I can't quite remember the first time I came across Michel Foucault. What I do remember, as an undergrad, is thinking that Foucault was someone I should look into because of his popularity amongst the more radical-left side of social science. Foucault for a lot of people, regardless of your opinion of him, is believed to be the poster-boy for undermining institutionalized oppression. I was expecting the same going into his books. However, that's not what I found.
There's, without a doubt, some validity to the idea that Foucault was interested in the underbelly of our institutionalized customs, but his judgements were almost always reserved in his research (he was, however, outspoken about his views especially in regards to prison reform). Judgements of the kind that are typically done in his name are hard to come by in Foucault's actual work. Prison, military, nationalism, race, sexuality and the myriad of other topics Foucault spoke about, were analyzed with sobriety and were always presented with a certain care that left the impression that he wasn't judging, but attempting to understand.
The problem is that, when Foucault dissects our institutions, it's hard not to assess his observations under a certain moralist light. Foucault doesn't help us in this matter either, though there are moments where he kind of gives a little hint towards his wish that his work be understood as much more exploratory than explanatory (of all the things of Foucault that's stuck with me, it's his steadfast refusal to ask 'why' questions, opting instead for the more productive 'what' or 'how' questions). What Foucault was incredible at was dismantling the institutions we take for granted, be it the prison system or his more metaphysical concerns for the 'self' and subjectification. What Foucault wasn't so good at was showing how useful these things are in our everyday life, while also exposing them to analysis.
This problem came full-face after my thesis was accepted by the Sociology and Social Anthropology department at Dalhousie. My thesis was concerned with race at Dalhousie and how the university utilized its diversity policies to mark subjects as 'racialized'. The thesis was fairly critical of the university's policies, presenting them as short-sighted, knee-jerk attempts at creating subjects under a 'racialized' rubric, and not any honest attempt at trying to understand racial inequalities.
After finishing it, I was already fairly unpleased with it. I asked my advisor to give me the hard facts of what he didn't like about my arguments specifically (he had already endorsed it as an impressively 'ambitious accomplishment' for a Masters project, so I didn't really care all that much at this point). When he responded, he took particular issue with how I presented the social aspects of 'race' and the latent suggestion that it could be undone. This is very much Foucault, which my advisor reminded me. By the end, my advisor asked something along the lines of "then what? What if race could be eliminated tomorrow, then what would happen? Is race, despite its problems, not still a useful tool for social organization and self-understanding?" He's absolutely right. There would not be any suggestion for equality if race were not seen as a productive tool to organize social action. I came to realize that, no matter what, race is here and its here to stay. What we do with it is what should have concerned me, not whether or not it's a valid descriptor.
This has already gotten too long for my liking, but I still have more to say on the subject, so I think I'll leave it here for now and continue (hopefully finish?) this tomorrow.
Comments