Foucault Critique, (sorry but I find myself mystified by another aspect of logical fallacies)

[grahamg]

I stumbled across the subject covered by the guy in this video link about something called a "Foucauldian Critique", and having tried to listen to him I'm maybe more mystified than ever as to what it might be, (all I gathered was "whatever you believed to be true can be shown or challenged and found to be untrue", something like that anyway).

Here are some quotes on the thread subject:
https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/expl...linguistics/michel-foucault-discourse-theory/

"Michel Foucault's theories and research into language, power, and social control is some of the most influential of our time. Foucault's discourse theory encourages us to question what is 'true' and to ask who in society benefits. This is one of Foucault's main arguments: everything is an exercise in power, and there is always somebody who benefits."
(Break)
"Individuals all draw from a shared ‘pool of knowledge’ when communicating. This knowledge pool is typically accepted by the wider society and becomes further legitimised the more people use, share, and distribute it. Over time, this pool of knowledge slowly changes as people add to it and adapt it, meaning the things society deem to be ‘true’ can, and do, change over time."

Sovereign power
This is the form of power you are probably most familiar with. It is the power held by those in positions of authority, such as a Queen, King, the Prime Minister, or a headteacher.

Disciplinary power
Disciplinary power is related to Foucault’s theory of gaze - the idea that people will regulate their behaviour if they believe they’re being watched. This is the type of power we exercise over ourselves to fit the norm and be an ‘acceptable’ member of society. You could say it’s similar to self-restraint.

Pastoral power
This term has religious roots but isn’t necessarily confined to religion. Pastoral power refers to acting in a certain way to ensure the safety and security of all. For example, it could be said that the police hold pastoral power as they exert power for the good of the wider community (although not all members of society would necessarily agree with this).

Bio-power
Foucault coined the term bio-power to refer to the government’s administration and recording of bio issues, such as birth and death rates, race, class, and gender. Foucault stated that this mode of power impacted how we view ourselves in relation to the wider community.

 

[JustDave]

One of my main discoveries from Introduction to Philosophy in college was that many acclaimed philosophers can do a poor job. I would never say that to my professor, although I believe he would not have been offended. I think the course tried to show that the thoughts of philosophers may have some sort of value, but may not be necessarily true, and can often be logically false. In other words, pretty much just like the rest of society at large. I liked the course, even though much of what I learned didn't seem all that important. About the only part that seemed important to me was the study of logic, but that was pretty basic.

 

[grahamg]

One of my main discoveries from Introduction to Philosophy in college was that many acclaimed philosophers can do a poor job. I would never say that to my professor, although I believe he would not have been offended. I think the course tried to show that the thoughts of philosophers may have some sort of value, but may not be necessarily true, and can often be logically false. In other words, pretty much just like the rest of society at large. I liked the course, even though much of what I learned didn't seem all that important. About the only part that seemed important to me was the study of logic, but that was pretty basic.

This little bit from the extracts in the OP seems both obvious and maybe profound at the same time, (if that's possible?):

Quote:
Disciplinary power
"Disciplinary power is related to Foucault’s theory of gaze - the idea that people will regulate their behaviour if they believe they’re being watched. This is the type of power we exercise over ourselves to fit the norm and be an ‘acceptable’ member of society. You could say it’s similar to self-restraint."

The headmaster at my first school used an analogy many may have heard, he said "Whatever you do or say in your life is like the ripples you see when you throw a stone into a pool, they spread out across the world"! (something like that anyway).

 

[grahamg]

More research on thread topic:
https://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/?2018-Foucauldian-discourse-analysis

"Another (Foucault) interview “On Truth and Power” (1977) captures well the transition from archaeology to genealogy: “Each society has its regime of truth, its "general politics" of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true.” The aim is to unveil the conditions of production and effects (the creation of “truths”) of the scientific discourse (especially, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, economy, etc.) in relation to the rise of institutions of social control and generalised discipline (schools, hospitals, prisons, etc.). This implies to pay attention to the historical discontinuity of those discourses, but also to their ‘positivity’ –i.e. how the different levels of reality (discourses and social structures) enjoy different capacities to produce power effects (i.e. to control, to discipline, to manipulate, to resist, to produce, etc.).

As a consequence, history is studied according to the relations of conflict, war and battles, strategies and tactics, not as holding an intrinsic meaning. Power is thus exercised according to “its specificity, its techniques and tactics”. The genealogy of power also demands a historical contextualisation: “An analysis which can account for the constitution of the subject within a historical framework. And this is what I would call genealogy, that is, a form of history which can account for the constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects, etc., without having to make reference to a subject which is either transcendental in relation to the field of events or runs in its empty sameness throughout the course of history.”

Discourse analysis, in contrast to the Marxist tradition (the ruling class produces the dominant discourses), is not concerned with discovering the truth but the ‘truth effects’ among different discourses and practices, among complex power relations: “In seeing historically how effects of truth are produced within discourses which in themselves are neither true nor false… What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse.”

To conclude, there is an obvious continuity between the archaeology and the genealogy programmes, if not a bare division of labour as Foucault suggested. The refined categories he supplied are not always accurate in their meaning (for instance, discourse and knowledge are sometimes conflated) despite my attempt to summarise them here. Nonetheless, they point to crucial issues in discourse analysis such as the linkage between discourses and practices, their performative effects and the specific social and historical contexts in which they occur and are interpreted. Moreover, Foucault’s theory of power has been so influential in social sciences that also permeates all his methodological remarks to the extent that one side cannot be grasped without the other."

 

[Pepper]

You are inspiring me to read more Foucault. I only know him through Madness & Civilization which I was quite taken with years ago and read many times over. Maybe I can start reading "real stuff" again, thank you Graham. I found Foucault very easy reading back then, wonder will I still?

Sorry for the aside. Carry on!

 

[JustDave]

sorry but I find myself mystified by another aspect of logical fallacies​

I'm not seeing the logical fallacies here, not that I looked for any, but aside from the title of this thread, has the word "fallacy" been used anywhere in this discussion? Possibly, Foucault presents an argument that is a fallacy, but in the writing, I'm just picking up a theoretical presentation that is open to discussion and opinion. I'm not feeling mystified at all. I got a little confused about his use of the word truths, as if there can be opposing truths, but that is probably just his semantic interpretation in an attempt to point out that people have opposing beliefs they call truths. But there is no mystery there either.

 

[Nathan]

One of my main discoveries from Introduction to Philosophy in college was that many acclaimed philosophers can do a poor job. I would never say that to my professor, although I believe he would not have been offended. I think the course tried to show that the thoughts of philosophers may have some sort of value, but may not be necessarily true, and can often be logically false. In other words, pretty much just like the rest of society at large. I liked the course, even though much of what I learned didn't seem all that important. About the only part that seemed important to me was the study of logic, but that was pretty basic.

One of my main discoveries from college Philosophy classes is that I can do just as good, or just as poor a job at defining reality as the next guy.

 

[grahamg]

sorry but I find myself mystified by another aspect of logical fallacies
I'm not seeing the logical fallacies here, not that I looked for any, but aside from the title of this thread, has the word "fallacy" been used anywhere in this discussion? Possibly, Foucault presents an argument that is a fallacy, but in the writing, I'm just picking up a theoretical presentation that is open to discussion and opinion. I'm not feeling mystified at all. I got a little confused about his use of the word truths, as if there can be opposing truths, but that is probably just his semantic interpretation in an attempt to point out that people have opposing beliefs they call truths. But there is no mystery there either.

I may well have got the story wrong here.
The only mention of Foucauldian Critique I found was in connection with an argument I recently put forward on another section of the forum, where I deliberately put forward a "Circular argument".

I'll come back with a link etc. later.

 

[grahamg]

Apologies again the "logical fallacy" mentioned in the thread title was a mistake, this is the article where "Foucauldian Critique" was mentioned:

"Here is a refutation of the main argument put forward Jonathan Hafen in the book "Abandoning children to their rights":
https://academic.oup.com/book/32625/chapter-abstract/270510194?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Quote:
"Thus, the CRC is not abandoning children to their rights, as Hafen and Hafen argue in their article, 'Abandoning Children to their Autonomy"

2nd quote:
"Law is enslaved to child welfare and child development experts. The agitation of a particular identity, or a categorization based upon alleged ‘natural’ characteristics, has been carried out in the context of gender, race, ****** orientation, etc., to expose the unnaturalness and difference within that category. In an attempt to explore a similar critique of the child, this chapter recruits a Foucauldian critique of power and truth/knowledge to make the argument that the category ‘child’ is not based upon a set of natural and fundamental characteristics shared by those aged birth to eighteen — the operating presumption of the child in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). If there is no universal ‘child’, on what ground do the politics behind and the power relations dependent upon the fictitious universal child in the CRC stand? To examine the CRC's child, one must start by exploring the shape of rights given to the child. When these rights diverge from the rights given (or emphasized) to all other humans, one must look at the justification that is offered. The identification of that justification illuminates the CRC's true child, as though we are seeking to understand Pinocchio's goal: what it means to be a ‘real’ [child], in this case a ‘real’ child according to the CRC. The chapter argues that to be a ‘true’ or ‘real’ child, a person nominated a child must be ‘developing’. It then argues and seeks to explicate how the hierarchy of power surrounding the child is made possible."