Michel Foucault's "The Subject and Power"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2022
- In this episode, I cover Michel Foucault's essay, "The Subject and Power."
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/
Thank you for talking about the bald power man David
david please dont stop putting more videos im really interested in philosophy but i found theory very hard to get through and your videos are amazing they are very concise and clear and made philosophy accesible for me i recommend your channel to everyone i hope you get a bigger audience
Brilliant work. Thank you for making these videos! (I try to watch all the ads cause that's the only way I can support your work right now 😅 )
Amazing and outstanding way of explaining such complex concepts…keep on please.
I can't emphasize enough how important these vids in particular. A lot of the public discourse is explicitly opposed to Foucault, is dismissive of him, to say nothing of a certain superstar professor's verdict.. It is nice to see an alternative on the yt.
Because he was a rapist?
Well, Foucault was an open paedoph. so it isn't exactly confusing that people don't like him.
I think his and many others are criticizing honestly. To be fair, Foucault was a bad person and did some evil things. It’s difficult for a lot of people not to have an emotional reaction to that. And I agree with some criticism. Many people will say, for example, postmodernism is parasitic. And certain postmodernists get angry. But postmodernism views itself as a parasite.
There’s also some historical inaccuracy. I mean, postmodernism gives good tools to criticize modernity, but all it does is itself invert modernity. My favorite example: the first person who said knowledge is power was Francis Bacon.
@@mariog1490 Your last example is interesting. Are you talking a bout postmodernists demonizing Francis Bacon and blaming him for all sorts of things of which he is blameless because of the historical oppressiveness of some science? As you know the words knowledge and power were not the province of 17the century thought in the same way it is was in 1970s-90s 20th century thought
@@mariog1490 lol then why tf you’re here? 😮bad person? Evil doing? What do you mean by that and why are those anecdotes relevant to his theory ?
It took me 2 hours to go through this video. It was very dense. But I am crumbling right now with the concepts explained here. There are fantastic. Thank you so much for it
Hi David. Great video. I enjoyed it. Fortunately I had a copy of the Foucault essay you mentioned and I started reading it immediately after this video. Your explanations really do help in making sense of the text. Cheers Thanks.
Glad to have found you at 40k subs. You are a rockstar.
This video is brilliant. It was really useful for me,thanks a lot
Just in time. thank you so much
I love your cat. Well done. I'm glad I found you and will look forward to listening to your views on other subjects. Thanks for making this video.
Oh dear, another lecture I'll be incapable of concentrating on because you have chosen to torture us with those pecs and biceps. Reported for inappropriate content!!! haha
🧸
Whoa flirty much
@@Vgallo Well, thirsty at least lol
But sadly, he's taken so I had to tame my passions... or at least, redirect the thirst haha
@@satyasyasatyasya5746 you must be gay yeah? there's no way a female- let alone one who's into philosophy would be so direct, or at least the likelihood is extremely low, kudos if you not, it would be much easier for men if there were more females like this- and if you are - I have better pecs and no glasses!!!
I have been binge watching your videos after waiting for my university application letter. I would like to thank you for your videos concerning political philosophy, phenomenology and existentialism. I have found much to think in your videos as well as new branches of philosophy to explore. To me, there's nothing more important than expanding your mind and encouraging thinking in times where reliable information may be uncertain.
I just sent the link to your channel to ny brother, by the way. Happy to see you grow. :)
Really informative as always David! Your lectures are brilliant. Do you read any Giorgio Agamben? I would love to hear you go over his "The Signature of All Things" where he defends his method and Homo Sacer project. Or Walter Benjamin!
i personally laughed so hard when you started talking about the wellness industry and all that bc you've always reminded me of edward norton from fight club if he'd studied philosophy of something idk maybe it's just me
I apologise, i mean this with respect but i can only stutter when there is such beauty and intellect and grace (this is my first ever thirst comment)
His idea of pastoral power evolved into governmentality before he died. Governmentality is the instrumental rationality of governance. Ostrom shows how this can and should be decentralised back to the local stakeholders who can most efficiently monitor it. But traditional parochial norms are controlled by SME gatekeeper "experts" employed by think tanks and promoted by the PR industry that employs 6x as many journalists as the mass media does.
all top stuff, thanks a lot...i wonder if there is space for mentioning subjectivation? as part of the 'care of the self', later foucault? I use it in my thesis as leaning against agency....
it would be really cool if you talked about Foucault's history of sexuality in some extent, I just started reading it! love your videos man, you've introduced me to a number of really great theorists, namely baudrillard
oh wait nvm
@theoryandohilosophy I adore your lectures, thank you for sharing them with us. You are tremendous.
From ~7:00 - can you kindly expand a bit on how WWII particularly in Europe related to rationalism? Was it that irrationality was the logical conclusion of rationalism, or that irrationality was an endemic element of human beings despite gospel of rationalism, or something else? I’m very curious and appreciate your thoughts!
You are a Legend
Love !
Thank you very much!
Can you please put links for the articles or books you explain in the description box in the upcoming videos?
I wish you would have mentioned your sources I would have liked to read more about the sections you mentioned :(
Hey I enjoy your videos and I noticed you say the same thing at the start of everyone have you thought of prerecording it to save yourself time
I'm always curious about the wall hanging behind you, would you be so kind to share about that? :D
you been workin out eh ;)
Question for anyone who’s read more Foucault than I have: does he say that these systems were deliberately designed to maintain systems of control or was it subconscious/a byproduct?
I think its more of just a reaction of power; its not that it was conscious nor unconscious (in same cases it goes either way) but rather biopolitical power was basically inevitable (maybe not the specific biopower we have now, but the power and control over life is a result of power dispersing itself throughout society). Like we controlled lepers by keeping them all in these buildings which would be repurposed into hospitals and, finally, insane asylum. The control just shifted from lepers to the insane based on various epistemological factors. With something like discipline and punish, power, in order to operate as itself (and still be ‘powerful’) HAD to disperse and become invisible (the move from sovereign societies (with one powerful king) to the disciplinary and biopolitical power (many institutions which, together, hold more power than the king ever did).
I think asserting a ‘purpose’ on these things might diminish the point foucaults saying, that power moves.
Could you please provide examples when you explain points? The concepts really sound straight up from an exoplanet sometimes.
yoo haircut looks dope!
Invite him to your party! All he needs is the balls to grow a beard with it. (Just kidding Davey boy).
please what is faucault's epestemology on the sunject..you didnt touch on that
Foucault's biggest mistake was always opposing the notion of power itself while at the same time pointing out how power relations are inevitable, making opposing power relations generally pointless. A much more sensible use of his theories would be to look at various power relations and figure out how they might be implemented to keep the group of people we prefer in power.
@26:14 power forces homogenisation.
Ok a smart person here.
Power (or actually in this case: the privilege to inflict control and force on others, and importantly, the observation and will to do so)
Makes people behave. Behave in what way? The way the person with privilege of force says they should. The Shepard herds the flock in to the shaped idea and will of the one.
Since the idea and will of one us singular, as humans tend to mono-consciousness, it will follow that it trims differences that branch from a centre norm, thus population until control will tend-to-the-norm by the gardeners hand
Are you going to cover history of sexuality vol 3 one day?
I LOVE YOUR CAT!!!
i watch ur vids while lifting cus ur physiognomy makes me really angry but also i learn a lot, thanks for all the content
🤣🤣
❤❤❤
From one tutor to another… I owe you money 😂
O well your video is very informative but it would be much better if you make everyone understand via slides.
you are so cute :)
Foucault was trying to give his method empirical legitimacy without a mystical consciousness. His active subject was only provable in its resistance to power. Because definitions are used to legitimate ("field of discourse" in the clinic) backed by technological means of ordering (panopticon & GPS) he did not define humanity except by resistance. This was his technique paper to allow others to copy him better than the order of things did. Foucault found the problem with his method in self objectification. So he next wrote the 3 volume history of sexuality (eg. the "confessing animal"). This was later, elaborated by Judith Butler in "gender performance". I recommend the book "define and conquer" about colonial subjectification.
Nowdays Foucault would be happy to discover that even bacteria are assumed to have limited sentience through modelling themselves as part of their environment. Elanor Ostrom defines this self as a local selfish identity (a "frame of reference" in a Lorentz transformation) that broadens where it can define and enforce (norms) shared goals for others (propriety). Foucault had a primitive version of a game theory actor with emergent power structures to enforce propriety ("Nash equilibria"). Ostrom's husband defined the forms these collective identities take in economic terms to help her win the nobel prize. Thus forcing a redefinition into the "tragedy of the unmanaged commons".
We also now know that the jesuits were right, the confessing animal is created in the first 7 years of life. Boys learn anger (intimidation) and girls fashion (social climbing) in those years.
Jeez, that's an erudite comment.
@@renatojohnsson5548 thats why the OPs never reply. They can't risk arguing with someone who knows more than them in a populist forum. Ignoring is easier than discussing. Its not as if I can help them get promoted. Thats the trouble with fake forums. The OP is rarely in them and there is no way to upvote comments. Thats why I only write off the cuff
I enjoyed your intro to Barthes & discussion of myth and myth making. However, Foucault’s foray into the nature of “truth” has little to do with what you described as “subject making”. Foucault was merely a defiant subject of himself. He rejected all false conclusions of imperialism in an effort to declare a broader equality, and in so doing made of himself no subject of other than that that he deemed as accurate & sound - the rational. Every time I encounter his thinking, I can almost hear a French voice saying “don’t be silly”. That’s so weird because I don’t speak-a-French. LOL
Kitty cat
As a focus, when you refer to punishing oneself through dieting and/or exercise you have already assigned a punitive value to the effort needed to be in the wellness system at any level of engagement. This is the flaw in all thing Foucault from the casual observer. You've been manipulated to pull at the strings of societal norms not as a mental exercise but rather to abet degeneracy when there is an objective net positive for the individual and society as a whole by their participation in said system. As an outside observer is not fair to assess if there is any subjective suffering incurred by the person making the effort or by suggesting their participation in the system is upholding tacit norms putting unwarranted pressure on others by participation alone. In other words, this level of dissection leads to healthy at every size and I hate it. An idea that is objectively false less we view the common body types before the West took a turn to overprocessed foods and the corruption of the FDA as a society infested with an idea of false wellness with almost complete participation. While I understand what HAES means to those who believe in it, I also know that this lens is upholding the actual power structure of the food system that has garnered approval from the regulatory agencies to push for ever cheaper substitutes and hyper unmanipulated foodstuffs. It's amazing that we have honest problems with so many of our institutions and rather than attack those systems that make great profits off of making people unhealthy the postmodernist believe the power comes from suggestive societal pressure to not be overweight or lethargic as with this working example. As if the idea that bread no longer gets moldy and we're struggling with obesity at a societal level are not correlated in any way when the idea mold free bread is applied to all things consumed. This plays into almost all things believed by today's Marxist. I would like to think the evil corporate empires crafted this long game attack, but they just stumbled into it. It's not our products making you unhealthy, unhealthy is natural, it's the wellness system and the intrinsic power it has over society telling you to stop consuming them.
We're Marxists, we don't pray. Regardless, nice biceps.
why do so many people hate foucault? It's like a shame- thing now.
It's because he abused children with his power aka weiner
He was an open advocate for sex with children and was well know to have paid to have sex with children as young as 9.