Fuco and me
Someone warn me in one of your responses from becoming a Fucoist. I thought about this notion, and meditated about the question how you came to this idea. Fuco as to me is like a waiter, who is cleaning up the table, but then has no menu and no food to offer. So he is the cleaning lady, but someone else has to come after him and bring the menu.
Then i thought you probably mean the archaeology of history in Fuconian terms. Meaning i try to derive out of historical events that changed the human history and collective consciousness, the answer to the question, where we are and to where we are heading too. But except of the technique Fuco used, that seems to me quite trivial, nothing in me is Fuconian. I’m digging into the history to find there directives to where from here and on, while Fuco just tried to find the source of collective consciousness, that substance of which all the ethics, norms, conformity and morality is derived from, to diminish it. Then he opposed any trial to create a new substance, which could create new norms of any kind that could guide the human social behavior. I wondered, what kind of food Fuco would eat without recipe?
Then I wondered, it is obvious on Fuco’s system couldn’t be established a community life, but maybe a total individualism could work. So i made a thought experiment, and imagined what would happen to Robinson Crusoe if he would live a Fucoian life, instead of puritanically harboring his island. He would probably psychologically fall apart.
Then my associations changed to wonder, what a world was then in these times when still existed inhabitable islands, without human creatures and without five star hotels. And here i understood, this is all about Fucoism, when you come to the point that you have to give answers, you just change the subject.
What’s right about Fuco to my opinion is his observation of effectiveness of modern surveillance and control of the individual as compared to the medieval system, cruel by itself by any stands to the individual, but very ineffective as a tool for domination.
The main problem of Fuco, as political scientists before him, starting from Machiavelli, Hobbs, Lock, but even Karl Marx is that they looked at political power or any kind of authority of one human being upon other, from the point of view of elites. Yet, the point of view of subordinates, those who are ruled, coordinated, monitored, indoctrinated, humiliated, suppressed, exploited, and sometime even enslaved or murdered, without to be explained why it happened, etc. is very different from this point of view. They are not looking to understand the structure of authority, or not even for moral questions of right and wrong, but they are looking for justification for the authority of those who rule. Yet, those who submit themselves to be ruled are not looking for justification in explanation of some rational philosophical theory of power, like Machiavellian understanding and managing cynically the evil to arising submission and control, or Hobbs idea of creating a body of human community managed by one top manager who has the authority to create fear and obedience, or Locks social contract between the rulers and the ruled. Those who act out of submission, under the rule of others, don’t even look for a turn of the wheel, so their turn to rule would come. Even if by accident those, whose destiny and cognitive capacity is to be submitted to the rullers they happen to participate in such a turn of wheel called revolution, out of the revolution again will emerge as the leaders those others, who are destined or have the knowledge to rule. Here Fuco was right, authority and power to control others is about knowledge, or i would put it rather as ignorance of those who are submitted. But those who lack this knowledge, the ordinary people, who voluntarily subordinate themselves to authority have no knowledge of this kind. They are happily deceived by all the instruments created by those who dominate them. Instruments like, all the media ( Hollywood, newpapers, television, even the most popular clips on the internet), festivals like sport and cultural events, public holidays, public ceremonies, public events, divinization of celebrities, etc. They are definitely not in a mood to change their state and position from being submited and monitored to a position of self-rule, without any predifined norms, codes, epical heroes and heroines to indentify with.
For these people Fuco has no place, he would cause them to be lost in confusion. As contrary to Fuco, the ruling elites, who do have the knowledge and capacity to dominate others, will create the mythology to mystify the ruled by their divinely justified position and authority. Do not look for rationale behind any of this justification. Enough to remember the intensity in which the worlds 95% population watched for days the funeral ceremony of princess Diana, to understand how important is for the majority of worlds inhabitants the epical story of his heroes.
And who was this princes Diana after all? Will here death cause any change in human existance? Nothing of this kind. And yet she was the ultimate heroine to morn for and not someone like Rosalind Franklin, who died at age of 38, even before she could recieve the well justified nobel price for discovering the basic structure of the DNA. So all the fame could go to Watson and Crick, who have stolen her laboratory results with generous help from Roisalins college, Maurice Wilkins, who had stolen from Rosaline her results, to give them to Watson. The Nobel commission find this avct enough to justify to give him the nobel price instead to Rosalind Franklin, she by the time of the ceremony was dead. To my knowledge, no wide spread public ceremonies were hold in her funeral.
From → MENUE