Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
Feminism and FoucaultThere are more comprehensive attacks on Foucault that come from specific ideologies. One of the most prominent ones comes from authors of feminism. That is not to say that feminism and Foucault represent two diametrically opposed forces. Far from it, many feminists consider strains of Foucault’s thought as essential to their work in fighting patriarchy. A few even find him fully compatible, or nearly so, with a feminist “agenda.” One must be cautious to avoid lumping all feminist thought together and assuming it has a cohesiveness that it truly lacks. “Feminism” is a large umbrella of a term, and to assume that all feminists thought the same would be akin to believing that all Democrats had the exact same political beliefs. To be more precise, then, it would be wise to say that post-Marxist feminism deals an intellectual blow to Foucault’s conception of power. A detailed explanation is needed to set the stage for this confrontation. Feminism’s essential goal is to make clear the multitude of ways that patriarchal oppression operates in society, so as to permit resistance to it. Until feminism, what made male domination so powerful was the fact that it wasn’t really acknowledged as domination as such. A sharply defined and regulated role in the family, household, and political life was seen as the absolute norm for women; no one thought it odd or even remarkable that society was gender-biased in such a fashion. Without the knowledge that such a situation is not necessarily the normal way of being, no one can even think to resist patriarchy. Feminism’s role in bringing to light the discourse of patriarchy, (the normative ideas like males should be the bread earners) and how it shapes the role of both women and men, doesn’t seem all to different from Foucault's thought. Indeed, this is why many feminists owe a great debt to Foucault. The difference comes in the relationship some feminists have to the two great thinkers so revolutionary that all modern day theorists worth their salt have to come to grips with: Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. That's right; the interpreter of sexual dreams and the communist. Feminists have found some of Freud’s ideas useful, but are in general appalled by the sexist conclusions that he comes to. He pictures the sexual development of women as inherently odd given their supposed “penis-envy,” and reinforces the notion that women have a natural element to them that makes them “hysterical.” Since Foucault shares many of the same conceptions about Freud, this is an issue that actually unites some feminists to him. What proves to be a source of contention is the critical fashion with which Foucault treats Marx. Many feminists view Marx as an integral inspiration, given his focus on liberation from oppressive social movements. Marx used a historical view to predict that capitalism, a subversive yet oppressive regime of power, would topple because of a mounting resistance that emphasized equality. Patriarchy operates in many of the same ways as capitalism; there was even a tie-in given the unique economic oppression that women faced in industrialism. Marx’s ability to connect a host of micro-examples of bad living conditions, political disenfranchisement, etc. with a mode of thought that extended throughout society gave feminists a way of conceiving of patriarchy that made it out to be a tangible force. And just as that allowed Marx to speak of resistance against capitalism, so did it free feminists to hope for liberation from the system of patriarchy. Foucault’s criticism of Marx should be apparent. Foucault never believes in a pure reaction to power, only a reaction dictated by power. For him, feminists are engaging in a totalizing discourse that can never replace male domination, only slightly displace it. Feminists who find a lot of value in Marx do not like the idea that their attempts at liberation are merely being guided by a network of power reactions no better or worse than patriarchy itself. So obviously these two methods of thought are in contradiction, but how do feminists argue that the challenge should be resolved in their favor? Firstly, they argue that Foucault’s analysis of power is incomplete and irrevocably tainted given his failure to deal with discrimination on the basis of sex. He is much more interested in the creation of social identities and meanings - prisons, madness institutions, sexuality (not to be confused with sex) - than he is with natural conditions that become the basis for domination. But such deployments of power clearly exist, and to ignore that fact constitutes a massive oversight. Since Foucault never considers sex oppression, nor provides any avenue for its eradication, then his philosophy is unhelpful in that regard. Furthermore, since his analysis fails to allow feminism, then he does more than not help the problem. Coming up with a universal view of power without considering patriarchy just serves to mask it and allow it to perpetuate. Another one of Foucault’s beliefs that is in tension with post-Marxist feminism is his feelings on history. Many Enlightenment thinkers have presented history as being a continuous process where some sort of progress is constantly going on. Marx places a lot of weight upon a view of history that privileges more advanced eras, believing them more “advanced.” For him, history is just a series of clashes between oppressive economic systems and the people. Feudalism, for example, was pervasive until the bourgeoisie decided to revolt, and capitalism was the result. Marx saw this as a necessary step due to the slow march of progress, and he saw the end result as being the rise up of the proletariat to overthrow the oppressive system of capitalism. In a similar fashion, feminists see the rise in resistance to patriarchy as a natural trend brought out by historical conditions. Foucault, on the other hand, engages in a critique of continuous history. He believes that the tendency to view history as progress exists because of a desire to validate current ways of thinking. Instead, Foucault takes a cue from Nietzsche and argues that history is discontinuous, meaning that many events and actions are spontaneous and are not necessarily the result of a buildup of historical forces. Even further complicating matters, Foucault thinks that appeals to history are steeped in the power that was involved in the creation of the historical account in the first place. This means that it is problematic for feminists to even talk about historical oppression, which they view as necessary to being able to recognize current-day patriarchy. Feminism emphasizes the consequences of failing to distinguish between “good” and “bad” discourses. The entire premise that allows the struggle against patriarchy is the notion that discrimination against someone just because of the way that they were born is one of the worst and least justifiable forms of power in existence. Without making any sort of value judgment as to different forms of power, Foucault gives no grounds upon which to fight the oppression of patriarchy, racism, or anything else. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|