In Defense of Foucault's Genealogy
In Defense of Foucault’s Enlightenment
Martin Alec N. Bautista
11035218
SUMMARY
The Philosophical Area of Postmodernism has always been classified as a critique of the continuity established by modernism and the different claims it has towards truth and reality. Postmodernism puts into play different factors that contribute to the formation of the things that modernists consider to be clear and indubitable such as language, media, power, and social institutions that shape the way we conceive reality.
My paper focuses on the critique of Performative Contradiction by Habermas on Foucault’s method of Genealogy, as seen in Habermas’ The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1990) and his article entitiled Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present (1991, 102-108). In this critique, Habermas charged Foucault’s Genealogy of “performative contradiction,” to put it simply, Habermas and his supporters claim that Foucault’s Genealogical Framework to be self- defeating as it does not render the very claim that Foucault suggests immune from his own method of writing history. According to Habermas, Foucault’s own project cannot account for its own claims to truth because for Foucault, any form of knowledge is influenced by power. I shall go against this charge made by Habermas. I will show that Habermas’ charge of “performative contradiction” is a product of misinterpretation of Foucault’s project by arguing that (1) Habermas’ criticism rests on an idea of power that is different from Foucault’s understanding of power, (2) Foucault’s theory of power is not solely repressive but also productive, and (3) that this Productive element of power is reflected in his Ethos of Enlightenment.
Key words: Foucault, Habermas, Enlightenment, Power, Genealogy
INTRODUCTION
The General topic shall revolve around the debate between Foucault and Habermas concerning the Enlightenment. There are two views in this issue, namely Habermas’ “Transcendental
Martin Alec N. Bautista
11035218
SUMMARY
The Philosophical Area of Postmodernism has always been classified as a critique of the continuity established by modernism and the different claims it has towards truth and reality. Postmodernism puts into play different factors that contribute to the formation of the things that modernists consider to be clear and indubitable such as language, media, power, and social institutions that shape the way we conceive reality.
My paper focuses on the critique of Performative Contradiction by Habermas on Foucault’s method of Genealogy, as seen in Habermas’ The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1990) and his article entitiled Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present (1991, 102-108). In this critique, Habermas charged Foucault’s Genealogy of “performative contradiction,” to put it simply, Habermas and his supporters claim that Foucault’s Genealogical Framework to be self- defeating as it does not render the very claim that Foucault suggests immune from his own method of writing history. According to Habermas, Foucault’s own project cannot account for its own claims to truth because for Foucault, any form of knowledge is influenced by power. I shall go against this charge made by Habermas. I will show that Habermas’ charge of “performative contradiction” is a product of misinterpretation of Foucault’s project by arguing that (1) Habermas’ criticism rests on an idea of power that is different from Foucault’s understanding of power, (2) Foucault’s theory of power is not solely repressive but also productive, and (3) that this Productive element of power is reflected in his Ethos of Enlightenment.
Key words: Foucault, Habermas, Enlightenment, Power, Genealogy
INTRODUCTION
The General topic shall revolve around the debate between Foucault and Habermas concerning the Enlightenment. There are two views in this issue, namely Habermas’ “Transcendental