Foucault What Is Critique Analysis

1414 Words3 Pages

Meghan Byers Professor Koontz ENGWR 302 9 April 2014 Analysis of Modernity and the Aufklärung in Foucault’s What is Critique “What is Critique?” by Michel Foucault contains explanations for why we are governed in the way we are, the accompanying want to not be governed so much or at all, and to finally be governed not because we want to but because we consider the consequences for doing otherwise and decide to not rebel against authority. (In “What is Critique?”, Foucault refers to the French people when he means “we” but his essay is often relevant to and expanded to the entire Western world and culture.) Foucault defines being governed as “a certain way of thinking, speaking and acting, a certain relationship to what exists, to what one knows, to what one does, a relationship to society, to culture and also a relationship to others” and he states that there is a critical attitude of this that forms out of rebellion to the way we are being governed as well as it exists indefinitely in perpetuity to it (42). Put more simply, the critical attitude exists alongside our way of being governed and the critical attitude is as dependent upon our way of being governed as much as our way of being governed is as dependent upon the critical attitude. This critical attitude appears as a reaction to “modernity” also known as a prevailing attitude that came into being due to the Enlightenment in post-dark ages times. Furthermore, he sees much of who we are or have become as something that has been governed into us (as well as he alludes to a power and knowledge dichotomy he will discuss later). Foucault argues that this is the foundation of the critical attitude and he states that the main purpose of his essay is to define criticism, cause hi... ... middle of paper ... ...lidated or simply rational or simply generally accepted” (61). This maintains that something known by one may not be considered knowledge if it does not follow the conventions of the knowledge of the time, those in power, or if the thing known does not coerce people into believing it, it may not be considered knowledge at all. This drives home the point that all knowledge is subjective to a time, power, person, or place. Foucault expresses, again, that this is not necessarily troubling because “nothing can function as a mechanism of power if it is not deployed according to procedures, instruments, mean and objectives” and that means that all knowledge would be meaningless if it did not have power. Knowledge has to have power to exist as it does in the same way that critique must exist with our current means of governing in order for governing and critique to exist.

Open Document