To understand Foucault’s account of the subject one should look into the entire body of work dedicated to different aspects of his observations. The most suitable context would be the subject viewed in the social frame of discourse and its interplay with power, freedom, knowledge, history, society and the self.
Heavily influenced by Nietzsche, Foucault developed a theory explaining the construction of social concepts or in other words, common understandings taken for granted and often unquestioned by the majority of people.
Let me quote few of the definitions explaining the social frame, called discourse:
“ Systems of thought and knowledge (epistemes) governed by rules beyond those of grammar and logic, that operate beneath the consciousness of individual subjects and define a system of conceptual possibilities that determines the boundaries of thought in given domain and period.” (1)
“Tactical blocks or elements operating in the field of force relations, there can exist different and even contradictory discourses within the same strategy” (2)
“Linguistic or semiotic form adopted by a set of relationships taken as natural, rather than socially constructed” (2)
“Unity of an ideal conceptual structure and a real set of power relations among people” (2)
According to Foucault these can be scientific models, medical, legal, corporate, media etc. also known as “games of truth”. Through a network of power relationships these games constitute a discourse. A discourse is like the birthplace, home and life imprisonment for the subject.
“Inside power there is no escaping it there is no absolute outside where it is concerned.” (2)
What is the subject for Foucault? At first he maintains that the subject is a product of power and as such it is not able to define or influence a discourse.
“I would say that if now I am interested, in fact, in the way in which the subject constitutes himself in an active fashion, by the practices of self, these practices are nevertheless not something that the individual invents by himself. They are patterns that he finds in his culture and which are proposed, suggested and imposed on him by his culture, his society and his social group.” (3)
I agree that the agency of the subject is questionable and Foucault is correct in pointing out its weakness in relation to abilities of self-determination, forming an authentic identity and exercising agency. However the qualities and functions of the subject do not end there and at the end of his work Foucault was aware of the inherent duality observable in the subject present in social discourses. The two main characteristics describing the dual nature of the subject are facticity and transcendence.
“Facticity refers to a quality that is mentioned and focused upon in a given case. Transcendence refers to the fact that there always remains more than that which facticity suggests.” (4)
“I (my consciousness) must, as Kant put it, be both an empirical object of representation and the transcendental source of representations.” (1)
Even though discourses create systems of classifications, assigning subjects to categories and leaving almost no space for maneuvering, a certain potential for making changes on psychological level exists.
Let me introduce two examples describing this possibility:
The first one is the ability to observe multiple subject positions depending on the perspective of the speaker.
As a mother – structural
As her mother – existential
Flexibility arises from the fact that the subject can hold two opposite ideas at the same time which helps him/her escape the indoctrination by the existing episteme and the possibilities of maintaining different perspectives which I translate into type of freedom in the mind which allows for much more than simply complying with a given discourse.
The second one is the ability to make assumptions about an individual following a common identity or induction led opinion and applying this concept every time encountering this type of individual. Stereotyping is a very common event in society. However the completely reversed situation is possible where one’s judgments are influenced by very personal, intimate experience when interacting with another subject and it manages to ignore all previous prejudice and assumption powered by the discursive indoctrination. Although rare in real life it proofs a possibility, which makes freedom and agency part of the status of the subject, maybe not a dominant but certainly existent.
“In my books I have really tried to analyze changes, not in order to find the material causes but to show all the factors that interacted and the reactions of people. I believe in the freedom of people. To the same situation, people react in very different ways.” (5)
In other words the subject might not have a voice but does have a choice.
Many believed that Foucault defined the subject as an effect of power without any capabilities of modifying discursive constructs. Indeed that was his initial view, but later in his work he develops an idea about a subject existing in a dual state. Allowing space for agency and exercising freedom while at the same time being constrained and defined by domination. After all the working of power would not be possible without the existence of freedom and the other way around. “The subject is simultaneously ruled and a ruler.” The possibility of power equals freedom and the possibility of freedom equals power. And these two states form the status of the subject according to Foucault.
My philosophical intuition and personal experience as a subject in various discourses tells me this account is plausible. It also makes one understand how difficult must have been for Michel Foucault to arrive to a conclusion which allows an active subject within a socially constrained discourse. It takes time to see hope when living in such harsh reality where most humans have lost their ability to be sovereign subjects who don’t utilize their possibility of freedom.
The key to the power of the social subject is hidden in the ability of collaboration and building complex networks of interaction and mutual understanding. The possibility of freedom and the potential for agency is in employing social subjects’ individual desires, ideas and discourses into a collective voice. This is the most effective way of resistance and making a difference within a game of domination. Individual efforts are close to useless as the power of discourse and social concepts is too much to be opposed by a single unit. The system of knowledge, history and domination can be modified in an effective way only when a group of social interrelated subject requests the change in a harmonized action. The subject can always choose whether to be a spectator or an actor in the game of truth. He/She/It is caught in this complex net of power relations and social determination and the only way to get out of the passive status is to activate his/her ability to cooperate with the rest of the social subjects.
By social subjects I mean products of “a collaborative human relationship which connects people with the entire history of humanity through languages, symbols, images…shaped by generations of such activities.” (2) Practicing freedom is not hard to learn but it’s very difficult to detect when one is given discourses, which only teaches him/her to stay passive disabling the skill to recognize when one is constantly dominated. Discourses where definitions are false, words don’t reflect the reality and subjects are just products of power. A suitable example of this would be the current discourse where:
“Peace is war
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength” (6)
An example of a practical method of how this type of discourse is achieved is the silencing of the subject by a state educational system where the criteria for a well-written text would be its objectivity. Promoting the idea and training young people to silence their emotions and subjectivity when expressing their thoughts is a very effective way of wiring their brain activity to fit a discourse that is maintained by a certain type of power. Power, which does not have an interest in changing the status quo. I am glad that I have come to the realization that the subject in me will not give up on her agency even after over 13 years of training to do the opposite. And yes power fuels resistance and provokes the possibility of freedom. The status of Foucault’s subject becomes more plausible when verified with personal experience.
To examine the power of discourse one should seek alternatives and constantly question his/her environment. Many subjects are not even aware they are experiencing the domination forces in their social environment. First, one needs to gain awareness of the concept of discourse. That would be easy in theory but awareness about the powers involved in the modern episteme is much more than just reading what Foucault or anyone else has to say about it. Awareness means experiencing different types of social settings and their constant analysis and verification in addition to experimenting with situations, information and other social subjects. Only after experiencing two or more different discourses one can find ways in which he/she will be able to influence society as an active player in the game of truth, a player who will know how to collaborate in a meaningful and beneficial for society way. Changing from one episteme to another is what makes subjects prepared for action. Once the structures of power are recognized the possibility increases immediately because a discourse is an abstract entity, an idea controlled mostly by self-awareness of conventions one should obey. The constant subjectivisation is executed not only externally but has its implication mostly internally. Self-censorship and self-control are constantly re-enforced in the behavior of humans. Once the realization that discourse is actually something abstract, something that should not be taken for granted as natural and given, an idea, a concept that can be changed even completely denied and modified then the real possibilities for awakening and becoming an active social subject emerge.
What makes subjects passive? Foucault is right to point out the dangers emerging when bodies of knowledge claiming to be “objective” start to shape and classify subjects, alienating them from one another by defining them as normal or abnormal. This method leaves the subject with no space for maneuver and having to worry to much about living up to the standard than actually creating its own reality or in other words exercising freedom. Totalitarian political systems come to mind when describing these events and occurrences.
“Not only is there control exercised via others’ knowledge of individuals; there is also control via individuals’ knowledge of themselves. Individuals internalize the norms laid down by the sciences of sexuality and monitor themselves in an effort to conform to these norms. Thus, they are controlled not only as objects of disciplines but also as self-scrutinizing and self-forming subjects.” (1)
An opposite system of knowledge, communication and collaboration in the present appears to be the Internet. A social playground too young and independent to have imposed standards of normality, a system that changes subjects and discourses in real time, social space where pre-determined identities disappear and the possibilities to exercise agency seem infinite. The “normalization” of the subject constrains its agency and self-determination although technology and collaboration seem to change this limitation.
Foucault’s concerns when it comes to the status of the subject are not related with its duality, whether “man must be regarded as irreducibly both empirical and transcendental.” His message aims at pointing out the imbalance between the two caused by the increasing power of discourse and its implications on the development of the individual and society at the same time. In other words, the marginalization of the subject, the loss of the power of consciousness, inability of self determination and the emerging social amnesia when it comes to exercising freedom. This concern was properly justified in the past, and is rather valid in the present.
“The inability of people to attain an effective voice in their own lives and our collective failure to achieve simple social objectives, such as the elimination of poverty and war, is testimony to the fact that lack of subjectivity is a source of social injustice today.” (2)
“As it happens, the past couple of decades have seen the growth of social conditions in which the great mass of people are experiencing a ‘loss of agency’, as power becomes more and more concentrated in a relatively small number of great corporations, subject to the “laws of the market,” while all other forms of social collaboration are being destroyed and society atomised. This is where our attention needs to be focused. To theorise this as if subjectivity was only ever an illusion, or even, as some do, paint ‘the subject’ as an essentially oppressive entity anyway, only makes the situation worse.” (2)
Foucault is presenting us with a real problem. If not solved this fundamental social illness might have and already has a devastating effects on people everywhere around the world. Understanding the status of the subject is a key for building a healthy society and environment for future generations. It’s part of collective and individual realization of infinite possibilities. The constraints imposed by discursive structures are no longer necessary and can be ignored as we have new tools to form our social concepts in real time without trying to follow a strict code of norms but living in a constantly changing system of human relations, keeping an open-mind, shifting and upgrading our identities, confirming agency and resisting propaganda. The power of the subject will be collectively exercised as a triumph of freedom and the possibility of agency in opposition of outdated and false discourses. A new social paradigm will emerge with a new generation that will dominate the current forces, exercising freedom as a representation of its instinct for survival.
(1) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/
(2) “Foucault’s Discursive Subject” by Andy Blunden. Sept 2005 (http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/foucault.htm)
(3) Foucault, “The Ethics of the Care of the Self as a Practice of Freedom,” in Bernauer et al., Final Foucault, 11.
(4) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3669/is_200301/ai_n9235810/pg_15/?tag=content;col1
(5) (21.) Michel Foucault, “Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault,” in Technologies of the Self, ed. Luther H.
Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 14.
(6) 1984, George Orwell
