization did not attempt to regulate social relations, they would be “subjected to the arbitrary will of the individual: that is to say, the physically stronger man would decide them in the sense of his own interest and instinctual impulses.” This relation is untenable for communal life and civilization because human life in common requires that the majority come together as stronger than the individual. Thus, the development of “right” is formed in opposition to the “right” of any particular individual. Freud believes that this “replacement of the power of the individual by the power of a community constitutes the decisive step of civilization.” Another way to understand this new relationship is that the power of the community is rightness while the power of the individual is brute force.

By giving power over to the community and removing it from the individual, civilization, in effect, inhibits the liberty of all community members. Members of the community must now restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual outside of community knew no restrictions. The process here is similar to that of the libidinal development of the individual: the suppression of instinct. Consequently we see that the sublimation of instinctual aims becomes a key feature of civilization. In addition to the suppression and sublimation of instinct, civilization has the consequence of the creation of cultural frustrations, which come about from the nonsatisfaction of powerful instincts. One unfortunate consequence of this nonsatisfaction is the development of neurosis, which is the “outcome of a struggle between the interest of self-preservation and the demands of the libido.”

In addition to the instinct to join into larger units, communities, there is an opposing instinct that works to dispose of those larger units in hopes of a return to the time when individuals ruled and liberty was attainable: the death instinct. This death instinct manifests as aggression, therefore preventing self-destruction, but when the outward aggression is hindered, as in the case of the community, the death instinct is bound to increase self-destruction. Freud believes that this “inclination to aggression is an original, self-subsisting instinctual disposition in man, and… that it constitutes the greatest impediment to civilization.” Therefore one can understand the evolution of civilization as the struggle between the instinct of life and destruction, played out in the human species.

With all of these important developments in mind, Freud suggests that we can see many similarities between the development of civilization and the education of the individual, such that it may as well be the same process applied to different objects. Surely the process of the individual learning which instincts to suppress and the internal tensions that is felt when one is not permitted to satisfy the libidinal instincts bears many resemblances to the process of instinct inhibition that man undergoes when he joins a community. While the family helps shield the child from the outside world, which is likely to bring unhappiness, the community does the same for the individual. Where the destructive instinct can be found in the child necessarily dependent on the relation with the child to the father, so too is the death instinct inherent in man dependent on the existence of the community.

Much like the child’s instincts are hindered due to fear of offending an external authority (the father), primitive man also had to hinder instincts due to threat of external authority (the outside world). But as the child develops the super-ego, civilization develops its own equivalent. Freud suggests that “the super-ego in the epoch of civilization has an origin similar to that of an individual. It is based on the impression left behind by the personalities of great leaders.” Finally, “both the cultural and individual super-ego set up strict ideal demands, disobedience to which is visited with ‘fear of conscience.’” This fear of conscience is something unique to developed man. Initially, though primitive man had a sense of guilt, this guilt was due to the consequence of acts of aggression abstained from. Then the sense of guilt came from actions carried out.

With the development of the internal authority, or super-ego, there is no difference between intended aggression, or imagined aggression, and aggression that has been carried out. Since then, guilt has been understood to come from both action and intention. The super-ego, it seems, has no problem with setting forward demands that are nearly unattainable if one is no longer allowed to think without the imposition of guilt. Here we see another similarity between civilization and the individual. Man’s super-ego has demands that are set without regard to whether or not man can achieve them. Further, the super-ego does not pay enough attention to the happiness of the ego. Similarly, the cultural super-ego issues commands without asking if people can obey them. The cultural super-ego thinks that man’s ego is capable of doing anything commanded of it, as though it has unlimited mastery of the id. Therefore, in an attempt to ensure unity and communal life, the super-ego of both man and culture impose unattainable standards, the results of which can be neuroses.