How do Foucault enable us to understand culture?
Foucault’s writings cover a broad range of topics and methodologically are similarly diverse, (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000). Often in a characteristic fashion he referred to his work as offering a ‘toolbox’ from which elements could be drawn in order to engage in the study of society or societal features, (Foucault, 2003). In terms of culture while Foucault does not explicitly announce his intent to study it is however a theme which is implicitly and embedded within much of the work and studies conducted by him.
Indeed we can suggest that the central themes of Foucault’s work can also be central ones to an understanding of and study of culture, (Kendall and Wickham, 2001). In this sense then by looking at the core themes of what was Foucault’s work we can assess each on the terms of how they help us to understand culture and in a Foucauldian manner perhaps even more importantly help us to understand our understandings of culture and how these have been formed by the actions of culture on our perceptions of it, (Inglis, 2004). In this essay then the key themes of Power, Governmentality and Discourse are examined as means through which Foucault helps us to address the issue of culture, (Prado, 2000).
These three elements are not however to be seen as separate disparate factors involved in our understanding or our conceptions of culture. Instead it is vitally important to be aware of how these three elements combine within and without the formation of structures which we deem or are deemed to be culture, (Moss, 1998). This work then argues that Foucault’s provides us importantly with clues and a method of analysis which reveals how culture is actually produced as a result of the interactions of certain elements within these processes yet also how culture produces artefacts which continue then to legitimate the position of culture of society, (Dumm, 1996). It is this duality of comprehension which is perhaps the strongest element of Foucault’s analysis and one which gives us indeed a very radical understanding of what is meant by culture.
Power
If there is arguably a core leitmotif to the work of Foucault then it is represented by his writings on the subject of power and more important his radical re-conceptualisations of power in terms of how it is to be perceived and how it is to analytically be considered, (Hindess, 1996). Power for Foucault was a dominant and overriding feature of modern societies and the configurations which power took and the operations of power were at the root of explaining modern societal structures, (Foucault, 1977).
At its simplest we can state that Foucault’s conception of power is of a micro-physics of power and also Foucault makes the important point that power produces, (Foucault, 1979). It is this aspect of power production which takes us to the heart of understanding culture in Foucauldian terms. For Foucault then the radical view is that power does not always oppress which represents a significant move away from for example traditional Marxist approaches to the topic of power. For Foucault power is a constitutive element of discourses, indeed discourses depend on and generate internally sources of power which further perpetuate those discourses as legitimate ones within society, (Foucault, 1979).
Similarly again marking a departure from Marxists conceptions of power Foucault sees power everywhere, as capillaries functioning within society. This conception of power in terms of culture marks out important differences again for us. To continue with the example of Marxism, while Marxists are interested in culture as it functions as a legitimisation of the interests of the capitalist class Foucault sees this as a limited and ultimately meaningless view of power, (Ashenden, 1999). In a Marxist analysis power is concentrated with macro-structures such as class, or the state serving the interests of the class, thereby culture can be seen as the product of this power legitimating the requirements and needs of the capitalist system by attaching cultural symbols to these requirements, (Hindess, 1996).
If we consider Foucault’s analysis of power this would seem misguided as power is everywhere, and power is not singularly oppressive, it exudes and emanates from a multiplicity of sources all with their own capability to produce. Thus radical subcultures for Marxists are often straight jacketed in terms of opposition to capitalism whereas with a Foucauldian analysis we can see them as articulations of power within these groupings interaction with other knowledge’s, (Kendall, 1999). Granted some may be more dominant than others, but there is no over arching site or more particularly no principal source determining the totality of cultural structures, (Foucault, 1979).
Governmentality
Linked with the concept of power previously discussed governmentality offers also insights into ways and means in which we might understand culture. At first the links between governmentality and culture might be unclear as the key to understanding this term is as Foucault suggests is to see as a form of techniques and practices associated with the rule of nation states which emerged from the 16th century onwards, (Foucault, 1991). Governmentality has been a relatively new aspect of Focuault’s work to be taken up and yet it offers a fruitful set of analyses in considering aspects of states, governments, individuals and for the purposes of this work, culture, (Dean, 1999).
Governmentality then refers to a set of practices or strategies through which the modern state sought to manage and control its populace, (Foucault, 1991). For some this captures the essence of what has been called bio-politics of a subsuming of the human soul to the body and from there rendered malleable and pliable to the arts of government, (Rose, 1990). If we think of governmentality in terms of understanding culture we can then question what the purpose of culture is. Which of our cultural traditions are in fact discriminate strategies of control or regulation or indeed even surveillance through which the modern nation state manages its populace, (Rose, 1999). The aims of culture thus become questionable when using a prism of governmentality to examine it. It allows us in other words to ask both what are the structures of culture but also what are the structuring effects of culture.
Of course this may be sometimes seem to suggest a move back towards a more Marxist interpretation of culture but governmentality also presents with an interesting insight into the means and ways in rules and practices in turn become techniques which are then self internalised within individuals. Culture in governmentality terms then trains us to examine the ways in which culture sets out to reproduce certain behaviours within individuals which allows rule by states and rules over self to be exercised, (Bratich, Packer and McCarthy, 2003). Important examples of this can be seen perhaps in the cultural significances attached to employment and unemployment in the west. Where a Marxist analysis may see a degradation of the workers who is unemployed in a sense penalised by the operation of the capitalist system governmentality instead focuses us on the way in which conceptions about these two states are internalised from the external operation of sets of knowledge’s held by others within the society which in turn influences the person who is unemployed and how they in turn regulate their own behaviour according to these established cultural norms, (Simons, 1995).
Discourse
Along with power discourse is another critically vital part of Foucault’s theorising. Similarly along with the first two constructs we have discussed it is important to see these as being part of a triumvirate all inter-dependent and inter-operational between each other producing structures, operations, functions and processes within society.
Discourses are however entwined with knowledge or with rather sets of knowledge’s constituted by various discursive actors and epistemological sites within society, (Foucault, 1976). As such then discourse can be seen in terms of culture as both the product of and composition of what we take to be culture. Indeed we can also argue that the idea of discourses brings into clear view our notions of cultures and also of cultures within cultures, (Bratich, Packer and McCarthy, 2003).
In this sense then culture can be seen as a form and multiplicity of discourses. But Foucault also makes the important point that discourses are possessed of a genealogy, or in other words discourses have a line of descent which can historically be uncovered through the application of a genealogical analysis, (Foucault, 1970). Thus discourses are related, entwined, supersede and intercede with one another over the course of history. Such developments are not however to be viewed as linear progression from one form to another more evolved or somehow better form, as Foucault states neither are there also decisive revolutionary breaks to be found in the history of discourses. Instead what we are left with is sediment-ed discourses or archaeology of forms which have taken shape through the exercising of power from sets of knowledge’s, (Foucault, 1972).
As such then we can apply to this our understanding of culture in a meaningful and radical way. It moves us to question such imperatives as the formation of slavery, when western culture was specifically held to be more superior than others, the language of Empire is another feature here illustrating how cultures competed and how the discourses in and around those cultures produced oppressive practices or sought to legitimate their oppressive practices, (Gregory, 2004). But as we have mentioned previously it also directs our attention towards the sources of resistances to hegemonic cultures or indeed even hegemonic counter-cultures which can also be understood as a function of the interaction genealogically speaking of these contesting discourses.
Conclusion
We have seen then and given an account of how Foucault’s toolbox of ideas present us with new and innovative means of thinking about and studying culture. To summarise what is perhaps the central insight of Foucault’s work is the critical point that culture or what we perceive to be culture is a historically relative construct. The death of the grand narrative which Foucault advocates along with other post-modernists means also possibly the death of a grand culture or ideas of a grand culture, (Poster, 1984). If we take this post-modernist train of thought to its conclusion then culture is naught but set of competing legitimate discourses which can contract, expand or disappear and form over the course of time dependent on the specific interest of different sets of knowledge’s which are also epistemologically competing discursively within society, (Honneth, 1991) . This historical relativity then directs our attention towards understanding how the layer of discourses forming culture are formed, of how culture itself is a multi-element consideration and the histories of interdependencies and inter-functionality between these elements can be studied and uncovered through an archaeology of culture to paraphrase Foucault.
To conclude then Foucault’s offers a radical view of culture. He forces us to examine the processes within internally and externally acting upon what we call culture. Similarly he makes us question the term culture itself, forcing us to see as not a unitary element but rather a composition of a variety of factors operating in society producing forms, symbols, knowledge’s and discourses which when taken holistically can be said and argued to comprise what it is we term and perceive to be culture. He also critically asks us to consider what people’s interactions within culture are and what are the effects of these interactions on culture and what influences culture also has on individuals, (Biersack, 1989). These are questions perhaps when answered allow a deep alternative from other perspectives understanding of what it is culture is.
References
Ashenden, S. (1999) Foucault Contra Habermas, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA
Biersack, A. (1989) The New Cultural History, University of California Press, Berkeley CA
Bratich, J. Z., Packer, J. and McCarthy, C. (2003) Foucault, Cultural Studies and Governmentality, State University of New York Press, Albany NY
Danaher, G., Schirato, T. and Webb, J. (2000) Understanding Foucault, Sage, London
Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality, Sage, London
Dumm, T. L. (1996) Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom, Sage, London
Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things, Tavistock, London
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge, Tavistock, London
Foucault, M. (1976) The Birth of the Clinic, Tavistock, London
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish, Allen Lane, London
Foucault, M. (1979) The History of Sexuality Vol. 1, Allen Lane, London
Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’ in Burchell, G. Gordon, C. and Miller, P., The Foucault Effect, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead
Foucault, M. (2003) Society Must Be Defended, Allen Lane, London
Gregory, D. (2004) The Colonial Present, Blackwell, Oxford
Hindess, B. (1996) Discourses of Power, Blackwell, Oxford
Honneth, A. (1991) The Critique of Power, MIT Press, Cambridge MASS
Inglis, F. (2004) Culture, Polity Press, Cambridge
Kendall, G. (1999) Using Foucault’s Methods, Sage, London
Kendall, G. and Wickham, G. (2001) Understanding Culture, Sage, London
Moss, J. (1998) The Later Foucault, Sage, London
Poster, M. (1984) Foucault, Marxism and History, Polity Press, Cambridge
Prado, C. G. (2000) Starting with Foucault: An Introduction to Genealogy, Westview Press, Boulder CO
Rose, N. (1990) Governing the Soul, Routledge, London
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Simons, J. (1995) Foucault and the Political, Routledge, London
Tags: Foucault
