The statement argues that the both mentioned authors only share the intent of reconceptualising freedom and power in respect to the self, thereby insinuating that their actual understandings of these concept varies quite significantly. It also assumes the political and philosophical projects of either author represent a separate duality, thereby delinking the philosophical and political from each other and representing them as singular categories independent from each other. Arendt argues that this view represents one of the oldest western traditions of political thought:
‘The gulf between philosophy and politics opened historically with the trial and condemnation of Socrates, which in the history of political thought plays the same role of a turning point that the trial of Jesus play in the history of religion’ (Arendt 1990: P.73)
After the trial, Plato became disillusioned with the merits of politics for philosophers and heralded the age apolitia – arguing for the disengagement of philosophy from politics, which resulted in the separation of thought from action (Arendt 1990: P. 92). Arendt forcefully rejected such division of philosophy and politics, which Minnich (1989: P. 133) explains by Arendt’s personal experience of the rise of Hitler and the ‘inner emigration’(Arendt 1968: P. 19) of professional thinkers, who according to her by withholding judgement became implicit collaborators (Arendt 2000a; 2003; 2006). This idea represents her key thesis of the banality of evil.
Similarly Foucault digresses from the viewpoint that philosophy and politics are independent entities and argues for a political philosophy that can answer ‘how (..) the discourse of truth, or quite simply, philosophy as that discourse which par excellence is concerned with truth, (is) able to fix limits to the rights of power?’(italics in original)(Foucault 1980: P.93) Thereby actively attempting constrain political power through philosophical reflection, similarly to Arendt.
This essay will thereby first and foremost look at the philosophical projects of both authors and their political effects, because they form a political philosophy and seeing them as separate is not helpful. The two categories need to be instead seen as related, where the analysis of the former - philosophy has direct effects on our process and understanding of the latter - politics.
Table of Contents
1. Arendt and the Self?
2. Power and the Self
3. Freedom? And the Self
4. Political Philosophy
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This essay explores the intersecting philosophical and political projects of Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault, specifically focusing on their reconceptualization of the self in relation to power and freedom. It challenges the binary separation of philosophy and politics, arguing that their respective frameworks offer complementary insights into agency, resistance, and the structural constraints of modernity.
- The reconceptualization of the self within power structures.
- A comparative analysis of power as an immaterial, relational potential.
- The role of "natality" in Arendt’s thought as a basis for agency.
- The critique of modern governmentality and regimes of truth in Foucault’s work.
- The potential for resistance and meaningful action within restrictive political systems.
Excerpt from the Book
Power and the Self
Foucault’s understanding of power is closely related to his understanding of the self as a subject shaped by power relations. One of the Foucault’s most famous quotes about power: ‘Power is everywhere’ (Foucault 1990 P: 93) has gained him a lot of criticism including that it leaves no space for agency, which, however, will be addressed in the next section. Yet, surprisingly, even though Arendt is usually interpreted in terms of her philosophy of action and therefore associated with strong agency, she agrees with Foucault, when she says: ‘The truth is that automatism is inherent in all processes, no matter what their origin may be – which is why no single act, and no single event, can ever, once and for all, deliver and save a man, or a nation, or mankind. It is the nature of the automatic process to which man is subject’ (Arendt 2000b: P. 458).
By pointing out the power of automatisms, Arendt converges with Foucault on the point that there are ominous entities which relativize, if not completely diminish, the importance of individual agency. This is the basis that both thinkers need to provide an explanation of power that is based on a notion of multiple and collective interactions.
Summary of Chapters
Arendt and the Self?: This chapter investigates Arendt’s theory of the self, arguing that it is rooted in the concept of natality rather than exclusively in the public realm of action.
Power and the Self: This chapter establishes the convergence between Arendt and Foucault regarding power as an omnipresent, relational potential that restricts individual agency through various automatisms.
Freedom? And the Self: This chapter critically examines Foucault’s "technologies of the self" and the inherent constraints of governmentality, contrasting them with Arendt’s perspective on potential newness.
Political Philosophy: This chapter synthesizes the findings to locate Arendt and Foucault within a broader critique of modernity, highlighting how their concepts mutually enhance the understanding of resistance.
Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the compatibility of both authors’ projects and reinforces the argument that their combined frameworks offer a more robust understanding of human agency.
Keywords
Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault, Power, Freedom, Self, Natality, Political Philosophy, Governmentality, Agency, Resistance, Modernity, Regimes of Truth, Subjectivity, Banality of Evil, Action
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this paper?
The paper examines the philosophical and political commonalities between Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault, focusing on how they redefine the relationship between the self, power, and freedom.
What are the central themes of the work?
The work centers on the critique of modernity, the nature of power as a relational force, the possibilities of individual agency, and the conceptualization of the self within political structures.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to demonstrate that despite their different approaches, Arendt and Foucault provide complementary frameworks for understanding political change and resistance.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a comparative analytical method, engaging with primary texts and secondary scholarly interpretations to synthesize the theoretical perspectives of both thinkers.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The body chapters cover the localization of the self in Arendt's work, the convergence of their definitions of power, the limitations of Foucault's later work on the self, and the wider political implications of their theories.
What are the primary keywords characterizing this text?
The text is characterized by keywords such as natality, governmentality, power, resistance, political philosophy, agency, and subjectivity.
How does Arendt’s concept of 'natality' address criticisms of Foucault?
The concept of natality provides an explanatory basis for potential newness and change, which helps overcome the perceived lack of causal explanations for change in Foucault's archaeological method.
Does the author conclude that their theories are compatible?
Yes, the author concludes that the political projects of Arendt and Foucault are not only similar but mutually enhancing when used to analyze the dynamics of power and resistance.
- Quote paper
- George Berezkin (Author), 2015, Arendt's and Foucault's shared interest in reframing the self’s relation to freedom and power, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/314859
