Posted on

Episode 134 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #134 on The Consequences of Reason. Check out the episode page HERE.

So this disagreement that defines the state of the philosophical landscape in the early 20th century: we’ve called it a lot of different things on this show. Nature vs Culture. Modernity vs Postmodernity. Objectivity vs inter-subjectivity….Well one thing about this debate if it’s not entirely obvious by this point on this show is that understanding the perspectives that are positioned on either side of this debate is absolutely crucial not only for understanding 20th century political philosophy, but even for understanding the world you’re living in today…for understanding the smallest things…the philosophical underpinnings for many of the arguments you might see when you turn on the news.

We’ve talked about bits and pieces of this debate for a long time on this show and it’s high time there’s an episode you can point people to that goes into a bit of detail about this aspect of modern discourse…something that talks about WHY the climate of the early 20th century was filled with philosophers that had such a strong level of dissatisfaction with the legacy of the Enlightenment. That is: rationality, individualism and the scientific method as THE primary way of arriving at truth about things.

Because this whole state of affairs can start to seem pretty confusing to reasonable people…I mean, how could any serious person ever be anti-science? Look at the understanding of the natural world science has produced. Look at how it’s let us manipulate and wield the otherwise chaos of the natural world to the benefit of human beings. Look at all the different ways every day that you USE the great things science has produced…and what you’re just against that system…you’re dissatisfied with the thing that made those things possible?

Look at all the things rationality has produced…I mean open up a history book. Thousands of years of religious dogma gone…to be anti science and rationality can seem to some like you’re being anti human. Or just pro- some other dogma that you want to impose on people. But an interesting place to get started with this conversation is that the OTHER side of the debate, the ones skeptical of the tasks of the Enlightenment…they would ALSO see themselves as pro-science and anti dogma.

There’s of course an end to this story we’re telling today about our history of using rationality as our guide, but this is the place I want to begin and the story starts in the late 19th century with the philosopher Nietzsche and some things he had to say about what the attitudes of philosophers were at the founding of the Enlightenment.

So…some quick historical context: the beginning of the Enlightenment is often cited as the moment when Kant releases his famous essay titled What is Enlightenment? We have an episode on it…Kan’t famously describes Enlightenment as man’s removal of his self incurred tutelage. What he’s referring to is the tutelage of thousands of years of religious dogma. Later on in the essay he CHALLENGES the thinkers of his time to “dare to know” or “dare to think for yourselves” for once…in other words, we need another way OTHER than religious faith to be able to arrive at the truth about things, because faith, from these thinker’s perspectives has caused us a lot of problems historically . Well the thinkers of the time take a look around them, look at all the available options and collectively decide to double down on reason instead of faith. This is the age of reason. This is the use of rational categories to make sense of things, proportioning our belief to the evidence, the political systems of the time take a strong turn towards the individual subject and mutually beneficial social contracts as opposed to teleologies or strict “roles” that people are supposed to play in a society.

This whole strategy seemed extremely reasonable at the time. Ironically later philosophers would lament that that was EXACTLY what was wrong with the strategy…that it seemed reasonable at the time. But we’ll get to that. Nietzsche looks back on this moment in history and sees what the philosophers of the time did as an absolutely giant missed opportunity. Because, he says, hypothetically this was a moment when philosophers could have realized that one of the biggest problems with those faith based views of the world centered around the idea of religious certainty…was certainty.

What these thinkers DID, Nietzsche says, is throw out the religious certainty that caused them so many problems in the past and just changed the criteria for what makes something certain. RATIONALITY is now our path to certainty. They replaced one dogma with another dogma. So what happened was with each progressive classical rationalist philosopher doing their work… we seemed to be coming to terms with how everything in the universe fit neatly into rational categories. We were FINALLY understanding the truth after all those years. With every progressive scientific experiment that was UNDENIABLY bringing us an understanding of the natural world that improved the lives of people…how could any reasonable person say that the process of science wasn’t accessing something of the TRUTH about reality.
But then hundreds of years go by…and as the goals of the Enlightenment are played out, problems start to arise and this dynamic starts to produce philosophers that want to understand the limitations of classical rational thought. One of the first major ones that gives rise to this trend was Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard has a quote and I’m paraphrasing here, but he says here are all these philosophers and scientists of his time that understand the deepest levels of reality and existence…and here he is and he can’t even understand Abraham. What he’s saying is science and rationality during his time is supposedly producing some of the most comprehensive understanding of reality that we’ve ever had…but when it comes to certain aspects of what it means to be a human being…rationality just can not help you, it’s not a useful tool in that context. So many things about your life on an every day level…human existence is FILLED with paradox. There are times in our lives, and he gives examples from the life of Abraham, there are times when continuing to live in the FACE of that paradox…REQUIRES irrationality. Kierkegaard thinks this irrationality is an important part of our existence…JUST AS IMPORTANT as rationality…and if you ever tried to swear off irrationality completely and make purely rational choices all the time…you’d be left in a state of total paralysis.

Maybe a good metaphor for this is to think what it would be like to look at the contents of a book that tried to tell you in 300 pages… how to be a person…a field manual for life. Better yet, picture having a book that is supposed to tell you how to raise a child…right? You open it up… and it’s filled with math equations, syllogisms, geometric breakdowns of the nursery…for anyone that’s ever actually raised a child before…you know how tremendously oversimplified something like that would HAVE to be. Now, the intent of the author may have been to arrive at a NEW level of certainty about raising our children…you know, let’s dare to think for ourselves! Remove ourselves from the tutelage of the parenting dogma of the past…but the best intentions in the world don’t change the fact that there is something missing there. There is something about being a human being that’s lost when we’re using purely using rational analysis to try to explain it. More than that…no matter how much scientific progress we are making…the tools we use to catalog that scientific data…the means of analysis aren’t even remotely similar to the way we experience reality.

Perfect example to describe this phenomena used in the work of Professor Lloyd Kramer. So take time for example. There’s this thing about the universe that we call time. We want to use rational analysis to understand it better. So we measure it, record and study it through the use of tools of rational analysis called clocks. Now for a clock…seconds are uniform. 60 seconds in a minute. 60 minutes in an hour. So on and so forth. Time…when viewed purely through the lens of rational analysis…looks like that. But what is our actual, human experience of time? Well sometimes… time flies. Sometimes a few seconds of something agonizing can feel like an hour. The point is: when it comes to understanding the universe clocks might be the ultimate tool, but when it comes to understanding aspects of our human experience of the universe…the tool of rational analysis just cannot tell the full story.

So Kierkegaard becomes a symbol for a fracture in this idea…that starts to seem like a pretty extreme idea that rationality is going to be able to provide us with an exhaustive understanding of everything, but people might argue back to that…look, maybe there are things about being a person that aren’t entirely rational…but informing every decision you make shouldn’t be the GOAL of rationality anyway. The truth that science gives us about the natural world…THAT’S the goal here. THAT’S the thing we have certain access to through reason. Rationality is going to give you the most accurate information about how things are that’s available…and then it’s YOUR job to go out and actually DO something with that information.

Well Kierkegaard was just the beginning. This critical look at reason that would eventually lead to the malaise of the early 20th century began to be critical of the scientific method as well…more specifically a few important questions…when we arrive at a scientific understanding about something…and that understanding allows us to manipulate the natural world to benefit people…can we say that science is accessing the objective, TRUTH of reality? What I mean is: can we say… that science is at least IN SOME WAY communicating with SOME intrinsic structure of the universe? After all, why would it be so repeatable in a lab setting if it weren’t? Sure, maybe our understanding of it isn’t exhaustive, we still have many more years ahead of us to conduct more science…but there must at least be SOMETHING about the truth that we’re touching there.

But on the other hand when philosophers started asking these questions about what we’re REALLY doing when we conduct science…what they started to realize is that there are aspects of science that are inextricably relative to the culture the science is produced in.

The best way I’ve ever seen this dynamic explained is by the philosopher Richard Rorty…so I’ll try to summarize his main points the best I can: think of the birth, existence and reproduction of scientific ideas the same way you would think about the birth, existence and reproduction of species in terms of Natural Selection.

So for thousands of years it was believed that the universe was designed by a Grand Designer…and there were many arguments philosophers had for this…not the least of which was just LOOK AROUND. How convenient that I drink water and there’s water around. That I exist in this very small range of temperatures and weather patterns, and that’s exactly what the world is around me. The point was: How could you NOT THINK this was a celestial hamster cage designed with your survival in mind? For thousands of years THAT WAS THE DEFAULT…sure, you had the sporadic thinker that came along and questioned it, but the onus was on THEM to prove why this theory had any merit that was so contrary to our deepest intuitions about reality.

Well you know the story: Natural Selection offered an alternative…this was a theory that explained how things could SEEM perfectly designed for the environments they were in, but the reality was just that all the beings that DIDN’T correspond with the environment died before reproducing.

Well scientific ideas exist in an environment as well. That is, the set of scientific and cultural biases that they were produced in. The scientific theories that correspond with these biases subsist, they’re rewarded with tenure, they may manage to reproduce.

There’s a sense in which if a slightly different culture had come to pass…the way we scientifically understand things would change as well. There’s a sense in which if a COMPLETELY different culture had come to pass…just as different creatures would have been able to gain tenure in a changed environment…a completely different way of scientifically categorizing the world could have emerged. So this in no way takes away from the utility of scientific ideas, but this does start to raise a very important question to the thinkers during the late 19th century…Rorty puts it this way:

“Are the longest lasting and most frequently relied upon theories stable because they match a stable reality? Or because scientists get together to keep them stable, as politicians get together to keep existing political arrangements intact?”

The answer to this question makes a giant difference when it comes to how you view the findings of science. The difference the answer to this question makes is actually very similar to the way postmodernity looked at the history of philosophy in our series on Gilles Deleuze. What is philosophy? Well it’s not an act of discovery…it’s an act of creation. In other words, philosophers when doing their work are not discovering the intrinsic structure of the universe…reality is far too chaotic to ever be able to do that…the more accurate analysis of what’s going on would be that philosophy is an act of creation…philosophers create systems of concepts to give us one VERSION of reality…one perspective that might be useful.

Well a very similar charge is being leveled here about the history of science. Science is not DISCOVERING and ACCESSING the intrinsic structure of the universe…science is CREATING one version of understanding what we have access to…and this understanding is ALWAYS relative to the perspective of the observer which is ALWAYS a person… who is also embedded in a set of cultural biases and a current set of presuppositions that the science of their time accepts and proceeds from.

So if you’re a philosopher in the early 20th century that happens to see science in this way…the impact this has on how you view essentially the last 200 years of western democracy becomes horrifying. Because they instantly realize that this problem they have with science is in actuality a problem with reason itself.

So at this point in the story Rationality itself starts comes under fire…and some of these critiques are actually reworkings of OLDER critiques of reason…for example Edmund Burke spoke several times about how when it comes to the progression of human thought, but more specifically when it comes to how we should structure societies…you never want to fully commit your strategy to Rational analysis. He gives many reasons not to but one of the big ones he would say is that…look, when you decide you’re going to determine which thoughts are legitimate or not based on purely rational analysis…what you see when you actually put that into practice is that you can basically find a way to rationalize anything.

Look no further than your own personal life for proof of this fact. How many times have you reasoned to a conclusion about something and still been wrong? Maybe you know somebody who made a big mistake in their life and after the fact they thought about what happened and they’ve found a million ways to rationalize it to themselves and others and it all makes perfect sense to everyone…but nonetheless its obvious to everyone that they’ve still made a huge mistake.

See this is an important distinction to draw about rational analysis. When it comes to your personal life if you decide to take a purely rational approach to something and end up with problems it’s no big deal. You’re only hurting yourself. But on a societal level SHOULD we be using a purely rational approach when it comes to determining the legitimacy of thoughts? The bigger question that concerns this debate between these two groups: should thoughts be considered to be accessing the intrinsic structure of the universe simply because they correspond with human reason?

Human reason is always doing its work within the parameters of human ignorance. And that, human…that’s omnipresent throughout this whole process…is always subject… to cultural limitations. Just like we experience time and it’s not like we’re a bunch of giant clocks walking around…our experience of time is relative to the perspective of the observer…here are philosophers in the early 20th century saying that reason…and the criteria for what makes something reasonable or not are ALSO relative to the observer.

Now it should be said: NOBODY…not EITHER SIDE…is trying to do away with reason. Nobody’s trying to do away with science. They’re trying to do away with what they see as dogma or the idea that what reason and science provides is access to certainty. This is why Nietzsche thought people like Kant at the beginning of the Enlightenment missed a big opportunity…that could’ve been the moment… when they realized that certainty about things… shouldn’t have ever been the goal in the first place. We should VALUE reason, we should VALUE science…but not deify them…we should understand them for what they are: they’re not discovering anything…they’re CREATING something. That subtle distinction may not seem like much, but it actually has massive effects on how things play out in the world…and this is ultimately why people CARE so much.

Because if you’re one of the philosophers in the early 20th century that thinks reason and science are relative to the culture they are conducted in and NOT objectivity…then one of the first critiques you have to have about the Enlightenment is that the Age of Reason might have been a horrifying period in history where we used Reason to justify cultural imperialism.

Because when reason becomes something that’s capitalized…then it becomes the standard against which every society is judged. See, to these critics…what happened at the beginning of the Enlightenment is we made this bold proclamation that the way to organize the relationship between government and citizen should be determined by reason. This marks a major shift not only in the way the western world typically structured their states, but also in how the citizen saw their role in the political process. This is the birth of the individual in modern western culture. We’ll talk about it more on next episode when we go deeper into the work of Leo Struass, but essentially this is the moment when societies in the west move away from teleologies and societal roles and move instead towards rational individualism. This is yet ANOTHER criticism of the Age of Reason from around this time period…that Rationalism when applied to the political process necessarily moves thinking towards a focus on the individual…and that it’s THIS SHIFT towards the individual person as the focal point that’s responsible for a centuries long progression of people becoming more and more narcissistic and self centered…but again, we’ll talk more about that next episode.

Back to the primary point though: Rationality, to these critics, LEADS to cultural imperialism when applied at a societal level. Because if rationality is relative to the culture it’s being used in…and things like rational debates are the way that we determine political legitimacy…then what the goals of the Enlightenment produce are societies that appoint themselves as judge, jury and executioner of the rest of the world based on narrow parameters. Think about it: THEY get to decide the definition of what’s “rational” or “irrational” based on their own cultural makeup…and THEN they get to slap on their world police badge and be the moral arbiter of everyone else. The rest of the world constantly under this magnifying glass of their version of Rationality…the default way to view all other cultures becomes comparing them to this Rational ideal…how much do they deviate from the ideal society that WE’VE determined the values of? THAT becomes the new question when dealing with other cultures…knowing that if any point a culture becomes TOO “irrational” in how they set up their society…Rationality can ALSO become the justification for invading.

See… that’s ALSO one of the problems early 20th century thinkers were starting to have with Reason. Reason as it turns out is not this sort of ahistorical, acultural objective tool Youfor arriving at facts about things. The results of rational analysis were varying to such a large extent…societies were using the guise of reason to justify such massively different conclusions…these philosophers started to realize that David Hume may have been right all along: Hume’s Fork, Hume’s Guillotine as it’s often called…the central thesis being that you cannot possibly derive an ought from an is.

No matter how optimistic thinkers were at the beginning of the Enlightnment…no matter how much they thought Reason could eventually provide us with Objective Morality…the more that science and rationality were left to do their work…the more it became clear to these thinkers in the early 20th century that it was never going to happen. The more the political process focused on the individual and tried to use the results of science to arrive at values about how to structure our societies and how people fit into them…the more the goals of the Enlightenment were left to play out the more it became clear that when you force reason to try to come up with objective values about ANYTHING…you’re doomed to failure. Because, to these thinkers, that’s just not what rational analysis is capable of doing.

See that’s the problem here…Rational analysis can CREATE values…because rational analysis always has cultural values embedded into it…but in order to justify any sort of values it needs to use the results of science…and modern science HAS to assume value neutrality. This became a big problem for modernity. This became the fate of science in the early 20th century political landscape. Science cannot provide us with any values on its own…the only thing it can do is serve as a tool… to justify values that are smuggled into it by culture…all while wearing that costume of value neutrality.
This will be another thing we expand on moving forward with our series on 20th century political philosophy…the goal of this episode is to put you in the shoes of one of these early 20th century political thinkers and understand WHY so many of them were having such a problem with the legacy of the Enlightenment. Despite having not put out an episode in a while…I’m actually pretty deep into the writing phase of this entire series…that front loaded work is actually WHY I haven’t put something out for a while; not my health for once. So that’s good news, I guess. But I just wanted to say that when I considered trying to tie together a cohesive story of where we’re going over the century…I felt this episode was necessary.

Maybe the best place to end today is back in Ancient Greece. You know…this tension between postmodernity and modernity just saturates our modern discourse. Seems like you can’t turn on any form of media for more than five minutes without being faced with some reminder of this battle that’s going on. It’s actually pretty amazing to see…think of how lucky you are that at any moment you can turn on a screen and watch two people argue with each other that are living in completely different universes. Pretty cool stuff, and this battle is often cited by people in the media as a bad thing for society. They say this is a sign we’re living in some pretty dark times. Some people go so far as to say this is a catastrophe…the likes of which the world has never seen. When people can’t even agree on some of the most basic ideas that make up their world views…how can we even have a conversation with each other? Could this series of disagreements spell the end of Western Civilization?
Some people may say yes. There are a lot of philosophers out there who would say no. This isn’t the end of the world. This isn’t some unprecedented existential threat…this isn’t even a new disagreement between people.

Remember in Plato’s dialogues back in the Athenian Agora…this battle was going on between heavyweights in the western world all the way back then. One corner you had Protagoras, Godfather of relativism, Man is the measure of all things, the other corner you had Socrates, largely a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas but him arguing for the idea that No, there MUST BE some sort of intrinsic structure to the universe that we can access…and rational debate is the absolute best tool we have to get there.

Some philosophers would say that this argument is nothing new…this has been going on for thousands of years. This very well may be one of those debates that will NEVER have a winner. This may be one of those questions that causes arguments on the news for as long as humanity’s around to have news programs to argue on.

Cultures will ebb and flow with any one time period’s answer to this question. One side of this may win out for a while…we may have a long period where we believe in the power of FAITH to arrive at the objective truth…or the power of REASON to arrive at the objective. The OTHER side may win out for a while…we may have long periods of historicism, relativism, nihilism. Some philosophers would say there are pros and cons to EITHER side gaining a greater level of cultural control and that we should just try to understand the times we’re living in. The point is: some would say that there are many things that may sink the ship of Western Civilization…but this is not going to be it. People have been arguing about this stuff in one form or another for thousands of years…maybe cultures DO ebb and flow in their answers to this question…and maybe if the popular view is that we are currently embroiled in a culture of rampant subjectivity and relativism…maybe the thing we should all be looking out for is: what will be the NEXT THING to stake its claim to the objective truth?

Posted on

Episode 133 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #133 on Carl Schmitt. Check out the episode page HERE.

So for anybody not listening to these two episodes back to back I want to briefly remind everyone of the end of last episode because the discussion on this episode jumps right in immediately where the last episode ended. Real quick, the last episode ended talking about the ambitions of normativism:

 

“the hope of Liberalism was to get rid of the sovereign…the reality of the world is that we have long periods of normalcy where the government does almost nothing…punctuated by rare moments of extreme action whenever things ACTUALLY need to get done. Liberalism hasn’t REMOVED the sovereign and the only time pieces of paper like the constitution prevent the sovereign from acting are during periods of normalcy when the sovereign wouldn’t be exercising authoritarian power anyway…to Carl Schmitt the biggest difference between our modern societies and the ones that existed in the pre-liberal world is that the pre-liberal societies were just a lot more honest about the authoritarianism that was going on. Nowadays we have this grand illusion of Liberalism that puts a bunch of window dressing on it and pretends the world is something that it’s not.”

 

So maybe the best place to begin our discussion today is just to say that the fact that the sovereign still exists at some level in our Liberal societies shouldn’t come as an enormous surprise to people. I mean, after all what exactly are systems of norms like the constitution trying to normalize? Carl Schmitt would ask if the constitution is a regulatory document…what exactly is it regulating? He would say that what it is regulating is the more fundamental, underlying political process that has been going on since the dawn of civilization. Liberalism’s been tacked on after the fact…makes us feel good…helps us FEEL like the world is a lot more peaceful and tolerant than its ever been…but once again, the reality of the world to Carl Schmitt, the reason we haven’t seen a respite from dictatorships, bloodshed and political instability is because we are still engaged in the exact same political process we’ve always been engaged in…one ROOTED in intolerance…to Carl Schmitt the foundation of the political lies in a distinction between friend and enemy.

 

The friend enemy, self/other, us vs them distinction is probably nothing new to anybody listening to this…and to be fair it wasn’t new during the time of Carl Schmitt…but the level to which Carl Schmitt defends this as the forge in which political identities are cast in makes for an extremely interesting take on what exactly is going on whenever we engage in politics. To Carl Schmitt whenever you are engaging in politics…whether you realize it or not you are necessarily positioning yourself on one side of a duality which from your perspective will always look like your friends vs your enemies. Carl Schmitt famously said show me who your enemies are and I’ll show you who you are.

 

This is actually a reference to Hegel’s views on identity. The idea is that categories of identity can’t exist unless if they have an opposite that they can be contrasted with. So the way this manifests in the political realm is that you only think of your political views and your political identity in terms of how it relates to political views that are the opposite of yours. Your enemies in the friend/enemy distinction. So an example just to illustrate this concept is…you know…nobody listening to this thinks of themselves as a person that is pro-oxygen. I mean why would you. You’d be an absolute weirdo to cordon off your political identity there…I mean who thinks of themselves as a person in favor of people being able to breathe? THAT IS until a group emerges in the political landscape that holds positions that make them ANTI-oxygen. Then and only then does it become a relevant piece of your political identity to think of yourself as a pro-oxygen kind of person. To hold a political position of any type IMPLIES the existence of a group that disagrees with you. To Carl Schmitt to engage in the political at all implies this friend/enemy distinction. The philosopher Leo Strauss summarized his views in a way that Schmitt approved of…he said:

 

“Because man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men … the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state.”

 

When you look at politics in this way it makes the Liberal political process start to seem kind of silly…and this is another hallmark of Liberal thinking that Carl Schmitt thinks is a utopian fantasy world. The hope of Liberalism is a world of internationalism, acceptance of the other, toleration of different cultures, shaking hands and agreeing to disagree. Schmitt says no…Liberalism and democracy directly contradict each other…because unless if you are actually somebody that’s calling for the formation of a one world government…you are at some level making a distinction between friend and enemy. Look at your views closely enough…there is some group of people who’s interests, if it came down to it, matter more to you than some other group’s interests. You can’t have a democracy grounded in the idea that the citizens are going to vote along the lines that are best for their society without at some level making a friend/enemy distinction. To Carl Schmitt this is the essence of the political. The political realm is a violent ongoing process of friends banding together and going to war with their enemies capturing territory…whether that war is on a physical battlefield or in the halls of parliament…whether that territory that’s captured is earth and water or control over the state…Liberalism allows for the illusion of multiculturalism and tolerance…when the reality of the world is that we’re only going to be multicultural and tolerant as long as you mostly agree with us. Because when faced with enough difference from Liberal ideas…when faced with the TRUE essence of the political…when it REALLY COMES DOWN TO IT…Liberalism gets thrown out the window as well.

 

This is why Carl Schmitt thinks Liberalism doesn’t do what it claims to do. Liberalism doesn’t provide an alternative, more peaceful way of engaging in the political process…Liberalism allows people to AVOID the political process altogether and further allows the political to operate covertly behind the scenes while politicians galavant around in the political theater of rational debate without really ever solving anything.

 

See this is the other side of this that we still need to talk about…because for all the analysis of Liberalism that Carl Schmitt has offered so far…what we really haven’t talked about yet is: why is any of this stuff a bad thing? The political process is still going on in spite of Liberalism. I mean, let’s say Liberalism failed at what it set out to do…let’s say it is not an alternative political process but just a bunch of window dressing that makes us feel good…well, it still makes us feel good right? What’s so wrong about that?

 

To Carl Schmitt if you were making a list of all the failures of Liberalism…this may be the biggest one of all. Liberalism allows people to feel good about the political process when the world around them may actually be burning to the ground. Liberalism has created a world where more so than at any other point in history people can be completely apathetic about the political reality that they live in. See at many other points in history if there was a political situation going on in the world that was unfavorable for you… there was at LEAST a sense of obligation you were going to feel for finding some manner of recourse. For Carl Schmitt what Liberalism DOES is give people the ability to disconnect themselves from the political, oh politics? Well that’s something that goes on in that creepy building way on the other side of town…I don’t really get involved in all that. What I’m going to do is just live my life and leave all the debating about politics to the politicians…to Carl Schmitt the grand illusion of Liberalism, that politics is a normitivized, peaceful process of finding ways to compromise with each other…that illusion gives people the luxury of being able to not pay attention to or care about politics at all…when in reality this isn’t a luxury at all…and they are just as much at the mercy of the political as they ever have been.

 

Carl Schmitt would want us to consider just what type of person this level of political apathy creates. He says that for someone that has voluntarily removed themselves from the political process…life in one of our modern societies sort of defaults to a life of being a passive spectator that just consumes stuff. With no political cause to feel a part of…when you’re not part of the process of CREATING the political reality you’re living in your life becomes that of a spectator…watching the world pass you by on TV screens…spending all day watching TV shows, movies and video games of fantasy worlds while you live in a fantasy world of your own…watching the Liberal soap opera of people in suits arguing about mostly insignificant issues buying IN to the story that you’re told that this is all working really well…that you should feel GRATEFUL for your life as a passive spectator…that in the name of Liberal multiculturalism and tolerance you should not feel so connected to a strong political identity, religious identity or national identity…you should think of yourself MORE in terms of your identity as a global consumer…the reality of who you are in modern Liberal societies is actually more connected to BUYING stuff than DOING stuff.

 

To Carl Schmitt the promises of Liberalism often ROB people of their political identity. This crisis of identity is in many ways the political equivalent of Nietzsche’s famous claim God is Dead. So as most people listening to this already know when Nietzsche writes those words God is Dead he is referring to an emerging world… where there is going to be a crisis of identity because people are no longer going to have automatic access to a strong religious identity that they can feel connected to. Now when Nietzsche writes this he is saying it with a bit of an ominous tone…because he realized that when this extremely important piece of people’s identity was no longer going to be in the picture…that void within people that religious identity used to occupy was not just going to disappear. How were people going to respond? Carl Schmitt would want us to consider what it was like to be a citizen of one of these modern Liberal societies in the early 20th century…Liberalism in his view has asked people to give up their political, religious and national identities and replace them instead with the Liberal identity of multicultural globalism. Much like Nietzche, Carl Schmitt would talk about this phenomena with an ominous tone…because he understood how important these types of identity can be to people. Part of living a fulfilling life as a human being is feeling like you’re a part of something…feeling like you have some say in the way the world is unfolding around you. The founders of Liberalism saw that it was often THESE points of identity that led to wars and instability, so in the interest of making a better world they set up a blockade to make it more difficult for people to take these traditional paths to feeling part of something greater than themselves. But Carl Schmitt would say this is a tragic mistake by Liberalism…to deny these aspects of existence is to deny something extremely important about what it even is to be human. Just like in the time of Nietzsche…this crisis of identity is not just going to disappear…people are going to fill it in with something. The question becomes: what will that something be that people can feel like they’re a part of?

 

Nietzsche actually explicitly predicts a massive increase in political and nationalist fanaticism to come onto the scene at the beginning of the 20th century…which was precisely the story that unfolded during the early 20th century. This is in many ways the story of Carl Schmitt. Carl Schmitt was an unapologetic, anti-semitic Nazi who supported fascism. Carl Schmitt believed Fascism could be a prudent and intelligent political strategy given the right circumstances…he felt this way for many different reasons and understanding his rationale for supporting Fascism will be necessary knowledge to have if we want to understand the philosophical underpinnings of people’s political moves all the way up to the present day.

 

See it’s easy to assume that anyone and everyone who could possibly support a fascist approach to political strategy must have been evil beyond all comprehension. But the more inconvenient and unnerving reality is that there are actually reasons Fascism emerged at the time that it did in the western world…there’s a reason why early 20th century political discussions are centered around three primary approaches: democracy, Marxism and Fascism. Why did people living during this time think that Fascism was not only a viable political strategy, but the future of political philosophy?

 

The answer to this question comes only after understanding Carl Schmitt’s critiques of Liberalism that have been laid out so far. For all of the reasons already expressed and more…the bottom line is Carl Schmitt believes that Liberalism just produces weak societies. Liberal societies lack identity and thus are far weaker than societies that HAVE a strong sense of identity. We can at least understand how Carl Schmitt sees this happening…remember in his view Liberalism incentivizes inaction and complacency…Liberalism produces weak people that generally tend to be more politically uninformed or apathetic simply because they CAN be…Liberalism produces a world where even for the people that WANT to be involved in politics…there cannot be legitimate markers of political communities because within Liberal societies everybody is supposed to be holding hands in a circle singing songs of acceptance with their political opposition.

 

Remember to be engaged in the political for Schmitt is to stand on one side of a friend enemy distinction…well if the whole goal of your society is multiculturalism and tolerance…that makes it EXTREMELY difficult if not impossible to really ever make a substantive friend/enemy distinction. Liberalism in this way undermines the formation of political communities and this dynamic when played out over the course of decades and centuries eventually produces societies that to Carl Schmitt…really don’t stand for anything. See historically countries would have something that they STOOD for…the citizens of those countries when faced with something that threatened what they believed in they would defend themselves…they’d be willing to fight and die for the cause. The natural endgame for Liberal societies is a population of people that are faced with a political enemy and are like eh, I disagree…but I’m not ready to go and get on a boat and die for something like this…Game of Thrones season 12 starts next week.

This is the archetype of what a human being looks like in a modern liberal society. Devoid of any strong religious, political or national identity surrounded by a society that is terrified of the reality of the political process and so as to avoid the political denies the existence of any political identity as it goes around shaking hands with all the other countries telling everyone how super duper tolerant they are hoping nobody sees through that thin veneer to the intolerance just under the surface. This is a weak society in the eyes of Carl Schmitt filled with citizens who cannot be effectively emboldened towards political action because they are so disconnected from what is going on in the world they don’t know who THEY are…they don’t even know who their ENEMIES are.

 

This is a sentiment expressed in Hobbes’s Leviathan. When carrying out their end of the bargain in a Social Contract part of the job of the sovereign, part of what makes a state legitimate at all is when the sovereign has the ability to protect the members of the state and their political identities. When a sovereign can no longer do that…the social contract is void. But what if the members of a state don’t HAVE a political identity to protect? What happens…what does the sovereign protect? This is what Carl Schmitt is worried about…Liberalism for its own reasons wants to do away with the sovereign and rob people of their political identity…what does this mean for the future of our modern liberal societies?

 

Well there’s the old cliche…if you don’t stand for something you fall for anything. To Carl Schmitt…these weak Liberal societies that lack a sovereign and lack an identity to protect are essentially just sitting on their hands waiting around for a group that HAS a strong sense of identity to come along and impose THEIR will and identity onto the people with their anemic sense of purpose. This group that HAS a strong sense of identity could accomplish this in a number of different ways…they could insinuate themselves into the Liberal political process, get elected to office and slowly use the tools at their disposal to fundamentally change the country…they could invade militarily…though that’s probably a little old fashioned…think about it: if any group could manage to get elected to a high level of political office…the only thing it would really take is a state of emergency for that group to be able to assume the role of the sovereign in the name of protecting the constitution. Well imagine you’re one of these groups…you want to go full authoritarian on everybody…what if you could just CONVINCE the population that there was an emergency going on? There really doesn’t even need to BE an emergency if you are persuasive enough.

 

Carl Schmitt thought that people living in liberal societies are sitting ducks just waiting around for things like this to occur. Carl Schmitt thought an extremely under-developed portion of political philosophy was who gets to decide one of these states of exception and why. Who gets to decide when a leader can make an exception when it comes to the rule of law and the constitution and on what grounds do they make that decision? This is a question that political philosophy has been oddly silent about since the formation of Liberalism…probably because we didn’t even want to entertain the possibility that a dictator would ever be able to transcend these norms and rules we were trying to hold them to…but taboo towards the idea of a dictator or not, Carl Schmitt thinks they are all around us in hiding…some in plain sight…and we should be having a more serious conversation in our modern world about who or what gets to decide the exception.

 

But anyway the possibility of an authoritarian group co-opting a weakened Liberal society and imposing their will was practically an inevitability to Carl Schmitt. Societies that refuse to acknowledge the essence of the political as friend/enemy distinctions will never know who their friends or their enemies are and are destined to get taken over politically. This is the set of assumptions that serve as a foundation when political philosophers start making a case for Fascism. So if you’re someone that doesn’t care about Liberal values…Fascism starts to seem like it’s that far of a stretch. The idea is that societies ALWAYS have an authoritarian element to them or else they’re too weak to handle real any problems…societies NEED something that they stand for or else they’ll fall for anything…societies that don’t avoid the political process and KNOW who their friends and enemies are don’t waste a bunch of time in gridlock debating the issues. When you reject Liberal principles…Fascism just becomes what a lot of different groups land on…the strategy basically being that the best defense is a good offense. Because if you are the group that is imposing your will on the groups around you…then at least you know you’re not the group that’s getting imposed upon.

 

There are a lot of different theories for why Fascism emerged during the time that it did in the early 20th century…but at least when it comes to Carl Schmitt’s brand of support many would say this level of skepticism towards the gospel of Liberalism comes as a reaction to the litany of promises that the enlightenment has failed to make into a reality. Liberalism becomes a mangled form of political theology. Their blind faith in normative parameters like the constitution when these parameters don’t actually remove our need for a sovereign…blind faith in an open forum of rational discussion when in practice major decisions are always made by a handful of people…committees comprised of senior members of political parties…Carl Schmitt would say that when you truly consider the level of variance between the promises of Liberalism and the reality of the political landscape…how can anyone take it seriously when Liberalism promises to produce a more peaceful world for people? When it really comes down to it how is Liberalism any different than most other aggressive, alternative takes on how we should all be doing things?

 

One really interesting thing that political philosophers have talked about over the years is the possibility that Liberalism if it were to achieve a level of total global cultural hegemony would eventually eliminate Fascism, remove the need for friend enemy distinctions altogether and make going to war for political or religious reasons an incredibly rare thing, almost non-existent. Then again how would it be different if we forcefully imposed ANY homogenous system of thought? Some would say that the world uniting under the flag of Liberalism, tolerance, multiculturalism…this would usher in an unprecedented era of world peace and economic prosperity. Some would say that is the VERY DEFINITION of Fascism. To say that the path to world peace is we just gotta get everybody to just with me! Then we’ll be fiine!

 

Whether there’s a right or wrong way of looking at a global hegemony of Liberalism, Carl Schmitt would say it really doesn’t matter…because you don’t want to be living in that world anyway. Might seem like a luxury at first to never have to engage in politics…but he would say really play your life out as one of those rootless, ever-consuming spectators…really think about how it would feel to live every day of your life utterly disconnected from the creation of the world you live in and ask yourself if that is really the kind of world that you want to be living in.

 

Thank you for listening. I’ll talk to you next time.

Posted on

Episode 132 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #132 on Carl Schmitt. Check out the episode page HERE.

So we’re three episodes into this new arc of the show and as you know we’re talking about the early 20th century here. Once again it’s important to keep in mind what is going on during this time. Political philosophy is going through a serious transition phase…the WORLD is going through a serious transition phase…revolutions are taking place, world wars are on the horizon, the rise of fascism, authoritarianism, the entire legacy of the Enlightenment is being called into question…and what this means for the world of philosophy is that the thinkers doing their work during this time are very quickly coming face to face with the realization… that in this post-nuclear world… where for the first time the consequences of war could threaten the entire existence of the human race…THEY are the people… that are going to have to figure this all out. Think of the pressure these thinkers were faced with at the time…To be a thinker born in the early 20th century is to be born into a world…where the strength of your ideas is going to be tested in real time while the fate of the world hangs in the balance…being born into this time period is like the forces of history commandeering you for one of the most stressful jobs in the history of the world. Imagine your first day at a new job and the orientation is: here’s the entire history of western civilization…and day one at the new job is: time for you to fix it all…get to work.

 

Now this job would be difficult enough if we were looking back at a history of total chaos in the west…but keep in mind the western world at this time is the self-proclaimed center of political thought…the self-proclaimed most advanced collection of societies that have ever existed in history. So if this really is such an advanced, developed environment that the rest of the world should draw inspiration from…why do we have such a rich history of things failing miserably? Think of the history this world is emerging out of:

 

The age of reason and the political thought of the enlightenment produced for us what we’ve long considered to be the greatest political strategy in existence: Liberal Capitalist Democracy. By this time for over a hundred years Liberal Capitalist Democracy has been the gold standard in the west when it comes to how we should be structuring our societies. The problem facing political philosophers at the beginning of the twentieth century is this: what exactly is it about our long-standing strategy of Liberal Capitalist Democracy that seems to invariably lead society into an endgame of dictatorship, bloodshed and political instability.

 

 

When John Dewey and Antonio Gramsci show up with their lunchbox the first day at the new job…this is the first order of business that people like them are going to have to deal with. Now, it’s right here that we can understand why the two of them went in the respective directions they did…because like we talked about the beginning of the 20th century can be broadly understood in terms of three major branches of political discussion, three primary conversations…that are going on…we’ve already talked about two of them and understanding all three of them is absolutely crucial because the contents OF these conversations is going to go on to dictate the direction of almost all subsequent political philosophy all the way up to the present day…when a philosopher sets out to contribute something to the political discussion of the 20th century they are almost without exception doing so in consideration to one of these three major critiques of the way we’ve done things in the past. Once again, what we’ve done in the past is Liberal Capitalist Democracy…the three major critiques are going to be John Dewey and his critique of traditional Democracy…Antonio Gramsci and his critique of Capitalism…and the guy we’re going to be talking about today…the philosopher Carl Schmitt and his critique of Liberalism.

 

But where’s the best place to begin explaining one of the most scathing critiques of Liberalism in existence…maybe the best thing to preface this with just given the demographics of this show is that when Carl Schmitt sets out to critique the doctrine of Liberalism…he is not setting out to critique Liberalism in the context that some living in the modern United States may think of Liberalism…that it is one end of a political spectrum diametrically opposed to conservatism with these two poles being defined by the current state of the US political landscape. That’s not the Liberalism he’s talking about here…Carl Schmitt is not setting out in his work to critique some modern political cliche…some pro-choice Greenpeace platinum member who rollerblades to work and thinks healthcare should be a human right.

 

Let’s talk about what the word Liberalism is actually referring to in the context of this broader philosophical discussion. The term Liberalism is referring to a political philosophy and method of determining political legitimacy that emerged out of the beginning of the Enlightenment. Modern historians when looking back at history often describe Liberalism as the dominant political strategy of the Enlightenment era that should be contrasted with the methods of determining political legitimacy before the Enlightenment– which historians sometimes just group altogether and refer to as “pre-Liberal thought”. So we have the Liberalism of the Enlightenment…that is to be contrasted with the pre-liberal thought which is the way we did things before the Enlightenment. To put all this in a very Philosophize This way…look, people form into societies…those societies have problems that need to get solved…the people that make up those societies have to figure out the answer to several basic but very important questions: what kind of society do we want to produce? what sort values do we want to uphold when engaging in our political process? what makes something a legitimate political problem at all? how do we solve these problems? specifically what is having a political disagreement even going to look like in our society…because that’s a very important distinction that might not immediately seem like something our political process defines the parameters of…but keep in mind political disagreements of today look nothing like the political disagreements of a thousand years ago…and this is a big reason why Liberalism is often contrasted with pre-Liberalism. Before Liberalism burst onto the scene societies determined levels of political legitimacy with very different methods than we do today. Pre-liberal societies often informed their political process through things like divine revelation, tradition, ritual, pure authoritarianism, theological scholarship, the interpretation of scripture was an important part of the process…pre-liberal societies relied on these methods and these methods reliably produced a certain type of society…people got fed up with this type of society and put their heads together in the Enlightenment to try to come up with better criteria to base our political decisions on. These criteria and the positions they naturally arrive at have come to be known as Liberalism.

 

Now what this transition LOOKS LIKE…in keeping with the theme of the Enlightenment overall…political strategy starts to move away from revelation and instead is beginning to rely a lot more on reason. From pre-liberal to Liberal. When making political decisions…there’s a turn away from pre-liberal methods of theological scholarship and a turn towards a new Liberal focus on secular scholarship. There is a turn away from political decisions based on divine intervention towards a new confidence in decisions that are hashed out through rational debate. The pre-liberal standard of there being some single, anointed authoritarian leader that has ultimate say over the political process is quickly being replaced by parliamentary politics, separation of powers, democracy, civil and human rights, there’s a new focus on issues regarding equality…Capitalism starts to become the dominant economic approach…Liberal Capitalist Democracies as opposed to Feudal Aristocracies. Liberalism primarily aims to do away with the authoritarianism and divine revelation of the past and replace it instead with things like limited government, equality, freedom of expression, secular science and rational debate. Now…somebody born into our modern world that’s largely grounded in Liberal principles might be confused as to how anybody in their right mind could ever possibly disagree with this method of doing things politically. This episode is not talking about the merits of Liberalism but Carl Schmitt’s critique of Liberalism. Might think…look I know we’ve had our problems in the west, but this stuff all just seems like common sense…I mean back to the modern United States…Liberalism seems to be the foundation of BOTH political parties… how could anybody possibly think that Liberalism is the problem with our long time strategy of Liberal Capitalist Democracy? Carl Schmitt would probably say to this person that the most dangerous political ideology is the ideology that’s currently popular. The kind of ideological assumptions you make about the political process that are so engrained, so steeped in tradition that you don’t even think twice about them. Because if we should regard the thinking before the Enlightenment as pre-liberal and the thinking during the Enlightenment as Liberal…then Carl Schmitt can be regarded as someone trying to bring about a NEW post-Liberal way of thinking politically– modern anti-liberal is how he’s often described.

 

So for the sake of understanding where Carl Schmitt is coming from…the important thing to keep in mind here right at the beginning is that when there is this shift towards Liberal principles during the Enlightenment… what comes along with that is a promise from the thinkers of the time that this new strategy is going to bring about a better world for us. One of the dominant theories among the thinkers of the Enlightenment was that if we let these Liberal values play out and allow them to reach their natural conclusions…we will be the architects of a brand new, cosmopolitan, peaceful world the likes of which we’ve never seen.

 

To understand Carl Schmitt this is the perspective from which we need to VIEW liberalism. Liberalism was CREATED as an alternative political philosophy that was supposed to be a solution to many of the political problems of the past. These thinkers are looking back at history, seeing the pattern of dictators, bloodshed and political instability… and they’re trying to come up with a NEW way of conducting politics where these things aren’t going to happen anymore. This is actually a really good way to understand it: You can see why many of the hallmarks of Liberalism are what they are when you think about them in relation to some historical problem they were trying to solve. History of dictatorships and authoritarianism? Let’s introduce separation of powers, checks and balances on the executive branch. History of sprawling empires and rigid national and religious identities? Well, we’re ALL members of a global economy…let’s have political and religious identities take a back seat for now and instead unite the world under the flag of mutually beneficial consumerism. History of political and religious wars? Well, let’s not fight on the actual battlefield…let’s instead hash out our political differences in the battlefield of rational debate…where people can still be at odds with each other and go to war…but this way nobody has to die.

 

This was the hope and ambition of Liberalism as a political philosophy. Liberalism was supposed to be an alternative way of doing stuff that solved these problems of the past but Carl Schmitt is going to say this is no where near what actually happened…try to put yourself in the shoes of Carl Schmitt…try to see Liberalism through the eyes of a philosopher in the early 20th century…similar to the early Liberal thinkers…Carl Schmitt is looking back at history…he too sees the pre-liberal world of dictatorships, bloodshed and political instability…then along comes Liberalism to save the day…and what he sees is really not much changing at all…what he sees is that throughout the entire tenure of Liberalism things continue to descend into dictatorships, bloodshed and political instability all the way up to the present day and he thinks the only reasonable thing to conclude from this state of affairs is that there is a big difference… between the hopes and ambitions of Liberalism…and how things actually play out in the world. Liberalism, to Carl Schmitt, doesn’t produce the world that it claims to produce.

 

Throughout several years of his career Carl Schmitt attacked Liberalism from so many different angles that there really isn’t a clear starting point here…so I want to just jump right in to some different examples of hallmarks of Liberal thinking that Carl Schmitt takes issue with, use that as a skeleton and then try to flesh out the rest of his position from there.

 

 

So just to get us started…one of the biggest delusions of Liberal thought in the eyes of Carl Schmitt is the expectation… that it is possible for us to produce a society where people can have extreme political differences…and by adhering to the tenants of Liberalism they can co-exist, live peacefully amongst each other and just agree to disagree…put in the words of political philosophy this is the toleration of difference. We see this kind of thinking in western Liberal democracies every second of every day… You’ll often hear people talk about political discussion with the expectation that this sort of thing is possible…you know we may be totally different people…we may disagree on every element of how a society should be structured…but at the end of the day we can shake hands, live and let live and go on about our lives…Carl Schmitt would say that this is a Liberal fantasy world. That if you pay attention to what is actually going on in the real world of the political…this is not the way extreme political differences interact with each other in our societies. Liberalism just creates the illusion that they do.

 

To Carl Schmitt…this expectation… that we’re going to be able to co-exist tolerant of extreme political differences comes from the more fundamental Liberal belief that there is no political difference so extreme that there can’t be some sort of solution eventually arrived at in an open forum of rational debate…that there is no chasm between worldviews that is so un-bridgable that there can’t be some sort of reasonable compromise that is arrived at by both parties. This is a hallmark of Liberal thought and a cornerstone of the Liberal political process. Now, Carl Schmitt would say…this idea…just in theory…no doubt SOUNDS really great. Who doesn’t want a world where we can always just talk things through politically…who wouldn’t want a world where we never have to implement political policy by force? The problem for Carl Schmitt is that this isn’t how the world works.

 

Liberalism is marketed to people as an alternative, more peaceful way of engaging in the political…but Carl Schmitt believes all that Liberalism REALLY does is allow people to AVOID engaging in the political. Rational debate puts on a good show…but it’s mostly political theater. There are long periods of normalcy where a bunch of people get dressed up in suits and go to a building downtown and scream at each other about issues that are almost entirely inconsequential…this all provides a nice soap opera to watch that is supposed to be evidence of the Liberal political process in action. Look at how peaceful we’ve all learned to be! Hooray for Liberalism.

 

But Carl Schmitt would say look at history…what happens every single time there is a truly serious political issue where the differences between parties are irreconcilable? What happens when you try to have a rational debate with someone who’s political beliefs are that I should be king of the world and you should all be my slaves? Well, there’s no REASONING with that person…you wouldn’t try to SOLVE that difference of opinion with rational debate. You’d tell that person to sit down and be quiet or else they’ll be thrown in jail. So it’s at least POSSIBLE to have a political situation that all the debating in the world isn’t going to solve…okay, now think of all the political differences that can possibly present themselves that are less of a cartoon.

 

Carl Schmitt would start by saying look, there are going to be groups that emerge in the political landscape whose entire existence is predicated on the destruction of another group. The reality of the world is that there ARE political differences that are irreconcilable…and these differences are not all that uncommon…to Carl Schmitt this is one of the failures of Liberal political philosophy…no matter how good it feels to tell ourselves we’re going to be open to outsiders and just talk things out when we disagree…rational debate CAN NOT SOLVE political problems of this magnitude. No matter how much of a poster child you are for Liberalism…faced with political beliefs sufficiently hostile to Liberalism, faced with, for example, an authoritarian regime that wants to ascend to power…you are eventually going to have to do one of two things: choice number one…be willing to accept the destruction of Liberalism simply because something else was popular…choice number two…use the power of the state to silence opposition…or in other words temporarily behave like what we would otherwise call a dictator by using the sovereign authority that to Schmitt is intrinsically embedded into the political process.

 

Choice number two is something Liberals are absolutely terrified of…and for good reason. Remember they’re looking to societies of the past structured around social contract theory. Society is an agreement between the citizenry and the sovereign. The citizen’s job is to serve the sovereign, the sovereign’s job is to ensure the security of the citizen…sometimes in order to do this effectively the sovereign needs to wield an authoritarian level of power. To political philosophers in the days of pre-liberalism…having a designated sovereign body (like a king) that has the ability to maintain certain elements of society unincumbered by the political process was absolutely crucial. During the formation of liberalism people looked back at our history of doing things this way and realized many of the downfalls of great societies occurred when in this volatile place of a sovereign body seizing control. Liberal philosophers tried to do away with the concept of a sovereign…they saw it an outdated and dangerous idea. Carl Schmitt makes the case that this is why once Liberalism comes onto the scene…the thinkers at the time become absolutely obsessed with finding any possible way they can to make it so that we don’t have to have a “sovereign” anymore.

 

The idea of a dictatorship, which at the time was historically the most common structure of a successful society, dictatorships become unthinkable. Carl Schmitt wants to mark another distinction between Liberal theory and the reality of the world here. The reality of the world is that societies sometimes need the ability to make swift and decisive decisions and in the post-Enlightenment world this reality gets swept under the rug for the sake of pandering to the Liberal fear of authoritarianism. He thinks this taboo towards dictatorships certainly makes us FEEL good…but it simultaneously ignores capabilities that healthy societies require. To Carl Schmitt this is yet another failure of the Liberal political process…not ONLY does it ignore society’s ocassional need for a sovereign but even if it WANTED to get rid of it altogether…Liberalism doesn’t actually REMOVE the sovereign from the political process…once again it just creates the illusion that there isn’t a sovereign until we actually NEED one. Liberalism performs this illusion by engaging in various different types of what Carl Schmitt refers to as: normativism.

 

To put it bluntly: Carl Schmitt is saying that Liberalism is terrified of the idea of a sovereign dictator holding power, so to safeguard against that possibility they’ve come up with all these different attempts to hold political power to a set of predefined norms and rules. Liberals are obsessed with this process of normativism…this is the rise of constitutional democracies in the west. Consitutions are designed to be safeguards against the swift and decisive action of authoritarianism. Normativism is sold as an incredible feature of Liberalism that protects the will of the people.

 

Now, Carl Schmitt uses this term of normativism in a way that is mostly intended to poke fun at the hopes of Liberalism…because like I just alluded to, normitivism is an illusion to Carl Schmitt. The hope and ambition of Liberalism is that by coming up with these norms that political leaders have to follow…whenever somebody comes along that starts to look like one of these sovereign dictators we’ve seen throughout history…we’ll just wave the constitution in their face and they’ll just burst into flames and we’ll never have to hear from them again. But Carl Schmitt is going to say this is yet another delusion of Liberalism that doesn’t shore up with the reality of the world.

 

First of all…it doesn’t matter how long you sit down and talk about what the parameters should be for someone holding a position of power…you are NEVER going to be able to come up with a set of rules that accounts for every contingency given how many moving parts are involved when making decisions that affect this many people. To Carl Schmitt trying to normitivize these highly volatile moments is at best drastically oversimplifying how complex the world can be and at worst severely weakening your society and its ability to adapt and defend itself.

 

Here’s the good news though: to Carl Schmitt…this isn’t ACTUALLY how things ever play out in Liberal societies anyway…because even the most Liberal society in existence eventually recognizes how necessary temporary extra-constitutional power is given the right circumstances. Carl Schmitt is saying that even in Liberal societies whenever it really comes down to it and they’re faced with some sort of existential crisis the constitution goes out the window anyway. You know, citizens of Liberal Constitutional Democracies often have this expectation of…well the government can’t just go rogue and do whatever they want…they’re held to the constitution, there are checks and balances they gotta to get permission to do something, right?…but what happens whenever there’s an emergency and something needs to get done? Oh, well they just take action. In other words, to Carl Schmitt…Liberalism claims to have gotten rid of the sovereign from the political process…but what happens in these societies whenever something ACTUALLY has to get done and we need a sovereign…abracadabra! Poof! The Sovereign was there the whole time. This is a great magic trick…and to Carl Schmitt the misdirection was performed by the Liberal political process.

 

This is another liberal theory vs reality thing to him: the hope of Liberalism was to get rid of the sovereign…the reality of the world is that we have long periods of normalcy where the government does almost nothing…punctuated by rare moments of extreme action whenever things ACTUALLY need to get done. Liberalism hasn’t REMOVED the sovereign and the only time pieces of paper like the constitution prevent the sovereign from acting are during periods of normalcy when the sovereign wouldn’t be exercising authoritarian power anyway…to Carl Schmitt the biggest difference between our modern societies and the ones that existed in the pre-liberal world is that the pre-liberal societies were just a lot more honest about the authoritarianism that was going on. Nowadays we have this grand illusion of Liberalism that puts a bunch of window dressing on it and pretends the world is something that it’s not. Liberalism is in many ways a utopian fantasy in the eyes of Carl Schmitt.

 

There is a lot more to talk about and in many ways we’ve just started getting into the main section of the ideas…please if you have the time listen to the next episode while this stuff is still fresh in your brain…it’s released for your listening enjoyment right now. Thank you for listening. I’ll talk to you next time.

Posted on

Episode 131 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #131 on Antonio Gramsci. Check out the episode page HERE.

So imagine you’re at a dinner party. Nice enough person comes up to you…starts talking to you…let’s say the conversation starts to go in the direction of politics…you talk for a while…some point in the conversation you decide to ask this person, so… what are YOUR particular feelings about politics…where do you land on the whole political spectrum…magine the person replies with…well, I’m a Communist! Communism is the solution…to all of our political problems. Now, to us, being people living in the 21st century that have seen history play out the way that it has, no matter WHAT you think about Communism, we would INSTANTLY have a lot of thoughts about this person and probably a few questions that we wanted to ask them. See because the word Communism carries with it an enormous amount of baggage to us in the 21st century…baggage, it’s important to note, that just didn’t exist when people were having political discussions at the beginning of the 20th century.

That’s what I want us to consider here at the beginning of this episode. Just how much has changed, just how much has transpired since philosophers were having political discussions at the beginning of the 20th century. What I want to do is try to take a step outside of our 21st century biases and try to do our best to put ourselves in the shoes of someone viewing the political landscape back when Communism was first being proposed as a potential solution. See because when you do that you can start to see the political philosophy of the time within its proper context…you can start to see…how in many ways the goals of the reformed democracy that we talked about last time and the goals of the Communism that was being proposed back then were actually incredibly similar. Remember at this point in the timeline of discussion about political philosophy, there were three major conversations that were going on that were all trying to solve the same general problems that existed in the political philosophy of the time. One was democracy, one was Communism and the general problem they were both trying to solve was: how do we ensure that in the future society doesn’t devolve into a situation where a relative handful of people have an inordinate amount of control over the lives of the majority of the population. This had been a serious problem in the past. Democracies of the past had produced this situation time and time again, which was why there was a discussion about a reformation of democracy that would preserve the true essence of a democracy which was a government by the many, not a handful of people. Well Communism was very similar in terms of what it was aiming to do.

Like we talked about when we did the series on the Frankfurt School, for neo-Marxist thinkers at the beginning of the 20th century there was a short period of confusion when it came to what exactly was going on. See, Marx prophesized that very soon the proletariat would realize that all they had to lose were their chains and that inevitably, they would rise up, they would overthrow the bougousie and implement a new system of economic order, let anyone who agrees with Marx cross their fingers and hope that it ends up being Communism. But this Communist revolution just wasn’t happening in almost every case. So what was going on? Neo-Marxist thinkers went back to the drawing board: why does it make ANY sense that people living in these abject conditions, working jobs that were in many cases COMPLETELY brutal…why would those people stand for it? Why didn’t Marx’s prophesy come true?

Well, very quickly the trend that emerged in neo-Marxist thought of the time was that control over a population of people extends far beyond the halls of congress or the ballot box. Political control is almost always dictated by cultural control. This is why the italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci spends a considerable amount of his work exploring the concept of political control and more specifically the very important question of: when there is a dominant social group or a dominant class within a society…how exactly does that group ascend to power and then beyond that…how do they MAINTAIN that power once they’ve gotten it…especially when the social order that they promote WITH that position of power often times is at odds with the wellbeing of the average person? The fact is that sometimes when a leader is elected…they don’t try to pass policy that’s necessarily good for the majority of the population…sometimes they support policy that really only benefits them or friends of theirs that are members of a dominant social class. Gramsci wants to find out: why is it that these leaders are sometimes capable of getting massive support from the people for policies that are actually hurting the average citizen more than helping them. How is it possible that the proletariat can feel so comfortable participating in a system that keeps them in chains, in the eyes of a neo-Marxist thinker.

Gramsci begins his explanation by evoking and repurposing a word that had been thrown around all throughout human history but it was a word that he thought in recent years was starting to take on an entirely new meaning. The thing that was responsible for allowing a particular social class to ascend to power and then maintain a privileged status…was what he called Cultural Hegemony. This concept of hegemony is going to become massively important to the political conversation of the 20th and 21st centuries and by the end of this arc of the show we’re going to have looked at it from a lot of different perspectives. Maybe we should start from the origins of the word…the word hegemony originates in ancient Greece…the root of the word comes from the greek word meaning “to lead”, some translators say it’s closer to “to rule over”…but either way during antiquity there were things called hegemons…now in the context of ancient Greece a hegemon was typically a state that had a significant military advantage over another state…the arrangement being that if the weaker state didn’t comply with certain demands from the hegemon they would be annexed or dominated militarily or burned to the ground, take your pick. The term hegemony implied the threat of physical dominance over a population of people…this was the case all throughout human history.

But Gramsci is going to say that in our modern world the definition of the word hegemony needs to evolve with the political reality we are living in. We are no longer living in a world where most political control is exercised by military dominance over a population of people. Since the advent of mass media people in positions of power have realized that a much more effective way of controlling populations is by manipulating the cultural parameters that citizens have to navigate. The general idea is this: to be a human being living a life in our modern world…you always HAVE to be living that life immersed within a particular culture. But what IS a culture other than an elaborate collection of norms, rules, structures, mores, taboos, rituals, values, symbolic gestures…these things are not exactly abstract concepts…they are acute. They are visible. This is the cultural custom of a handshake to pay deference to someone else. This is not talking with your mouth full. This is the sum total of every ritual we engage in on a daily basis that all come together to create a cohesive society. But what Gramsci is going to ask is: who exactly created all of these norms and taboos that we abide by?

We can easily look at different cultures around the world and all throughout history and see that a culture can function and flourish when doing things completely differently. The norms and taboos of a culture can be completely alien from the modern world that we’re living in, and yet things still somehow managed to stay held together…so it makes Gramsci wonder: to what extent is the current set of norms and taboos serving to reinforce itself? To what extent are the citizens seeing the current set of norms and taboos not as an instantiation of culture, but as…just the way the world is?

Once again this is another example of this classic debate that is going to become increasingly relevant: how much of the reality of the world can be explained by nature, how much of the world can be explained by culture?

This is extremely important because to Gramsci if you can control the narrative and you can convince the average citizen that the current set of cultural norms is just the way the world is then there’s not going to be much complaining, there’s not going to be much in the way of seeking justice and trying to change things…this is similar to a point we discussed from Simone De Beauvoir and The Ethics of Ambiguity…we don’t get mad at hurricanes. When a hurricane comes along and devastates multiple cities…people die, homes are destroyed, billions of dollars in damages…thousands of families displaced every one of those cases a tragedy in its own right…but as human beings what do we do? We accept it. Why? Because there’s no sense in getting mad at a hurricane. There’s no human intent or will behind a giant storm, nobody can be held morally culpable, so we chalk it up as an unfortunate series of events. Hurricanes are part of nature. There was nothing we could really do to stop it. Sometimes the world’s at large and I just have to deal with that the best way I can and accept it.

To Gramsci, this is the old switcheroo that’s going on with cultural hegemony. Dominant social classes have the ability to dictate cultural norms, these cultural norms often times serve to reinforce themselves and people born into these cultures often times view the normalized state of the world around them as nature rather than culture…Gramsci thinks this is a cultural story that is being told…so often citizens see it as just the way the world is and something they need to just accept.

To Gramsci, this is why Marx’s prophesy hasn’t come true. This is why the proletariat continues to live in chains…because they’ve come to accept those chains as the natural state of the world that they need to come to terms with. Cultural norms become to the average person what Gramsci calls the “common sense” that they use to make sense of their place in the world. When the common sense of your world serves to legitimize the dominance of a particular class of people and tells you that anything you don’t like about your socio-economic situation is just the natural order of things…then your very existence becomes reinforcing of cultural hegemony…you are reinforcing the political status quo simply by participating in the culture that you were born into. This is why people that would otherwise never stand for getting pushed around can find themselves getting worked into the ground in a factory during the time of Gramsci only to accept their place in the world as a necessary part of how the world works. Parts of my life may be hard…but you know what…that’s life.

But look it’s not like Gramsci’s saying that life should never be hard. The more accurate question is probably: how hard does life NEED to be and how many hard aspects of life have been made into a normalized part of our modern world that we just accept that disproportionately serve to benefit a dominant group within society?

Being a neo-Marxist you can no doubt guess what his first and most commonly used target is throughout his work: Capitalism. So to Gramsci even people that are struggling within a Capitalist system have often times lived their entire lives immersed in a culture that promotes the merits of Capitalism…this, in turn, creates a sort of economic Stockholm Syndrome, where despite the fact they are struggling, the citizens identify themselves and their place in the world in relation to Capitalist ideology. When the entire way that you view the world has been given to you by a culture that benefits from maintaining capitalism, Gramsci would say don’t be surprised if that education produces a few blind spots.

These blind spots are the point. Cultural Hegemony in many ways is accomplished by getting consent from the population to keep things the way that they are by making sure people are blind to other options at their disposal. Keep in mind as we continue talking about cultural hegemony that this isn’t always accomplished by an organized group of people that are actively trying to control things. Cultural Hegemony can exist and people can be a part of perpetuating the status quo just simply by acting out of their own self interest, see because their self interest is always considered in relation to how the CURRENT system can help them…they unintentionally support things staying the same.

What Gramsci is getting at is that for any single person or any social institution… to appeal to groups in positions of power for the sake of your own self interest you must…in some capacity…go along with the way things are currently structured. So for example if you’re an aspiring politician or social commentator that wants to make the world a better place…the only way you are EVER going to be able to get your message across is by participating in the existing culture and using the tools at your disposal. This is an ideal situation for cultural hegemony and one of the goals of its final stages: to make the values of a particular culture seem so a part of nature and so in line with “common sense”…that the members of that culture don’t even question them. To get people completely entrenched in this world where they mistake the reality of their culture for the reality of the universe. To think the reason things are staying the way that they are is because people are weighing all the options at their disposal and making the best choice, not complying with the demands of a cultural hegemon.

Just like the militaristic hegemon of ancient Greece…the goal of cultural hegemoney is to stay in power. Now over time dominant groups realized that the most efficient way of doing this is by controlling people’s systems of values. Gramsci thinks by and large people acquire their systems of values by listening to and studying voices within a culture that to him are massively important: public intellectuals. Gramsci makes an important distinction here between two very different types of public intellectuals. There are ruling intellectuals and organic intellectuals. Now, the ruling intellectuals are going to be the sort of foot soldiers for the dominant set of cultural norms that are currently in place…these are the people whose commentary on the world is going to reinforce the status quo. Keep in mind that this in no way is saying that these are BAD people necessarily…most of them may not even realize that they’re doing it. But Gramsci wants to shine a light on the insular, often times self-reinforcing world that many of these intellectuals come from. So often it’s from academia. So often these people are completely out of touch when it comes to what life is even like for most people in a culture.

Think about the common archetype of a philosopher throughout history. Philosopher decides they’re going to resign themselves from public life, lock themselves away in a tower and think about stuff really, really hard…THAT’S the path to creating better philosophy…the last thing you’d EVER want to do is have the basic thoughts of a normal everyday person corrupting your genius. Gramsci thinks this is completely ridiculous. Not only is this elitist…and making tons of value judgments about how certain human experiences of the world are inherently better and can even be corrupted by other people’s experiences of the world…but aside from all of that…Gramsci thinks this approach actually prevents you from ever being able to participate in discussions about politics at all…because political discussions BEGIN from the starting point of self-awareness and self-reflection while considering how that self relates to all the other people around you…and how could anybody locking themselves away in a closet thinking about stuff ever hope to contribute to that conversation?

But nonetheless these ruling intellectuals often times dominate the ideas that are available to citizens of a society. So often these intellectuals are the ones that write the articles, they’re the ones published in journals, they conduct the studies, they write the textbooks…so often these intellectuals control the education of the next generation of citizens when so much of their prominence as an intellectual was only given to them simply because their ideas corresponded with the existing social order.

Here’s what Gramsci is saying: cultural hegemony is established by taking control of three things. The intellectuals of a society, the education within a society and the philosophy that drives people to political action. So in other words if you’re someone that came up through the education system of an advanced capitalist society…Gramsci would say don’t be surprised if there are some pretty glaring holes in your understanding of Capitalism…because just statistically…most pieces of information you’ve ever had access to have been written by people that reached that level of social influence by participating in a Capitalist system that benefits them. Your high school or university wasn’t taught by unbiased monks.

That most likely, once again just statistically, you have come up in a world where you are far more likely to hear about the merits of Capitalism and all the good that it is doing for people in the world. When conversations about the downsides of Capitalism come up you are far more likely to hear them glossed over by other people…you’re less likely to have someone call you out for glossing over them, and the conversation is likely to go in the direction of how the good of Capitalism drastically outweighs the bad. When you hear people talking about Socialism…when coming up in an advanced Capitalist culture you’re far more likely to have run into conversations about the horrors of Socialism, how it’s failed everywhere it’s been tried and if anyone brings up something good that Socialism has done it’s written off as a broken clock is right twice a day sort of thing.

Now here’s the really interesting part: this view of economics and how it plays out in the world may be absolutely true. Capitalism could just be BETTER than Socialism. But how would you ever know for sure? Because if you’re an intellectually honest person you’d at least for a second have to consider that maybe your entire understanding of Capitalism and Socialism has been given to you by a handful of intellectuals you’ve entrusted your worldview to…that are intellectuals and gained their credibility simply because their view of the way the world is corresponds with a dominant cultural narrative that keeps the status quo going…whether maintaining the status quo is good for a particular social group that’s pulling the puppet strings or whether it’s good for just keeping society stable…what if you’ve lived your life learning from a lot of really smart people that are all just telling the same side of the story?

Now Gramsci would say this is not just limited to Capitalist societies…that it’s entirely possible to come up in a society that unfairly promotes the merits of socialism and creates the same sort of echochamber of ideas. Gramsci’s goal was not to replace a western world dominated by Capitalist ideology with one dominated by Marxist ideology. His goal was to replace both of these narrow approaches with an ideology where the public has a general and intense level of skepticism about the status quo, no matter WHAT the status quo looks like. The biggest mistake we can make is to see these ideologies as nature or the way that things are. We should ALWAYS be critical of the status quo…the fact he’s so critical of Capitalism is just him following his own advice about the status quo of the world he happened to live in.

To make a long story short: Gramsci thought that Marx and so many other Marxist thinkers that came after were putting the cart before the horse. They were all so wrapped up in the possibility…the inevitability of a Communist revolution in the west. They were so wrapped up in waiting to see Capitalism destroy itself that they completely missed the fact that different methods of cultural control could fragment a population to the point that a revolution could never take place. Gramsci makes another important distinction in his work to these people that were calling for revolution…that for any meaningful social change to take place, regardless of what it is, there needs to be two wars that are fought and won: first a war of position…then a war of manuevre. These orthodox Marxists of his time were far too focused on the war of maneuvre…which was the actual Communist revolution that they wanted to bring about. But Gramsci says before that can ever happen you need to defeat the cultural hegemon in a war of position. Remember a cultural hegemon will have control over the intellectuals, the education and the philosophy of a society. The goal of anyone trying to bring about any kind of social change should be to provide alternatives in all three of these areas…they should create a counterculture…an alternative set of cultural norms and taboos reinforced by intellectuals whose job it is to actively CHALLENGE the status quo. He called this other type of intellectuals “organic” intellectuals and it was their job to be skeptical of the existing order of things…provide an alternative means of education that took cues from the counterculture that was created and to embolden the average citizen to take political action by giving them a philosophical outlook that changes the way they see themselves and how they fit into the world. This is why so many attempts at revolution have failed in the past to Gramsci…the orthodox Marxists that tried to organize it didn’t understand the “common sense” of the workers that needed to carry out the revolution. These workers saw themselves and their place in the world solely in terms of how they relate to Capitalist ideology…the ONLY WAY to shift their perspective enough to see the other side would be to fundamentally change the way they look at the world philosophically.

See an extremely important term in the work of Karl Marx that was used to describe the way he saw things was “historical materialism”. Gramsci was a neo-Marxist. When it came to these orthodox Marxists we’re talking about…he distanced himself considerably from them and a big reason why was because he thought they were paying way too much attention to the “materialism” part of “historical materialism” and not enough attention to the historical part of it. Gramsci may have supported Communism and Communism may have played out in a particular way throughout the 20th century…but Gramsci hated Stalin. He would have hated Mao. He would’ve hated Pol Pot…he saw people like these as opportunistic dictators that took what would otherwise have been a revolutionary political philosophy and they used it to create dictatorships where the population was forced to deify and worship the state…when to Gramsci a much more accurate reading of the work of Marx would produce the true essence of his work: the spirit of revolution among common people united under the desire to never again allow a handful of people to dominate and control the population. To those living at the time of Gramsci…Communism and Democracy seemed to be two extremely different approaches to trying to solve the same general problem.

See as we already know from earlier episodes the feeling around this time in the world of philosophy is an intense skepticism towards reason. The Enlightenment gave us hope that science was the answer. Science when given enough time to develop was capable of giving us answers to problems that throughout history have seemed completely unsolvable. When applied to the realm of political philosophy for over a hundred years it seemed totally plausible that something like science…something as unbiased and without an agenda as science could eventually study the way that people are and the way that people work together in a society and it didn’t seem crazy to think that science could eventually give us answers to some of these questions in political philosophy that seemed so difficult to answer.

But along came Friedrich Nietzsche. Philosophizing with a hammer. Because at the end of the 19th century he asks the question: what if the very act of conducting science at all carries with it cultural values that narrow and distort its findings? We know there are many different ways of conducting science depending on the specific field you are in…we know that scientific revolutions have occurred where there have been wholesale transformations of the methods and assumptions that science is conducted through. What if these limitations and the unavoidable narrow scope that categorizing the universe must be viewed through is missing out on something crucial about what it is to be a human being? What if science, useful as it is, was never the savior that everyone thought it was?

More on next episode. Thank you for listening. I’ll talk to you next time.

Posted on

Episode 130 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #130 on Democracy. Check out the episode page HERE.

So just thinking ahead…I think it’s going to be extremely valuable for us to spend a little bit of time on 20th century political philosophy…and that’s what we’re going to do right now. See, there’s a lot of conversations in the REALM of 20th century political philosophy that…NOT ONLY are going to be useful for us, and the future of this show…but the 20th century is just FILLED… with famous political debates that end up being INCREDIBLY fruitful for the societies they were conducted in…these debates in many cases, you could argue…did more for their societies in the 20th century, than ANY OTHER century of political debates… did for theirs, ever…even though…to philosophers at the BEGINNING of the 20th century…it really didn’t seem like it was going to be that way at first.

See there’s this conversation going on at the end of the 19th century heading IN to the 20th century…. about whether it’s a good idea to even be TALKING about political philosophy anymore. Where this is coming from… are the same conversations that eventually give rise to Structuralism. Remember, Structuralism…one of its main tenants is to talk about how the ideas that we’ve come up with over the years… haven’t been some ongoing progression towards some ultimate Truth as we may have thought in the past…when it comes to your subjectivity…you are not some free acting agent just disinterestedly navigating the universe. That everything that you DO think and CAN POSSIBLY think is ultimately dictated by the narrow historical, cultural and biological parameters that you were born into, the ideas that you have EQUALLY narrow and subject to an arbitrary historical context.

Well the problems people are having at the end of the 19th century with the idea of engaging in political philosophy stem from this… they were saying, you know, if the essence of political philosophy is to ask questions like what is it to be a citizen, what is the role of government, how should power be delegated and regulated, how do we best live TOGETHER in communities of different types of people…if these are the questions we’re trying to answer…and the ideas you have about the ANSWERS to those questions ultimately are products of the time and culture you were born into…then when it comes to the task of trying to find THE BEST political philosophy out there…when we have these discussions, what are we even talking about? Because if this stuff is true, can’t we never arrive at any sort of satisfying answers to these questions? Well then is political philosophy something we should even be DOING anymore?

Nonetheless…even if there WERE these reservations at the time…political philosophy still went on…and if you were to dissect the conversation that was going on at the time, there were three major branches of the conversation going on, we’re going to talk about all three of them…but one of the branches would have been philosophers taking a much closer look at the subject of Democracy…and one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, conversations ABOUT Democracy that’s going on during this time…is between the famous political commentator Walter Lippmann, and the American Pragmatist philosopher John Dewey.

Probably the best place to insert ourselves into their debate, and start to uncover the position that Walter Lippmann held about Democracy…is to talk about an old criticism of Democracy that probably initially stems from Plato’s Republic…the paraphrased version of this question would be something like: “Is the average citizen of a society…the right person to be making the decisions about who should be making the decisions for a society?” Now, the implication there is that they clearly are not, and just to move us along so that we can save some time another way of PUTTING that would be to say…that we all need to be willing to consider…that a fundamental flaw…in the way a Democracy functions…is that any political action carried OUT by that democracy…is ultimately going to heavily rely on public opinion. Which is the name of Walter Lippmann’s famous 1922 critique of Democracy. This critique of Democracy…John Dewey would later say is the GREATEST critique of Democracy that was around at the time…and John Dewey, if you don’t already know, is the POSTER BOY for a person in support of Democracy.

But more on him later…let’s talk about Walter Lippmann. Lippmann’s main point, when it comes to the first half of his book Public Opinion, is that there are several, fundamental problems with the structure of Democracies that have existed in the past… that are going to lead to a LOT of serious problems for societies of the future if we don’t all get serious and DO something about them. The place a lot of these problems stem from: Democracy’s reliance on Public Opinion. Lippmann would say that public opinion being the driving force behind political action in a society SOUNDS great in theory, but in practice…things just didn’t work out the way the founders of our modern democracies had in mind. He references the founders of the United States: he talks about how back then, things were different. Back then…not everybody could vote…the people that COULD vote were relatively wealthy landowners that had a vested interest in understanding their local communities because it directly affected their land. The expectations of the founders were that yes, things would change. The country may grow exponentially. The lives of people may change dramatically, but no matter what happened with the country the PRIMARY focus for a citizen politically…would BE these immediate subcommunities that they were the closest to.

The reason this was a check mark in favor of democracy was that if the scope of the world you’re thinking about politically is limited just to your local community, and likely the place you’ve spent you’re entire life, it’s going to be a lot easier for you to be qualified to make intelligent decisions about the FUTURE of that community.

But as we know and Walter Lippmann knew in 1922…this just isn’t the way the world has shaken out. The scope of the world we’re expected to have thoughts on politically is global. When you really take a step back…and LOOK, at all of the enormously complex systems you are expected to have intelligent thoughts about as a modern member of a democracy…fields with THOUSANDS of years of work done, fields people dedicate their ENTIRE LIVES to and don’t even come CLOSE to understanding fully…the world is NOT like the subcommunities that the founders thought were going to keep going…the world is as Lippmann says, “too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. And although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.”

What he’s talking about is that as people when we’re face to face with the unbridled complexity and nuance of the political world, that almost as a DEFENSE mechanism we construct a simpler, alternative model of the world that is more managable…he calls these models of the world that we construct of the ACTUAL environment…pseudo-environments.

To construct one of these pseudo-environments, what we do is we take a look around us…and create a collection…of stereotypes. Not just stereotypes about people or cultures, he’s speaking more broadly than that. Stereotypes about the environment. Stereotypes about medicine. Stereotypes about the government. Whenever we’re prompted to give our intelligent thoughts about a particular subject as a member of a democracy, we look to our pseudo-environment, go into our grab bag of stereotypes and pull one out to do battle with the stereotypes of everyone else. When you combine the pseudo-environments and stereotypes of each and every member of a particular democracy, the sum total of them to Lippmann “crystallize into what we call public opinion”. To Lippmann in other words, what WE refer to as public opinion and the resource we use to drive our democracies forward, is nothing more than the crystallized version of everyone’s collective pseudo takes on the world based on stereotypes.

But if that fact wasn’t bad enough…Lippmann would want us to consider where we even GET these narrow pseudo-collections of stereotypes.

See to Lippman if you’re somebody trying to create one of these pseudo-environments…in other words: if you’re someone interested in having an opinion on the world, or forming a political stance all…what you NECESSARILY HAVE to do in order to do that is hear about events that you don’t experience, have never seen, yesterday you had no idea this thing even EXISTED, this thing is usually happening so far away from you that you couldn’t POSSIBLY understand its proper context, and YOUR JOB…is to form emotional responses to these events.

Not just that…these emotional responses are ALWAYS based on the moral intuitions of the pseudo-environment the person has already created in their head…in other words…the events of the world are ALWAYS filtered through this preset collection of stereotypes the person had that helped them create a vision of the world up until that point!

Now if THAT weren’t bad enough…Lippmann would want to ask where we even GET these events of the world that it’s our job to form emotional responses to? The media!

We are living in a world where media products are the best tools the average citizen has to create one of these pseudo-environments. Media products created by people with their OWN set of stereotypes they use to chop up the world. Media products delivered through extremely narrow mediums…through the moving images on a TV screen…through the limitations of an existing format of a podcast…through the extremely narrow metric of what it is to “report” on something. Not to mention the profit motive of media outlets which is driven by consumer decisions, not by how accurate the media is…Lippmann has a quote:

“For a dollar, you may not even get an armful of candy, but for a dollar or less people expect reality/representations of truth to fall into their laps.”

But if even THIS weren’t bad enough, consider all of the OTHER obstacles in the way of getting to even these MEDIA sources. Consider that the media itself is ALWAYS delivered by the vehicle of language, which is itself an extremely crude and narrow thing. Consider the socio-economic limitations that face the average citizen when constructing this pseudo-environment. For example, most people work 40 hours a week, they have families and lives to maintain, they have recreation time to tend to so they don’t burn out of the whole process…how much time is there really at the end of it all to educate yourself on all of these extremely complex systems so you can be some sort of weekend warrior road scholar?

You know, the prominent idea for a long time was that access to information was going to be an extremely good thing for political discourse. The more information people had the smarter they were going to be, the smarter they were the more complex their ideas and discussions would become…the one dimensional political fanaticism of the past was a result of the ignorance of the populations. This is why a lot of people were extremely optimistic when the internet first came along…you want to talk access to information…the internet is like throwing gunpowder on that fire. So why does it seem like it has simultaneously thrown gunpowder on one-dimensional political fanaticism?

Walter Lippmann saw this coming. Because he knew that when people seek information they are not seeking truth. They’re seeking to reinforce a pseudo-environment of stereotypes they already believe in, and even if they’re not…the whole process of seeking information is filtered through their EXISTING set of stereotypes…and it sabotages the whole process. Lippmann says so often what we think of as developing our understanding of politics and the world…is really just us choosing between which of the handful of existing authorities and thought leaders we’re going to entrust our worldview to. There’s no question as to why Lippmann would have had a problem with using Public Opinion as a means of directing society.

Now, let’s switch sides of the argument here and talk about the position of the philosopher John Dewey. You know….there’s that classic way of breaking down the two different ways people see themselves as citizens within a society. They either see themselves as in competition with the other people around them…or they see themselves in cooperation with the other people around them. The idea is…you know…when you go down to the Farmer’s Market and you see the dude getting the avocados…when you look at that guy do you see it like I am an individual…he is an individual…and we are two individuals embarking on two separate journeys within the same society. Or…do you look at the guy and see him as a team member, and the two of you are part of a team in cooperation towards a common goal? One certainly isn’t inherently better than the other…the philosophical question that’s being asked here is do you look at your place in society through the lens of the classical liberal tradition of individualism or the progressive liberal tradition ala John Dewey?

Now this contrast between competition and cooperation is going to be important when it comes to explaining Dewey’s positions on Democracy. See, because John Dewey…would no doubt give credit where credit’s due. He would say Walter Lippmann makes some very strong points about Democracy in Public Opinion…that is IF you are looking at Democracy as a system of government. Looking at Democracy as MERELY…a system of government as Plato did in the Republic.

John Dewey tears into Plato. See, it was the ancient greeks…in their pursuit to try to uncover the “best form of government” in their form of political philosophy…that initially included democracy in their discussion. We had the monarchy government by the one. The aristocracy government by the few. Democracy government by the many. But here’s where the shift happens. John Dewey is going to ask: what if Democracy…is not JUST a form of government? What if what we think of as society is an organism…and government is merely something produced by that organism, like a bird produces a nest?

First question first: what if democracy is not just a form of government. John Dewey thinks this shouldn’t really be THAT HARD of an idea to wrap our heads around. I mean, Democracy is something you see across almost ALL LEVELS of society, not JUST in Washington DC he says. Democracy is present in corporations, families, churches, groups of friends tons of other examples…you even see democracy present in the behavior of groups of animals in the animal kingdom. Democracy is CLEARLY not JUST a form of government, so what would be a more accurate way to classify it?

John Dewey calls Democracy a lot of different things…he calls it a way of life. He sees it as tantamount to freedom, but probably the most important way that he classifies it if you want to understand his arguments against Walter Lippman is that he says Democracy is an ethical ideal, not just a form of governement. This takes democracy as not just the result of some political discussion about forms of government and reframes it as an ethical imperative.

Democracy is a tool for social unification that we all have an ethical obligation to maintain, and there’s a lot of reasons why. First, John Dewey sees a fundamental problem when it comes to looking at society through the lens of individualism. Very short excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that uses multiple John Dewey quotes just to illustrate what he means here:

“men are not isolated non-social atoms, but are men only when in intrinsic relations” to one another, and the state in turn only represents them “so far as they have become organically related to one another, or are possessed of unity of purpose and interest”

This is why democracy is such an effective and STABLE form of social unification for Dewey. Society is an organism, and the individual and society are what he refers to as “organically” connected to each other. So in this sense: within a TRUE democracy… the individuals are always able to CONTRIBUTE to and own part of the society, because they’re participating in it… and the society is always able to CONTRIBUTE to and own part of the individuals because they are always a person ENGAGED in the issues OF that society.

This is a major shift of perspective: instead of looking at this as a society with a government keeping it in order…Dewey is seeing this more as an “ethical community” of citizens, society…an organism comprised of them…that none of us would ever have been able to survive or flourish except through our participation within this organism…this is part of the reason why, to Dewey, it is much more accurate to view others around you as team members in cooperation than to view yourself as an individual doing their own thing. In other words: yes, democracy is a form of government, but the only reason its a form of government is because it is also a deeper form of social unification. And not only is Democracy the most stable form of government because of this symbiotic relationship between the two organisms of the individual and society, but it’s also the most stable because its the best at safeguarding against potential authoritarian systems taking control of the organism. He says in a famous passage:

“…every authoritarian scheme, … assumes that its value may be assessed by some prior principle, if not of family and birth or race and color or possession of material wealth, then by the position and rank the person occupies in the existing social scheme. The democratic faith in equality is the faith that each individual shall have the chance and opportunity to contribute whatever he is capable of contributing, and that the value of his contribution be decided by its place and function in the organized total of similar contributions: – not on the basis of prior status of any kind whatever.”

What he’s saying is that if you look at every brand of authoritarianism that ever rears its head…one similarity you will always find is that it tries to use some birthright, some aspect of “nature”, to justify it’s power. Remember that these authoritarian regimes try to use “the natural order of things” because it’s going to come up later, but think about it: the divine right of kings, being a ruler because you’re part of the right bloodline, ruling over others because they’re the wrong race, even down to ruling over others simply because people that came before you were high ranking in the social structure of THEIR time…Dewey is saying that authoritarian regimes all use this same trick. They justify their ability to rule based on some prior principle as he says. But Dewey is going to say this is yet another strength of democracy as a method of social unification, because it’s the ONLY system where prior status doesn’t really matter. Every person has the ability to contribute something to society if they have something valuable to say. To John Dewey, each and every person is unique and thus brings a unique perspective to the problems society is facing. Don’t we want as many good ideas as we can possibly get as a society? Then why would we EVER limit ourselves to a panel of oligarchs or a single dictator? This is part of the reason why John Dewey is such a huge advocate of education and its reform. When you consider that our society hinges on the ideas of the citizens that make it up…why WOULDN’T we do as much as we can to ensure that people are not only as educated as possible, but also are taught HOW to think and adapt with changing environments. True democracy SHOULDN’T just be a form of government…it shouldn’t be DEFINED by just a bunch of people voting for what they want…Democracy is MORE than that to John Dewey…see a TRUE democracy should allow every citizen within it to realize their full potential, the good news being that allowing people to realize their potential helps society immensely as well.

Yes, certain people are going to go down rabbit holes of information and become enraged political zealots, but that shouldn’t discourage us when it comes to democracy, to John Dewey, it should cause us to re-up on our commitment to education and teaching the citizens the skills to be able to not fall into those traps of simplified thinking. Remember, society is an organism and government is part of what that organism produces, like bees produce a hive. THIS is the much more accurate way of looking at society…which is why he takes extreme issue with many earlier political philosophers that approach questions of government from the perspective of a “social contract” that is automatically signed at birth somehow. First of all, the idea that you’re just born into a society and you are automatically enrolled in some subscription TO that society is just wrong to John Dewey. This is nothing more than yet another example of philosophers trying to use “the natural order of things” or “human nature” as a means of pretending they know a lot more about the way societies work than they actually do. The world is no where near that simple, in his view. And as we continue on talking about 20th century political philosophy this dichotomy between nature and culture is going to become more and more relevant. Whether you attribute to the behavior of human beings some aspect of their “nature” or whether you think cultural influence has much more of an effect on political matters will ultimately dictate a lot of things about which side of the political spectrum you fall on. For example, do you think that climate change is a byproduct of NATURAL processes that we have very little control over, or do you think it is highly influenced by humans and that we should do something about it. Do you think that gun violence is the byproduct of a certain NATURAL percentage of people that are mentally ill, or do you think something about the way we structure our societies is causing gun violence. There are TONS of examples of this that you could point to and in many ways these disagreements come down to this distinction between nature and culture that flourished during the 20th century. Look forward to exploring it further with you…thank you for listening…i’ll talk to you next time.

Posted on

Episode 129 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #129 on Gilles Deleuze. Check out the episode page HERE.

So we ended last episode with a passage from Nietzsche and I want to re-read it for anyone that may not be listening to parts four and five back to back…Nietzsche asks us to consider how we might view our lives differently if THIS was the case:

“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more’ … and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!’ Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.”

Now, this passage was the first time Nietzsche ever talked about the eternal return, or eternal recurrence…this was in his book The Gay Science in 1882…and it was just one year later in 1883 that he expands on the concept some more when he releases one of the most revolutionary books in the history of the world: Thus Spoke Zarathustra. But this time, he talks about the eternal recurrence through the voice of a group of animals that are yelling at and taunting Zarathustra. They say:

“Behold, we know what you teach: that all things recur eternally, and we ourselves too; and that we have already existed an eternal number of times, and all things with us. . . .I come again, with this sun, with this earth, with this eagle, with this serpent –not to a new life or a better life or a similar life: I come back eternally to this same self same life . . .”

So already just a year later we see Nietzsche developing the concept into something that isn’t merely some practical way of looking at your life…but in this second passage there starts to be a level of metaphysical baggage that’s being smuggled in…that ALL THINGS recur eternally. The significance of this change is Deleuze’s interpretation of Nietzsche. He believes that Nietzsche is ultimately making a pretty profound statement here about the long tradition in philosophy of being vs becoming. What he means is…you know, many philosophers throughout history…have divided up existence in terms of being and becoming. Traditionally the category of “being” has always referred to things within our perception of reality that are constant. Some philosophers say it’s things that are unchanging. Some say things that are ENDURING. Generally speaking “being” has always been the things about reality that act as a solid foundation, things that aren’t going to change. Depending on the philosopher, we’ve heard this expressed in a number of different ways on this show: God is being. Nature is being. etc. Now this concept of “being” is always contrasted with a concept that philosophers have called “becoming”…which as you might be able to guess are all the things about existence that are constantly changing, or in flux…or you could say, in reference to this picture of the world Deleuze is painting, the parts of the world traditional philosophy has seen as “in motion”. The thinking has always been that there is something more real, more foundational about being…than becoming. Becoming…is just in motion…it’s always changing…it’s contingent, surface level appearances…you want to get to the bottom of things as a philosopher…understand being. Understand the foundation that everything that is becoming relies upon.

But Deleuze is going to question this…and he finds inspiration in several passages of Nietzsche’s work on eternal recurrence. Nietzsche says:

“If the world had a goal, it must have been reached. If there were for it some unintended final state, this also must have been reached. If it were capable of pausing and becoming fixed, of ‘being,’ if in the whole course of its becoming it possessed even for a moment this capability of ‘being,’ then all becoming would long since have come to an end . . .”

What Deleuze takes from this reading of Nietzsche is that in the same way he thinks identity is a derivative of difference, not the other way around. The appearance of being, or what we’ve mistaken as constants of the universe, are only possible to categorize as a result of us seeing what is TRULY fundamental…the constant process of becoming. See, to Deleuze, there IS nothing foundational in the classic way philosophers have talked about it…the closest thing you could ever get to it would be the process of the world in motion, that process of becoming, from our episode on ontology: that unfolding of immanence, from our episode on politics: that desire-production and machines seeking connections…ALL OF THESE THINGS…this WORLD IN MOTION…BECOMING is the foundation. Being, identity, any static system of thought…these are just attempts by people to grow roots into the ground and reduce the rootless, complexity of the rhizome to the rooted simplicity of a hierarchical tree.

The fact is, to Deleuze, that identity is just not this simple of a concept…and thinking about identity this simply only leads to problems when we try to impose these old, enlightenment era ideas on building the world we live in. For example, in professor Todd May’s analysis of Deleuze he gives an example of this by talking about the movement in the 50’s and 60’s of the urban renewal of cities in the United States. This is a perfect example of us imposing this naive picture of identity onto entire cities of people. The idea was that during the decades following world war two there seemed to be an uptick in the amount of crime, poverty, unemployment and generally anti-social behavior that was going on in big cities around the country. The THINKING was that the reason for this was because cities, and city life were just too chaotic and unpredictable to ever produce a functioning situation. There were too many people, or too many different walks of life, or too much of a variance in income levels…the solution, people thought at the time, would be to get things organized…and so began a multi decade effort to cordon off different areas of the city and designate them as THE AREA where certain activities were going to take place. There was the shopping district where people would go to buy things. The business district where people would go during the work day. The living district where they’d make new, efficient high rise apartment buildings that would be more affordable for lower incomes than when living situations are more spread out.

We identified all of the different elements of city life, cordoned them off into their own little sections and expected everything to run a lot more smoothly. What really happened was the opposite. Things fell apart. What happened was that now nobody could get anywhere because the flow of traffic was always to one section of town at one particular time…the whole city is trying to going to work in one district…they’re all going to the entertainment district at the same time after work. The high rise, low income apartment buildings just corralled lower income people into one small area even more, which had the opposite of the intended effect: it concentrated and worsened the ghetto. More than that…when it came to the reduction of crime that was expected…it turned out by funneling the vast majority of people into different sections of town at specific times of the day…this just created a HOTBED for crime. For example, when the entire section of town that people LIVE in is empty because everyone’s in the work section of town…how much easier is it to break into a home with confidence? This dividing of the town had the same worsening effect on relations between people of different walks of life. People felt MORE isolated and separated, and it would be far less likely for someone from two different walks of life to run into each other and have a conversation.

Professor Todd May cites the work of Jane Jacobs in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The problem with city planning of the type that went on in the urban renewal of the 50’s and 60’s is that cities just don’t work in the same way that suburbs work. Put more in the language of Deleuze and Guattari…city life, is a rhizome, cities themselves, are machines…and when you try to impose rigid identities and static rooted structure onto them you’re left with a lot of unintended consequences like they were in the 60’s. Remember machines don’t HAVE a rigid identity that they’re beholden to…their identity within a given moment is defined by the connections and relationships to difference around them WITHIN that moment. Well isn’t this a much more accurate description of how a city works? See, from the outside looking in…if you were to analyze a city and try to identify all the different parts that make it up…a city might seem to be pretty chaotic…city planners may come along and think they know how a city works and try to impose order onto what seems to be chaos…but the reality, to Deleuze, is that it is NOT chaos. The city is a machine seeking connections…the connections that it makes: a rhizome. The fact is there IS an order to cities and city life that unfolds. The problem for city planners or anyone trying to assign rigid identities to the way the city functions is that there is no template for a city. There is no cookie cutter way that order emerges. The order doesn’t come from the outside…the order emerges or unfolds from the diverse connections made within the city. Think of the similarities to ontology here: substance doesn’t come from something transcendent from the outside, substance is immanently unfolding from within. Think of the similarities to identity vs difference or being vs becoming…notions of identity or order unfold out of difference or the world in motion. When things within a city are not cordoned off from each other, unable to make new connections…when workplaces and residential areas and restaurants and theatres and low income and high income when everything is all mixed together…it turns out cities just function way better that way. There’s less isolation. Machines make connections that are more diverse and thus have a less compartmentalized view of the world. There’s never areas of town that are completely empty where crime can flourish, there’s always eyes on the street, people feel more safe, people feel a sense of community as a member of the city as opposed to just a member of their neighborhood.

To Deleuze and Guattari: the mistake we’re making is we cannot think of the needs or identity of a city as something that can be pre-planned and executed…the reality is there is NO SUCH THING as “the identity of a city” because its identity is not static…its identity will always be determined by the connections that make it up in a given moment which no city planner could ever possibly plan for without the help of miss cleo. When you try to impose rigid identities onto a rhizome, you will ALWAYS run into problems.

Another example Todd May gives when talking about this clear departure from traditional ways of thinking about identity. Picture a guy…that several times a week goes into a music store…and in between looking for whatever it is he wants to buy, being a single man, he comes to realize that he is extremely attracted to the woman working behind the counter. Now, he ALSO notices…that every time he’s IN the music shop when she’s working she’s always playing jazz music that features the trumpet. So this guy decides that what he’s going to do is start playing the trumpet so that she might like him more, he might have something to talk to her about that isn’t painfully forced and awkward, regardless of the reason: he picks up the trumpet.

Now technically…if we wanted to assign an identity to this man after this moment, as he’s practicing the trumpet…he would be a trumpet player. But where exactly did that piece of his identity come from? Was there some sort of latent trumpet player identity hidden inside of him since birth? If two weeks from now both his arms get ripped off by a passing trolley and he quits the trumpet…is there a trumpet player identity lying dormant inside of him that can just never be expressed? Deleuze would say no. The fact that man decided to be a trumpet player in a given succession of moments was entirely contingent on his open-ended identity as a machine seeking connections, and then the connections that he sought to make as that machine. Also, consider the fact that the only thing that’s going to determine whether in five years this guy is still a trumpet player or not is ALSO entirely contingent on the connections he makes. Will he watch a documentary on Winton Marsalis that inspires him to be the greatest trumpet player ever? Will there be a welcoming jazz community in his neighborhood that invites him to come play with them every week. When he goes into the music store and casually brings up how he was playing his trumpet the other day…does the woman behind the counter seem to be more interested in him. The point is: there wasn’t some static pre-planned identity that determined that this guy was a trumpet player, only the connections made when interacting with a world that is constantly becoming, unfolding and in motion…and this SAME dynamic applies when it comes to all other aspects of the identity of a machine…whether that’s a person in a music store, a city being organized and planned out or a movement of thought that becomes the voice of a generation.

See this is the mistake that so many people make when it comes to trying to understand their own personal identity. So often people run into the trap of just conforming to the identities handed down to them by their parents. Or doing their best impression of some character they like on a TV show. Or if they WERE to do something like pick up the trumpet… to just completely copy the way trumpet players have always played the trumpet that came before them…just parroting the people that came before you the same notes, the same scales, the same riffs and transitions…what happens when you live your life in the same safe, pre-planned way so many people play music when they pick up an instrument? What happens is: your life becomes a blocked rhizome. The possibility of a random root shooting off and making a new, exciting connection with another network becomes impossible. The possibility of playing new music with your life becomes impossible. You turn yourself into a tree, rooted in one place, restricted to the same riffs and transitions for the rest of your life unable to see new possibilities.

But this is what so many people do, to Deleuze. They want an identity given to them by some third party, outside of them that tells them how to live…a city planner for their own identity, someone to answer the question for them: what does it mean to be me? This is why it’s so common for people to want answers to these old questions from philosophy that we began this series with. People desperately want an answer to the question: how should one live? How should one act? As though being a human being could ever be marginalized to questions that simple. As though there IS some sort of human nature, some constant of the universe…some essence where if only the right philosopher comes along and identifies it for us…THEN I’ll have the answers. Then we can rest easy knowing that some transcendent body prescribed a way that I “should” be. The same way the entire history of philosophy has tried to explain ontology in relation to transcendence. The same way psychoanalysis has tried to explain away desire by relating it to something transcendent. The same way people watch the news, read a few books, hyper focus on one little tree sized section of the rhizome and then spend the rest of their life looking at things from their narrow, one dimensional, hierarchical world view making declarations about the way that things are.

So what should be completely obvious by this point is that when it comes to the question of “how should a person live?”, the kind of question that dominated the ethics of people like Plato and Aristotle…Deleuze, would never even THINK to try to answer a question like that. This is why, knowing what we know now, the question that’s far more relevant to Deleuze is the question “How MIGHT a person live?” What possibilities exist, what connections can potentially be made?

Remember in the first episode of the series we talked about his answer to the question What is Philosophy? The conclusion being that when you’re engaging in philosophy you’re not looking for the “truth” or some set of objectives or identities about “the way that things are”…but instead, you engage in philosophy to hopefully arrive at the interesting, the remarkable, the useful. There are parallels when it comes to approaching life: we shouldn’t engage in living with the expectation that there is some way that we “should” be living that we’re going to arrive at.

See because again the world is fundamentally a world in motion. Constantly emerging, or becoming or in flux. But this picture of the world that Deleuze is painting goes far beyond just metaphysics…this entire worldview is in many ways a call to action…a gauntlet being thrown down, challenging anyone who hears it to rip off the shackles of a rigid identity that’s been given to you and to engage in a process of becoming. To allow your identity to emerge immanently, from inside of you rather than accepting it as a gift from someone else. But it goes beyond just you…his work is a call to embrace seeing the entire world in terms of difference rather than identity. Because if the world is fundamentally immanent and in motion and rhizomatic…then to embrace that immanence and motion and the enormous, fractal complexity and interconnectedness of the rhizome is to affirm existence…rather than negate existence and hide behind identities and hierarchical systems of thought.

To affirm existence is to embrace difference. To seek out different people, different cultures, different ideas, different answers to the question “how might a person live?”…which could include different jobs, different relationships, different lifestyles…to spend your time engaging in different activities, maybe this year it’s the trumpet, maybe next year it’s archery…the point is with ALL of these that you are a single perspective when it comes to making sense of all this. When I say all this I mean the universe…you are one perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. And as tempting as it is to cling to one of those hierarchical tree-like systems of ideas like you’re a koala baby…to Deleuze, the ONLY way to take a step back and see the interconnectedness and complexity of the world around you is to embrace difference and like the world, stay constantly in motion yourself, having new experiences. Doing things. There is always more to be done. You’ve never seen it all, and Deleuze thinks if you’re telling yourself that you have you should examine what it is you’re REALLY saying about yourself.

That is the call to action. Let’s embrace the world that’s spontaneously unfolding and in motion by ourselves remaining in motion, and part of living our lives that way is going to include being okay with not knowing how things are going to play out. See if you had some transcendent answer to how you SHOULD be living your life…you’d basically know exactly how your life was going to play out. If you had some static identity of exactly who you are, some dormant trumpet player that lives inside of you then it wouldn’t be a surprise at all when you decide to start playing the trumpet one day. But this isn’t reality to Deleuze…when you’re affirming existence you can’t know how your life is going to play out until you’re actually doing it…and you can’t know exactly what kind of person you’re going to be until you’re actually living as a machine and see the connections around you. To truly affirm existence is to seek difference while also understanding that there IS no cookie cutter template of identity to follow and to accept the fact that when it comes down to it: the universe doesn’t owe you anything. There are no guarantees. To affirm life and to truly embrace immanence and a world in motion is to accept that the universe is going to play out the way it’s going to play out and to get attached to any single outcome, good or bad, is to deny the way that reality is unfolding.

Now, Deleuze is not saying that you shouldn’t try…or that you should resign yourself to total acceptance of whatever comes your way…try your hardest, have a plan, stay in motion, but understand and find peace with the fact that you can’t ever really know ahead of time where that motion is going to take you. For this reason Deleuze is a really big fan of looking at life almost as a series of experiments. Because an experiment is always in some way seeking something new, but you can’t ever know the outcome of the experiment until you actually run the experiment. This is a worldview that can start to sound a lot like Nietzsche, and it’s no coincidence that both Nietzsche AND Deleuze talk a lot about this process of living by affirming life, rather than negating life. But maybe if there’s one thing that both of them have in common is that they both despise conformity…and the idea that the person that stays in motion, embraces difference, creates their own values and identity, makes connections, experiments…the idea that THIS is the person that owes the world an explanation rather than the person conforming to the safety of the systems of thought around them…they’ll often spend their entire lives never seeing enough of the rhizome to even ` know how small of a vine they’re conforming to. But regardless…in closing…when it comes to living life, maybe the best advice is from Deleuze and Guattari themselves,

“This is how it should be done: Lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continuums of intensities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times.”

Thank you for listening. I’ll talk to you next time.

Posted on

Episode 128 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #128 on Gilles Deleuze. Check out the episode page HERE.

So all throughout this series we’ve talked about different ways Deleuze and Guattari want to get us out of thinking about things in the traditional, rigid ways we’ve approached things in the past. They’ve asked us to think about ontology differently, politics differently, they’ve questioned the individual, humanistic perspective we typically view everything through…they’ve even asked us to question things like the nature of time and the linear way that we typically view history as though it’s been this straightforward crescendo of progress that’s all been leading to this moment…right now. So it will probably come as no surprise that in the second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia titled A Thousand Plateaus… Deleuze and Guatarri are going to want to do this SAME THING in other areas…they want to offer a completely different way to think about the questions surrounding… social theory…or if you wanted to get all Webster’s Dictionary on people: social theory, meaning the analytical frameworks, or paradigms, that are used to study and interpret social phenomena, Deleuze and Guattari want to offer a different way of thinking about all this…and by different what I mean is, different from the four or five ways philosophers have always approached these questions in the past. I mean, just on this show we’ve already seen tons of examples of philosophers trying their hands at social theory and almost every time they seem to fail miserably.

We’ve seen people try to actually DESIGN the entire society from the ground up. Think Plato’s Republic…social engineering on a massive scale to the point of carving out and designing social classes and even grooming and designing the minds of all of the future leaders from the moment they’re born. Think St. Augustine’s City of God in the 5th century. Think Thomas More’s Utopia in the 16th century. We’ve seen TONS of examples of this…but we’ve also seen OTHER attempts at social theory. When we get to the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment… the focus is less on coming up with some grand design and more on seeing things through the lens of the individual, and subjectivity, and what this leads to is social contract theory…through the work of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and many others basic elements of society are structured around an agreement, signed at birth, between the individual citizen…and the sovereign. This agreement lays out the parameters for how many of the relationships between things within that society are going to function. Social theory… has been talked about extensively from a variety of different angles, but even still: Deleuze and Guattari think that we’re still missing out on a LOT…when it comes to other ways that elements of society connect and work together and they’re going to ask us to instead take a look at society through the lens of what they refer to as “flows”. General theory about society, to Deleuze and Guattari, can be understood in terms of a theory of what they call flows, and how they relate to each other. So obviously the first thing we gotta talk about is: what is a flow. Why do we need some new term to talk about the way social phenomena unfold…well the reason is fairly similar to what we talked about last episode in the realm of politics.

See in the same way it would be a mistake to only limit ourselves to the long tradition of looking at political change from the perspective of the individual…and how by broadening that perspective, by seeing the world as a complex laboratory of machines using other machines and making connections, actualizing the political reality…look, one of the points from last episode was that by seeing political change from this broader, more versatile angle we see perspectives and potential solutions that we just can’t possibly see when we look at things solely from the perspective of the classical liberal tradition of individualism. Well, so too when it comes to social theory, and the broader perspective Deleuze and Guattari want us to consider by looking at things in terms of flows. Let’s talk about flows…We all already have a frame of reference to understand what they mean by flows, because we all already use the word “flow” in a BUNCH of different everyday situations, to describe the way things sort of “move along” in the world we live in…the fact is Deleuze and Guattari first develop this idea of looking at society in terms of flows when they’re studying the field of economics…and then once you see flows in the context of economics…the concept of a “flow” just kind of expands outward from there and seems to apply to all the other different areas of society.

Daniel Entier (on-tee-yay) in his analysis of Deleuze describes a pretty good starting point for thinking about flows from this economic perspective…he says “from the economic point of view, we can call flows the values of the quantities of goods and services or money that are transmitted from one pole to another” Now, when it comes to these two “poles” that are being talked about…think of them as two bookends where BETWEEN these two bookends there is some economic flow occurring, whatever that may be. For example, the flow of economic transactions between an employer and an employee…or between a store and a manufacturer…these economic flows alternatively could extend into the realm of finance…think of the movement of transactions or the flow between a bank or an investor and some machine trying to actualize a new business venture. There are even economic flows going on INTERNAL to businesses or people’s personal finances…think of the term “cash flow” think of the “flow” of material resources or inventory based on what is being received or sold. The larger point here to understand and the reason this is gonna apply to all these other areas of society is that in all of these cases MOVEMENT is occurring, and we seem to be able to see this movement, or flow at all different levels of analysis, just like machines when we were talking about political change last episode…remember, by looking at things in terms of machines we aren’t just LOOKING at things through the lens of the individual…yes, individuals are machines, but again, so are groups, companies, organizations, spiritual movements, planets…but it goes the other way we can think of parts of our bodies as machines, we can think of bodily processes as machines, the very collections of cells that make us up: Political change can be understood by looking at this interaction between and confluence of machines at all levels…well in the same way we can understand social phenomena in terms of these flows and how they interact with each other at all levels.

But again, flows are not just economic…this is just where Deleuze and Guattari identify them for the first time…so let’s expand on that…we’ve talked about economic flows, you know: the movement of money between parties, movement of capital in finance…But in another area a flow could easily be the flow of immigration, the movement of new citizens into a country. That’s a social phenomenon. Another example could be the flow of commodities, the movement… of oil or electricity or coffee or any commodity for that matter…that’s another aspect of society. We could look at the flow of traffic. The flow of ideas from person to person. The flow of how citizens live their lives within a particular city. We can even think of flow in terms of the raw human excrement flowing through the sewage facilities of a city and this is not me making some sick joke…this is actually an example they use in the book. Because flows, like machines, are EXTREMELY varied in terms of their definitions and exist at what seems to be all levels of a society. Now in the interest of understanding what flows are…I want to point out some similarities between all these examples of flows that were just laid out, and I think the best way to do that is through a metaphor…let’s compare ALL OF these flows …to the flow of water in a river.

OK, so if we think of a river as a metaphor for what a flow is…we can analyze that river as philosophers have traditionally done in the past…there are of course ways to break down that river into a bunch of different parts, give each of those parts an identity, and then study the identities of all those different parts to try to understand the river better. But there’s a sense in which if you were to ONLY look at the river in this way… you’d be potentially missing out on a layer of understanding ABOUT that river that you’d only have access to if you were looking at the entire river as a whole process, or movement or flow. This has been one of the big mistakes of so many great philosophers of the past when looking at social theory. They pay way too much attention to prescribing identities to the things that are moving and not enough attention to lots of OTHER important factors…such as, why the river is moving in the direction it is at all. What is responsible for that movement? Why is there a flow between these two poles in particular? Another thing that often gets overlooked by philosophers that are overly concerned with the identity of things…is that just like in the case of a river…human intervention often fundamentally changes the nature of the flow, and so often in the past, this has distorted our ability to see things in the world clearly. Just to clarify what Deleuze and Guattari are talking about here let’s return to the example of a river as a flow, and as we talk about this remember we are NOT JUST talking about large scale cultural movements here…again flows exist at all levels down to things that might seem insignificant to outdated ways of looking at social phenomena.

But back to the metaphor: So a river is almost NEVER…just some uninhibited stream of liquid that sort of meanders anywhere that it happens to go. There is a specific reason that river is moving in the direction that it is, at the SPEED that it is. For example, a glacier melting on the top of a mountain and gravity pulling water to its lowest point. What this means is, just like flows we can spot in society, there is always some sort of force responsible for why this flow exists between these two poles…WHY is there a flow of immigration into a particular country? WHY is there a flow of traffic to THIS part of the city at THIS particular time? What force is driving the flow and spreading of ideas among members of a culture? Or from generation to generation? What force determines which ideas have the most movement and at what speed those ideas move? Also, picture the river again…water flowing between two poles in a specific direction…well if at any point that flow of water becomes inconvenient when it comes to ANY activity we want to engage in as human beings, what do we do?…we intervene, we fundamentally CHANGE the nature of that flow… so that it corresponds with some demand we have. We put up a dam…and stop the flow of the river altogether. We redirect the flow of water into a different direction. We change the grade of the river bed to adjust the speed in certain areas. We build a bridge so we can cross the river in a particular place. So in the case of the river…human intervention plays a vital role in determining how that flow looks and functions…and this is exactly the case… when it comes to all the other flows we’ve talked about. We have immigration laws and procedures to regulate levels of citizenship. We have market regulations to govern economic flows. We have traffic laws and streetlights and signs to regulate the flow of traffic. We have sewage systems and processing facilities that carry out what we’ve decided needs to get done with the Mississippi river of human excrement that would otherwise be flowing down the street. Market regulations to economic flows are like the dam is to the river in our metaphor. Traffic laws are to the traffic flow as redirecting the course of the river is in our metaphor. These interventions, in the language of Deleuze and Guattari as we talked about last time…are the effects of the constant process that’s going on…of territorialization, deterritorialization and then reterritorialization by machines interacting with these flows. The key to a new level of understanding about how society functions, to Deleuze, lies in understanding these flows, these forces of movement that exist between polarities, how these flows interact with eachother, and how they are shaped and changed by this constant territorialization by machines.

Deleuze and Guattari give an example of this interaction that occurs between flows and the machines that are making connections, and territorializing those flows…and it’s through this example that they illustrate an extremely important point if we want to view social phenomena by thinking in terms of flows…these machines… when seeking connections and creating this territory…in a sense BECOME PART OF the flow. The same way a dam becomes a part of the river and dictates several critical aspects about THAT flow…the dam BECOMES part of the flow, machines often become critical parts of what makes other flows of social phenomena possible. You can just imagine how complicated and rhizomatic these flows within society get when they have this many moving parts.

The example Deleuze and Guattari give is of a particular kind of wasp that plays a crucial role in the reproductive process of orchids. So the process of an orchid fertilizing and reproducing with other orchids can be thought of in its own right…as a flow between these two orchids. This specific type of wasp, that Deleuze and Guattari write about, carries the pollen from one orchid to another, which in this context makes that wasp an absolutely crucial part of this flow of reproduction. There’s a sense in which this wasp…has become a machine. The wasp doesn’t have a fixed identity…the identity of the wasp in this moment as it’s transporting the pollen is defined by the connections it has IN THIS MOMENT. Whatever goals or connections that wasp had a week ago or what the wasp does immediately AFTER doesn’t really matter in this context. The wasp has become deterritorialized, there is no sense of identity given to that wasp from the outside…Deleuze and Guattari say that for all intents and purposes…that wasp…has become a verb, something IN MOTION. That wasp has BECOME part of that flow of reproduction…which is to say in some capacity…that wasp…cannot be thought of as just a wasp anymore…that wasp has BECOME part of the orchid. The wasp and orchid themselves forming a rhizome, with countless roots connecting them with other root networks around them.

You can imagine what this means when it comes to our views on society…if we replace the wasp and the orchid’s reproduction…with some OTHER machine and some OTHER flow…say an individual in their car and their impact as a part of that flow of traffic. Say a group of lobbyists and their impact as a part of that flow of commodities like oil within a society. Say a cultural movement and the role it plays in the flow of ideas that dominate thought leaders in media. Just like the wasp becoming the orchid…machines are often engaged in a process of becoming…becoming part of these flows. Maybe the state, as a machine, is becoming what it is in relation to the flow of history. Maybe an individual is becoming what they are in a given moment in relation to flows of advertising on television. To see what’s going on in the world from the broader perspective of machines and flows is potentially revolutionary.

Now, we could talk for an entire series about what exactly changes in a worldview when you see everything in terms of flows…there have been several anthropologists through the end of the 20th century that have dedicated their lives to studying flows and have developed the concept far beyond what Deleuze and Guattari ever did…but the most important takeaway here, I think, when it comes to understanding the work of Deleuze is that by looking at things in terms of flows, you see the world from a crucial vantage point if what you want is a comprehensive picture of the world and how it works and that vantage point is this: the world…is fundamentally a world in motion. Seeing the world as a collection of static identities, objects to be studied and understood…to Deleuze, that certainly gives you one perspective…but it’s FAR from the full story. See if we want to understand social phenomena…we can’t make the same mistake we’ve talked about when it comes to understanding how political change occurs and we can’t make the same mistake philosophers have made for centuries when trying to understand ontology. There is a way of interpreting the world that is missing from our thousands of years of discourse. This is an alternative picture it’s taken four episodes to prepare the vocabulary for. The world we live in…is a world of difference. It is a world that is constantly in motion. A rhizome of different flows, forming networks, connected together in sometimes chaotic ways. Networks of machines and their connections with other machines that themselves create further rhizomes…these machines when actualizing their political realities territorialize and regulate these flows which are themselves always changing…this picture of a massive, ever-changing, enormously complex rhizome is only available to us when we get out of the business of identity and instead adopt the broader Deleuzian perspective of machines, flows and an ontology of immanence. And by the way, here you can see how tempting it would be in the interest of trying to understand the complexity of this rhizome…to try to break it down into a thousand smaller rhizomes…or to try to break each of those down into a hundred different trees of hierarchical systems. Maybe you spend an entire lifetime as a philosopher playing this game of trying to get to the static identities of things and at the end all you have to show for it is the identity of a single hierarchical system of thought. That seems to be the fate of many of the philosophers that have existed throughout history.

But the concept of identity is nowhere near this simple. We started this arc of the show on poststructuralism by talking about how thinkers wanted to get away from what they saw as naive, enlightenment era ideas about a lot of different topics including identity. Well this is a perfect example of how one poststructuralist named Deleuze tries to move past that…and show how these outdated ways of looking at identity often have real negative effects on people’s lives, not to mention the opportunity cost of thinking in the same rigid ways for hundreds of years. See, the general thinking has always been among philosophers that identity must exist prior to difference. The logic has always been that if you’re talking about two different things, say a table and a chair. Well, if there’s a difference between a table and a chair that MUST mean that they have an identity as a thing before a difference BETWEEN their identities could ever be pointed out. That’s a table. That’s a chair. They’re clearly different. So what this has led to is a long tradition of philosophers trying to get to the bottom of these identities that exist…but Deleuze is going to come along and turn this entire thing on its head…what he’s going to say is that there is no reason we have to assume that identity is prior to difference. There is no ultimate form of a chair sitting up in a world of forms. There is no static identity of “chairs” in the universe, there is no scientific category that really spells out the identity of a chair…what we have thought of as identity, to Deleuze, is not us touching something written into the fabric of the universe. Identity is always derived from difference. To TRULY grasp identity is to understand that fact. No two things are exactly the same, and if we want to stay honest when identifying things, we have to understand that what we’ve traditionally thought of as identity is the contrast between some thing, and all the things it is not. In other words, difference is prior to identity, for Deleuze…not the other way around. Once again, this is fundamentally a world of difference.

What Deleuze is also calling into question here is the long standing dichotomy that’s existed in western philosophy of being vs becoming…and the origins of this criticism go all the way back to the work of Nietzsche and Deleuze’s own unique interpretation of one of his most famous ideas: the eternal recurrence. Deleuze thinks, when you read Nietsche correctly, his concept of the eternal recurrance is actually making a very similar point to what Deleuze is saying following the work of Spinoza and Bergson that we talked about earlier in the series. So if you remember, we mentioned the eternal recurrance very briefly back in our episodes on Nietzsche, we sort of referenced the most popular or practically useful side of it. The idea is that you should think of your life…every living situation, every relationship, every job…every single choice that you make you should do so with the policy that the moment you die your life will restart and you will have to live the exact same life, precisely as you did the first time, over and over again for all eternity. Nietzsche describes it here:

“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more’ … and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!’ Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.”
The idea is that we often do things that are self destructive or stay in situations that are clearly causing us a lot more pain than the benefit we’re getting from it…and that it’s easy to get complacent and tell ourselves that the suffering is temporary and it’s gonna be over soon, but how different would we look at things if we knew that the complacency was going to cause us to suffer for the rest of time…and that the level of suffering you’re going to endure is ONLY limited by your willingness to take action, right now. This idea from Nietzsche just raises the stakes and puts things in perspective.

But this isn’t the only takeaway from Nietzsche and his work on the eternal recurrence. Deleuze thinks that what this idea leads to…is an entirely new perspective and a long tradition throughout the history of philosophy of dividing the world up in terms of being vs becoming. We’ll talk about it first thing next episode which is out for you to listen to, right now. Thank you for listening. I’ll talk to you next time.

Posted on

Episode 127 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #127 on Gilles Deleuze. Check out the episode page HERE.

So in 1983, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari release the first book of what would eventually be a two volume series that aimed at discussing the political reality of the modern western world…the TITLE of the series…ALLUDING to the situation they were about to describe in the western world…was Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Now, the foreward of the first book…was written by someone that we’ve recently talked about on this show…Michel Foucault. Now Foucault, when writing the foreward to this book…talks about how the 20th century has been marked by a whole bunch of philosophers looking back, trying to warm over and reimagine the work of Freud and Marx… in an attempt to arrive at some sort of synthesis…some new interpretation or combination of these older ideas that can provide us with a new perspective moving forward…remember Freud and Marx are seen as the sort of proto-structuralists that foreshadowed the structuralism of the 20th century. Freud, through the introduction of the concept of the unconscious mind…showed how it was possible that fundamental parts of your character and preferences and motivations can come from places that you’re COMPLETELY unaware of, at least consciously. Marx, through his superstructure theory we’ve talked about showed how it was possible that things that are produced within a society, including ideas, always emerge first out of an economic climate that people are born into. Lot of philosophers were going back and looking at the work of both of these thinkers…we’ve seen examples of this in the work of some of the Frankfurt School…Marcuse, for example, and his reworking of Freud in Eros and Civilization…or his new, Hegelian interpretation of Marx that tried to breathe new life into some of those older ideas.

But Foucault says that two people who DIDN’T go this route…are Deleuze and Guattari. Remember, Deleuze, as a postmodernist, would NEVER center his philosophy around the thinking of Freud or Marx. See, to Deleuze, to think of yourself…to think of your thought in terms of being a Freudian…or a Marxist..is just incredibly naive at least to a postmodernist that isn’t interested in sweeping grand narratives like that. To Deleuze, to go back and try to microwave up some leftover Freud and Marx to find new some ideas moving forward…you’re TRAPPING yourself in modernity. Freud and Marx are in many ways trapped in modernity…and if you relegate yourself to an ism…whether it’s Freudianism or Marxism or anything…the best you will EVER have to Deleuze is a single vantage point…the best you’ll ever do is to see the universe from one angle and then spend the rest of your life arguing for why YOUR angle is THE angle everybody else should be viewing it from.

See because again, Deleuze is a philosopher of new ideas…we saw how he called into question the entire history of ontology when he was searching for new ideas there…well he does the exact same thing… when he turns his focus towards the political realm. See if it seems like the modern political landscape doesn’t have any new perspectives being offered…if it feels like it’s mostly made up of the same groups having the same arguments with each other over and over again, well, that’s because for hundreds of years we’ve been looking at things from the same angle over and over again. The political landscape is similarly trapped in modernity. Deleuze is going to call for us to look at things from a different angle, and by different he means different from the long classical liberal tradition spanning from the work of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau of always viewing politics through the lens of the individual.

The individual with their individual desires, individual needs, individual issues that effect them…thinking about political change in terms of an individual vote and how a candidate or the government is going to bring about a world that fulfills what they individually see as important. But Deleuze is going to ask: could we be looking at politics in a completely different way? We always look at things in terms of old, worn out political categories like the individual…but also the state, society, nationality, race…but is it possible to look at politics from a perspective that is much more adaptive and fluid than any single option like that…maybe one that can change in a moment and see things from a variety of different perspectives simultaneously…instead of our tendency which has always been to pick a single perspective and exalt it onto a pedestal as “the way that things are”.

When you look at things in the world solely in terms of the individual, or any of these other traditional, rigid political categories…you can miss out on so many other perspectives that might reveal to you an interconnectedness of all of these complex systems that makes hyper focusing on any single one perspective seem like a waste of time…and if this reminds you of the relationship between Deleuze’s ontology of difference and the traditional ontologies that have existed throughout history…you may be starting to understand his approach here.

Now just to be clear…Deleuze is NOT saying that we SHOULDN’T be looking at things through the lens of the individual, or society or the state or whatever…what he’s saying is that we should recognize these things to be what they are: SINGLE perspectives. We can’t limit ourselves to a single perspective, and this is part of the reason Deleuze and Guattari introduce another approach towards these political units that we view everything through…Deleuze and Guattari ask us to consider the world instead through the lens of what they call machines.

So what are machines? Well, it’s important to note right at the outset that Deleuze and Guattari are introducing the term “machine” to specifically try to get away from the common way of thinking about this stuff in their time: viewing things in terms of the individual subject…the SUBJECT is what they’re trying to get away from for a number of reasons, NOT ONLY because they’re trying to get away from thinking about politics through this conventional, classical liberal tradition that we’ve been looking at it through for hundreds of years…but also because when somebody says the word subject and defines people that way…then it becomes extremely easy for someone to mistake subject…for consciousness. To mistakenly think that when someone talks about a subject as a political unit…what they’re referencing is really just the individual consciousnesses of people. This is CLEARLY an oversimplification, when we’re talking about political change there’s CLEARLY more that Deleuze and Guattari want to reference other than just consciousness, so they sort of distance themselves by introducing this new concept of “machine” that they define much more broadly.

The term “machine” is used in multiple different ways over the course of multiple different works. To define what a machine is in a single sentence is impossible. Deleuze and Guattari themselves often talk about machines as total multiplicity…as not definable by the sum of their parts. So I’m going to give metaphors and examples, but maybe the best place to insert ourselves into this discussion about machines from the outside is to just talk for a few about machines generally. So we’ve already mentioned how machines can be seen as a unit, or an entity that we can use to think about how political change occurs in the world. Well, one way to CLARIFY that would be to say that we can think of machines as entities…within a given political landscape or the world for that matter…that seek connections with other machines in an attempt to bring about a particular actuality. Now, that may sound abstract and like it’s difficult to understand what they mean, but by “actuality” they’re referencing the work of Bergson and his theory of time that we talked about last time with the distinction between the virtual and the actual. Machines, and everything that falls under that heading, not only actualize the political reality we live in, but ALL reality.

So just at first glance already we can see that Deleuze is trying to get people to think more broadly about what they think of as an entity that is trying to bring about political change in the world…maybe it’s not as narrow as we’ve been looking at things for the past couple hundred years…to Deleuze and Guattari the political landscape is NOT just a bunch of individuals interacting with each other trying to get people to vote a certain way. By using this BROADER definition of “machines” that are seeking connections…they’re offering a much more versatile political unit to view things through…one that accounts for things that are CLEARLY NOT individuals… but nonetheless have an undeniable agenda towards bringing about political change…quick example before we talk some more about machines, political movements…let me explain:

So individuals are examples of one TYPE of machine that exists. A group…would be an example of another type of machine. These two things are examples of machines in the sense that they are entities seeking connections with other machines trying to bring about an actuality…they’re machines in that they weren’t created by anything for an EXTREMLY particular purpose…and what I mean is that an important aspect of a machine to Deleuze and Guattari is that it DOESN’T have a fixed purpose and can change its goals or desires at any time. This is where things start to get interesting when it comes to how we look at the moving parts that are bringing about political change in the world…because based on this criteria for what classifies a “machine”…couldn’t we think of things like social or political movements as machines in their own right as well? I mean, they TOO weren’t created with a rigid, inflexible purpose in mind…they aren’t beholden to a fixed identity…we could say a movement is JUST as much an entity that seeks connections with other machines, like people, for the sake of producing something.

For example, take the movement of environmentalism…or the green movement or save the planet or whatever you want to call it. This movement can be thought of as an extremely complex machine, connected to millions of other machines… people, groups, moving parts…and this machine is always seeking MORE connections…picture environmentalism meetups, tree plantings, speeches, public service announcements, signs, bumper stickers…a community potluck where we all get togethers and recycle some stuff… consider the fact this machine is always embedding itself into OTHER groups leveraging OTHER machines to be able to bring about its OWN actuality…picture the NFL having their players where a green wrist band to promote environmental awareness…or a car company changing their exhaust system so that it’s more environmentally friendly. Not only that, but very similar to what an individual or a group is in a given moment…a movement in a given moment is defined by the sum total of the connections that make it up IN that moment, connections that CAN change and are CONSTANTLY always changing…once again there IS no fixed identity…like these other types of machines a movement is flexible…it has a fluidity to it…it can evolve and adapt.

Now that said, machines are NOT just limited to individuals, groups or political movements. There are of course tons of other examples of abstract political processes that can be thought of as machines…but the REALLY important thing that I want to emphasize is the fact that machines go in the other direction as well. Just as a group of machines (a collection of people) can make up a larger machine in the form of a political movement…collections of machines make up the individual. We are ourselves a complex collection of machines and their processes. Deleuze and Guattari give the example of a new mother…we can even think about machines at the level of bodily processes…they say the breast of the new mother can be thought of as a machine just as the mouth of the newborn baby can be thought of as a machine…each seeking connections with other machines and each using the connections WITH other machines to actualize themselves… Machines connect with other machines to ACTUALIZE reality. But the BIG SHIFT here from the traditional way we’ve thought about things: Thinking about political change in terms of machines… which are themselves complex groups of connections driving other machines which are also groups of connections allows for a level of flexibilty that traditional political categories like the individual just don’t offer.

The famous quote from the book about machines is:

“Everywhere it [what Freud called the id] is machines – real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. . . . we are all handymen: each with his little machines.”

So that’s the famous quote, the common EXAMPLE people give to talk about how these machines actually work is to consider a bicycle.

So a bicycle is a machine. By itself…the bicycle just kind of sits there…purely virtual in terms of its potential, when a bike sits by itself in a garage it doesn’t have a SLIVER of hope to become actualized in any way. What the bicycle needs…are OTHER machines around it to make connections with…those connections determining what actuality is going to be realized…so for example, a bike doesn’t have a fixed identity. Say that the machine of a bicycle connects with the machine of a human being. That person could do a THOUSAND different things with that bicycle…they could ride it around as transportation…that might be the first thing we think of…but think of all the other ways that bike could be actualized…they could take the bike apart and sell the parts at a bike shop…they could give the bike to charity…they could see the bike as a sculpted work of art they’re going to put on display at their house…they could name the bike…and think of it as their new imaginary best friend…they could beat somebody to death with the bike…they could hook the bike up to some sort of stationary treadmill situation that generates power when you turn the pedals…the point is: there is no FIXED purpose of a bicycle…and it’s only through it’s connections with other machines around it…that its momentary purpose becomes actualized. Think about the parallels to individuals, groups and political movements here.

Political movements are machines…people are machines…Think of how often political movements USE the individual human beings that make up the movement like this person we’re talking about uses this bicycle. Once again as Deleuze says, it’s everywhere…machines driving machines…machines being DRIVEN by machines. Not only that…think of how possible it is for an individual…especially one in a position of leadership…to use the machine of a political movement to bring about something for their OWN personal gain. Machines driving machines.

When we remove the default humanism of the way we traditionally have thought about politics…and instead think about it in terms of complex groups of connections interacting with other groups of connections…we open up the door to new perspectives that see things from a different angle, for example, consider for a second the Earth as a machine…and instead of thinking about it in a solely humanistic way…consider the slightly different perspective of seeing the movement of environmentalism as the machine of the earth, driving other machines that are part of what makes it up…people… to make further connections that promote a certain agenda that is in its best interests. This is a very simple example of how thinking in terms of machines as political units, opens up different perspectives than just looking at it in terms of how people feel about it.

Few more important points about this concept of a machine. Deleuze says that machines are always connected to other machines…and what this means is that machines are always productive in some sense, but again ONLY when connected to other machines. Deleuze and Guattari at this point introduce a concept that is a driving force behind machines and what motivates them to produce things or seek connections with other machines in the first place. See, as far as they can tell, this… driving force is NOT ONLY the driving force behind machines and their behavior…it seems to them to be a fundamental driver of ALL LIFE in the universe. Something they call “desire production”…now, the name desire production is pretty transparently just a mash up of the driving force of desire from Freud and the driving force of production from Marx…but Deleuze and Guattari aren’t looking at the work of Freud and Marx so that they can rework their ideas and come up with some sort of synthesis…they look at their ideas and launch one of the most radical critiques of their work in existence…people sometimes go so far as to say what Deleuze and Guattari do is not so much critique their work…but subsume it.

Probably the best place to start is with their REINTERPRETATION of both Freud’s concept of desire and Marx’s production.

See traditionally the way people have thought about desire is that people always desire something that’s LACKING in their life. The LACK of something is what creates the desire to produce in the individual. But Deleuze and Guattari are going to question this…they’re going to say that desire and production are in fact… default, fundamental properties of what it is to be a machine at all…which includes…. what it is to be a human being. Desire DRIVES these connections between machines…and in the same sense, put a little more dramatically by Deleuze…desire PRODUCES reality. Desire is the vehicle for changing things from the virtual to the actual. Desire isn’t a motivating force that is responding to a LACK of something…desire production is INHERENT to life itself…think of desire production as Deleuze’s version of Nietzsche’s will to power.

So, this is the reason the first volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia is titled Anti-Oedipus…To Deleuze, just as there’s no transcendent governing body that dictates the rules of ontology…there’s no transcendent governing body external to you like Freud’s Oedipus that dictates what desires you feel or what connections you’re going to seek as a desiring machine. Desire isn’t something dictated by some standard of living outside of yourself and what you’re LACKING in relation to that standard…desire is a natural process of experimentation. What this ALSO implies is that desire is NOT something that is located deep inside the psyche of the individual…what desire REALLY is…is a social force. What Deleuze is trying to do here…is get us to RETHINK the concept of desire…so that we might be able to rescue it from these rigid, outdated theories and instead see it for what it actually is to him: the source of revolution. The ONLY real source of revolution that we have. This desire production…fundamental to all life…the very thing that drives machines to take action turning the virtual into the actual…desire is revolutionary…and it’s been suppressed over the years not only by the work of Freud, but any form of psychoanalysis that relies on transcendent, external concepts…Jacques Lacan is another target of theirs…they’re calling into question this older FREUDIAN, “lack based” view of desire…and what they’re going to say is that this Oedipal way of looking at desire has very real consequences on the societies that believe in it. Because IN these societies…desire becomes something that gets turned inward, towards your immediate family…what you think of as your desires…is really just you misinterpreting some deeply rooted psycho-sexual framework that you don’t quite understand…the result of this on a social level being…that the vast majority of the desire of the individual gets interpreted inwardly…with any excess desire that someone might have, however small of an amount that may be…well that is the only desire that can eventually spill over into the social and political realms trying to bring about change…but here’s the thing: even that VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF DESIRE that spills over is ALWAYS subject to the limitations of the social and political realms which are themselves to Deleuze and Guattari conveniently controlled by the forces of Capitalism.

Now…in an interview in the 1990’s towards the end of his life Deleuze says that he still refers to himself as a Marxist. To people unfamiliar with the rest of his work and the rest of the interview…this has caused some to label Deleuze as some sort of postmodernist neo-marxist type. But even a cursory reading of the rest of his work would no doubt make someone really confused…how can this guy be a Marxist…when he spends so much time in his work talking about how rigid, hierarchical systems like Marxism are not even CLOSE to the full story? The answer is that Deleuze is not a Marxist in the traditional sense of the word…he was speaking in a philosophical context…that in the sense that so much of the work of Marx was dedicated to an analysis and critique of Capitalism…for anyone that wants to do meaningful work in the field of economics during his time…you’re PROBABLY going to want to start from an analysis and critique of Capitalism. Which is what he and Guattari DO in Capitalism and Schizophrenia…so IF throughout the course of their two books they have anything negative to say about Capitalism…this isn’t coming from the perspective of some tribal, hateful Marxist that wants to do away with one rigid system and replace it with another…no their perspective is more like: just because Capitalism is better than the Feudal system…does not mean that we’re done talking about economics for the rest of time. How else are we going to make the world a better place if we don’t critique the dominant ideas of our time? Who is going to critique them other than the dominant economic and political philosophers of our time? The aim of Capitalism and Schizophrenia is less a hit piece on Capitalism like so many works of the past…and more an analysis on what natural effects Capitalism has on the world and what problems, if any, are created by that.

Nothing showcases this fact more than all the GOOD things Deleuze and Guattari have to say about Capitalism. They credit capitalism with drastically improving the lives of almost everyone on the planet by abolishing the hierarchical rules and power structures of the middle ages. You know, if you’re a peasant…living under the Feudal system…there are tons of rules, that are imposed upon you by the Aristocracy and land owners. Now if at any point you don’t like those rules…or one of those rules makes your life absolutely miserable…there’s really not much you can do…you can’t request a transfer to another plot of land. You can’t save up and buy a different plot of land where you make your own rules. But in Capitalism this isn’t the case and this is often given by proponents of Capitalism for why it’s the best economic system we have…show me another economic system…where if a worker is alienated or miserable because of their job they can work hard, apply themselves and go get some OTHER job that they enjoy more with no detriment to society as a whole. THAT’S A STRENGTH…of Capitalism over the Feudal system and Deleuze and Guattari would agree with that. What they’d probably say next though is that just because somebody has the freedom to change jobs and not be subjected to the rules of a landowner does not mean that they’re free…or that Capitalism as an economic system is impervious to criticism.

Yes, Capitalism has dismantled feudalism, or as they say “deterritorialized” these rigid rule systems people had to live under in the past…but then after deterritorializing these rules…Capitalism then reterritorialized it with an axiomatic…or more SIMPLY put…Capitalism, notably the world of banking and finance, dictate every narrow parameter that human beings have to navigate in their lives. We’re going to talk about how in the next episode, along with Deleuze’s concept of looking at the universe in terms of different “flows” and a constant process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization…but how Deleuze and Guattari ARRIVE at this unique analysis of Capitalism and how things change and connect together in the universe is by LOOKING at the universe through a different lens than any philosopher that had come before them.

This is one of the most important concepts in ALL of the work of Deleuze…his concept of the Rhizome. This is a good way to end the episode…something to think about throughout the week so that next time you can understand where they’re coming from. Now a common thread that by this point you’ve no doubt noticed in Deleuze is that he’s looking back at our history as a species and how we’ve looked at things in terms of what HE sees as rigid, narrow categories…and he’s trying to offer a DIFFERENT perspective…one where we step OUTSIDE the traditional ways we’ve thought about things like ontology or politics…and by considering different approaches…by looking at things in terms of difference…the hope is that we might be able to see that traditional accounts of the way things are don’t even come close to telling us the full story.

He compares the dogmatic way that we’ve traditionally thought about things to a tree. Now, a tree…is very straightforward…it is rooted in one place. Not moving. There are clear lines of demarcation between the different PARTS of that tree. There are the roots…the roots give way to the trunk…the trunk gives way to the branches, the branches give way to the leaves. There is a clear beginning middle and end to that tree and the tree is structured in a hierarchical way… much like our systems of ideas from the past like we’ve talked about over the course of the series, be it in ontology or Freud’s psychology or anything else. Deleuze would ALSO want us to consider that the different PARTS of this hierarchy work together in the tree. The roots gather moisture and nutrients from the soil, sends them up to the trunk which support the branches, the branches support the leaves that collect sunlight and oxygen and just as the rest of the tree supports the leaves the leaves support the rest of the tree. In other words, this tree is a static system…with well defined parts that perform specific functions…and the structure of the tree mirrors the structure of the way we’ve traditionally thought about ontology or politics. For example a deeply rooted system incapable of movement…with well defined parts that make it up and perform different functions, for example…the individual, the state, the economy, laws…these things all work together and play their part within a system.

So we have this great visual of a static, rigidly defined tree that Deleuze compares to the way we often think about politics…but a more ACCURATE way of looking at what that tree really is, to Deleuze is to think of it as a single pattern…we shouldn’t think of the hierarchy and “tree” of our modern political system as…”the way that things are”…but instead… think of it as a single pattern….that happens to be the way we talk about politics in this particular day and age…there are countless other ways we might otherwise be talking about politics, countless other angles we might view it from…which is why if you wanted to come up with a plant based analogy describing our modern political landscape that was more accurate…take that tree… that embodies the narrow way we’ve looked at politics for hundreds of years…pull the entire tree out of the ground roots and all…shrink it by about a hundred times until it’s the size of a baseball…and instead picture that tree as just a tiny part of a giant wall of vines and leaves spanning off in every direction. This…is where Deleuze’s concept of the rhizome comes into play.

So, a rhizome…in the world of plants…is an extremely chaotic and unpredictable root structure. Actually depending on the baggage you’re bringing along with the meaning of the word chaos it may not be the best way to describe it…and I think technically a rhizome is a subterranean plant stem, not a root… but look none of these labels really matter. The point is: look up a picture of one. A Rhizome is a root structure that doesn’t grow in a uniform direction or pattern, like a tree…its root system is not fixed to one place in the ground, like a tree…when you look at a rhizome there’s no clear beginning middle and end to what’s going on…the rhizome at any point in time can sprout a new root out of the side of it in a completely different direction, then THAT root can have OTHER roots growing out of IT seemingly randomly in all different directions…what follows from this, naturally, is that networks of root systems become formed…and then these random root offshoots can often times connect one network of roots to another network of roots sometimes in bizarre ways. THIS…is a much more accurate metaphor when it comes to how thought, ideas and movements link together. Think of the visual of the giant wall covered by vines again…where is the CENTER of that vine? Where is the beginning, middle and end to that vine? There ISN’T one, to Deleuze, just as there’s no beginning, middle and end to systems of ideas…just people getting tunnel vision on one little SECTION of the wall and then making a case for why they have the whole wall figured out…this is the mistake of the philosophers of the last two thousand years…when someone creates a hierarchical system of ideas…when someone makes a tree…all that a tree is is a blocked rhizome. One little section of the wall masquerading as the WHOLE wall. Consider two networks of roots that may in the past have been thought of as COMPLETELY different from each other. Political power and linguistics. So in the past we may have studied these very different fields and thought of them as completely separate from eachother…how often throughout history have we seen someone who specializes in linguistics writing extensive commentary on political power or vice versa? But on closer examination consider how many ways these two root systems are connected…consider how ideas in linguistics often dictate the boundaries of how we’re even able to TALK about politics…they dictate the boundaries of what we can even bring up as a criticism of people in power…they dictate how we even THINK about our relationship to political power…but it goes the other way as well…think of how often people in political power will try to control the language that is used to be able to get elected or stay in power…consider how calculated down to the word their use of language is in speeches to harness political power…to think of linguistics and political power as two distinct fields that can be studied and fully understood in isolation from each other, is an old way of thinking. There are roots that connect these networks of roots, and roots that connect both of these networks with countless OTHER networks of roots. When you pay attention…and look closely…to Deleuze…the universe is a rhizome.

Rhizomes are everywhere…not just in human ideas. Sure, there’s the actual rhizome and the wall of ivy and many other plants…but consider the countless other examples all around us: ant colonies, rat burrows, termite nests…vast ecosystems, human cultures, nervous systems, the layout of a city, the behavior of the people WITHIN the city…yes, this is ALSO the development of human ideas…books are rhizomes, connected to other books, documentaries, magazines, movies…philosophical systems are rhizomes connected to everything around them. This rhizomatic way of looking at the universe to Deleuze…can get us out of this rigid way of thinking of philosophy in terms of hierarchies and history in terms of it being this linear thing that progresses from beginning to middle to end…and instead understand that our systems of ideas are often MASSIVELY interconnected…and that history is not some single line of progression but instead many DIFFERENT histories all progressing and regressing at extremely different rates.

But just to illustrate how impossible it is to nail Deleuze down like one of the philosophers of the past…despite all of this talk about the rhizome…he still has no problem at all…with the tree. We’ll talk about why at the beginning of next episode thank you for listening…I’ll talk to you next time.

Posted on

Episode 123 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #123 on Michel Foucault. Check out the episode page HERE.

So we ended last time by comparing the projects of Michel Foucault and Immanuel Kant…Foucault essentially taking one of the main focus points of Kant’s work and turning it on its head…as we talked about: while Kant wanted to take the subjective and contingent of the world, analyze it…study it…and hopefully arrive at necessary truths about the way that things are, Foucault on the other hand wanted to take things that most people assumed were necessary truths and show how ultimately they were subjective, contingent and rooted in history…to show how what we think of as the “truth”…is often nothing more than just the dominant narrative of the time we’re living, now…

Last episode we talked about epistemes and paradigms…Foucault questioning the dominant narrative of Scientism, of science being this disinterested vehicle for arriving at the “truth” about things or “facts” about the way that things are. Two episodes ago we talked about the book Discipline and Punish, Foucault questioning the dominant narrative that we used to be these barbaric savages that tortured our prisoners, but now we’ve evolved ethically to the point that we have seen the error of our ways and now we treat them in a way that is much more humane.

Well, it’ll probably come as no surprise when I tell you…these aren’t the only two narratives that Foucault questioned in his lifetime. In fact, pretty much every major work Foucault produced is taking aim at some widely accepted narrative about the way that things are…narratives that he thinks, when looked at from a different angle, show themselves to be narrow, arbitrary and potentially damaging to the people caught in the mix that the narrative is referencing…for example: 

Take Foucault’s 1961 work Madness and Civilization. Discipline and Punish is to the way we’ve treated criminals over the centuries, as Madness and Civilization is to the way we’ve treated people over the centuries that society deems to be mad. 

See, Foucault realizes that it’s easy to be born into the world in the 20th century and take for granted…that if someone is mentally ill, what you should do is lock them up, have a bunch of experts study them, come up with a treatment plan for them…and then medicate them and give them intensive therapy until they start to act like a “normal person”. 

But this hasn’t always been the way society treats the mentally ill, in fact, the idea of rounding these people up and locking them away in an asylum is actually a very recent thing…for example…in former societies…in Ancient Greece for example, it wasn’t an uncommon attitude at the time to see the people considered to be mad as “touched by the Gods”…they lived pretty normal lives, among the rest of the population and were accepted as just…different, with a sort of outside of the box way of looking at things as long as they weren’t hurting anybody…there are many Greek plays where the protagonist is informed by somebody that everybody else in the play would see as crazy. In other societies the mad were seen as an important cog in the whole machine of society because through the crazy stuff they said they helped everyone around them identify the limits of reason. 

Foucault would recognize, once again, the assumption that’s easy to make being born into the 20th century is that for thousands of years these people were unmedicated, untreated, living their lives in abject suffering, and that nowadays, now that we have them in custody, now that they’re in front of a panel of experts and on the right pill that makes them act normal, that their lives are better. 

But Foucault wouldn’t let you off the hook there…he would probably ask: what specifically is responsible for this sudden change in our attitudes towards how we treat the mentally ill in our societies? Foucault would no doubt think it is in large part due to science… and the discourse science produces surrounding the concept of mental illness. 

Because it’s just been in the recent past that for the first time in human history, madness has become the object of scientific inquiry…and over the years as science has progressively diagnosed, categorized, and medicated people that society deems to be mentally ill, the more they’ve dehumanized these people and turned them into objects that exist for the sake of science being able to study them…objects of study, rather than human beings. The more that science worked to understand these objects and turn them into something that looks like a normal person, the more torture they put these people through. There was a great quote on a Foucault documentary I watched a couple years ago, it went:

“The more people cared, the less people cured. The more they intervened, the more they oppressed.”

That quote just captures the essence of what Foucault is saying in Madness and Civilization. Nonetheless, you can see how this book is yet another example of Foucault questioning a dominant narrative of his time and offering an alternative take on things. But none of these alternative takes would ever be possible if Foucault wasn’t looking at history with some sort of alternative method. Remember, Foucault’s not writing a history of this stuff…outside of a couple exceptions he’d NEVER use the word history to describe it. When it comes to three early books of his: Madness and Civilization, Birth of the Clinic and The Order of Things, HE would call them all Archaeologies…and there are very specific reasons for why he would call them Archaeologies. 

Think about the job of an Archaeologist for a second…when an Archaeologist goes on a dig…and maybe the task of the day is to excavate some vase from the 1500’s buried deep underground…the job of the Archaeologist is to comb through layers and layers of sediment left behind by the hundreds of years in between the 1500’s and today, and at the end of the job the goal of the archaeologist is to capture a snapshot in time. 

In other words, the Archaeologist isn’t concerned with how the vase was made, the way vase makers were thinking about their craft at the time, how the design of the vase evolved out of the vase designs that came before it…no, the task of the archaeologist is to dig through the layers to uncover THIS vase in THIS moment…a snapshot of a very specific point in time. 

Well, this is similar to what Foucault is trying to do in the three books I just listed…he’s sifting through hundreds of years of ideas… trying to uncover and dust off moments when things were different…snapshots in time when the discourse and conversations about these topics were just as effective at producing knowledge for people, but people looked at the subjects in an entirely different way than we do today. 

This is an important point to understand about Foucault that a lot of people miss out on. They think, okay…here’s Foucault questioning the dominant narrative about these things and offering an alternative narrative about what went down…if only I can point out the flaws in HIS narrative and then make a better narrative of my own then he’ll have no choice but to cower in the corner and admit defeat. I win. But Foucault would absolutely welcome this process and had no desires of HIS narrative being seen as the ultimate way of looking at things. There’s a sense in which the actual point he’s trying to make with his work is that we need to get away from that kind of thinking altogether…that all we’ll EVER have access to are narratives, constantly in competition for the dominant position within society, none of which containing anything close to the Truth about things, just a slightly different angle and way of making sense of the world. 

But anyway, eventually Foucault found the Archaeology method that he used all throughout his early career to be extremely limiting…he found that when you’re in the business of just uncovering moments in time throughout history, all you can ever do is compare the discourse surrounding a subject in one period to discourse of another period. In other words, there can be no talk about how one period led to another…just comparisons…and describing how these shifts took place would eventually become and extremely important part of his later work. It is for this reason…that Foucault introduces yet another new method of demystifying the narratives of the past, something he calls a geneaology. 

You can picture a geneaology…picture tracing your family tree all the way back to someone that lived in the 1500’s. Not only would you have a snapshot of the person, you’d also have the entire evolution that took place from their world to your world. THIS TYPE of analysis is more in line with what we did on episode one of this series with the book Discipline and Punish…because if you remember: Foucault lays out how the evolution took place from the 1750’s to the 1830’s…from the sovereign age to the disciplinary age…and it’s THIS type of analysis that’s going to occupy almost all of his later work, the geneaology is CRUCIAL if you have the goals of Foucault in his later work…it’s absolutely crucial if you want to call into question the assumption that so many people make, that history has just been a long succession of progress where we use rationality to make things better. The geneaology can show how different periods can give rise to each other for reasons that have nothing to do with rationality. 

Now, one thing Foucault always said was that if you are going to make one of these geneaologies, always make it about a subject where there seems to be a lot of people agreeing about the way that things are…subjects where there doesn’t seem to be any further discussion required for us to understand how they work.

This is why Foucault always seems to end up in weird places like prisons and schools and hospitals…nobody’s ever looked at this stuff before like he does…and it’s also the reason why in his final work he decides to question the dominant narratives that surround the topic of human sexuality.

Now, Foucault never finished this work. He died of AIDS in 1984 and just didn’t have time to finish it. There’s a lot of speculation about where he would’ve went had he lived long enough to write the rest of it, but one thing nobody questions is that the beginning of this work mirrors the rest of his work in that he is calling into question dominant narratives that seem to us in our time to be so obvious and based in common sense that they’re practically chiseled into stone, the narrative he takes aim at in The History of Sexuality vol. 1 is something known as the Repressive Hypothesis. 

The main argument of the Repressive Hypothesis is that all throughout the 17 and 18th centuries… people’s thoughts and behaviors surrounding the topic of sexuality have been repressed by people in power…the motives people assign for WHY this happened range considerably…some people say it happened for religious reasons…some say for political gain, some say it was for economic reasons…that for capitalist society to succeed we needed people focused on work rather than the idle task of exploring their sexuality; whatever the reason: the dominant narrative towards the end of the 20th century was that sexuality in the 17 and 1800’s was punctuated by rules…rules where you can’t talk about it…you are to be ashamed of it, you are to feel guilty afterwards for having done it…people in the 20th century were making the case that if we allowed sex to be more natural and less constrained by cultural norms people would be a lot less repressed and a lot more happy. 

Foucault would strongly disagree with the idea that there’s some “natural” type of sexuality that’s installed in us…or some scientific “truth” about the nature of sex that can even be arrived at…I mean, sure, sex, pregnancy, the sexual lives of married couples…these are things that have been talked about almost since the beginning of recorded history…but these things were never referred to over the years as an individual’s “sexuality”. Foucault makes the case that if you look back at history, the idea that people possess a set of qualities that make up their own personal sexuality…really is something that’s only existed since the 19th century…when science for the first time in human history directed its gaze towards sex and tried to study and categorize it. 

It’s actually kind of weird to think about…up until around the 19th century… nobody ever thought of themselves as heterosexual vs homosexual vs any other form of sexuality…there were people that engaged in certain behaviors…if they lived in a particularly religious society maybe they were guilty of the sin of sodomy but there was never any labeling like we do in today’s world so much…they didn’t take the labels and ways of categorizing people that science came up with and then use them to describe to others who they are as a person…there was no attempt by the science of their time to study and proclaim the TRUTH about sexuality…or what type of sexuality corresponds with human nature, as though what being a human being is is a cookie cutter enterprise. So, on the contrary Foucault would say…sexuality hasn’t been repressed over the centuries…there’s never been a period in our history where sex was studied or talked about MORE! It just can’t happen in public…it happens in private when you’re talking to your therapist or your doctor or some other self-appointed authority on the topic of sexuality. 

There’s been what Foucault calls a, “political, economic and technical incitement to talk about sex.” He actually compares these back room meetings with our doctors or psychologists… to a modern day confessional booth. In the same way people were asked to atone for their sins by privately talking about their sexuality in explicit detail to a priest in a creepy booth…so too do we ask people in our modern day to give that same information to a scientist or doctor… whose job it is to study them and tell them whether what they do is normal or abnormal. In the same way the priest controls the discourse surrounding sex, along with it the final judgment on what normal sexual behavior is…so too do scientists, psychologists, doctors control our modern discourse…and when you control the discourse that surrounds a behavior, you control the behavior itself, to Foucault.  

Not only do we have these scientific confessional booths where we are studied and told whether we’re in need of fixing…but simultaneously we internalize norms given to us by the sciences, accept them as the way we SHOULD be, and then we actually monitor ourselves to make sure we conform to the standard. 

Now, these points alone could spark some pretty interesting conversation with someone who believes we’ve been repressed for the last 300 years, but the biggest weakness of the Repressive Hypothesis, to Foucault, has nothing to do with any of this stuff… and…just to come back to a theme common among these post-structuralist thinkers…the problem with the Repressive Hypothesis has to do with the fact that the entire theory is built on top of an understanding of the way power works that is naive, outdated and to continue looking at power in this way knowing what we know now would be delusional. 

Foucault would say that most people when they think of power, look at it in an overly simplistic way. Most people look at power in the same way we looked at it back when we were living in monarchies in the 1300’s…as though power, is executed from a single source be it a king, a president, the halls of congress, the type of power that says NO to things. The type of power that forces you to do things you don’t want to do. Foucault calls this type of power a bunch of different throughout his work: Contract oppression, sovereign power, repressive power; the most important thing to understand is that this is the type of power that has ultimate authority to take things from you…from taxes, to goods and services to your time…they can ever take your life should they deem it to be necessary. But Foucault thinks despite how common this type of power has been in the past…when it comes to our modern societies, this is just not the kind of power we come face to face with anymore. 

Foucault would ask, “what are the types of power that actually touch you and effect you in your life?” Is it your direct relationship with Donald Trump? Is it a debate you’re having daily with supreme court justices? IS that the type of power that effects you most on a daily basis? No. 

Power, to Foucault, has undergone a fundamental transformation in the west throughout the last couple hundred years. Power in our modern societies is not something with a stable center that can be identified and stopped. Power in our modern societies is what he calls Capillary. To Foucault, power is an unstable network flowing in all directions from every point at once…we all, whether we realize we’re doing it or not, we’re all exerting our power over everyone else around us every single day. 

Through constant surveillance, cultural norms, advertisements, persuasion, suggestion, encouragement and discouragement of certain behaviors we approve or disapprove of, even down to the things you like and share on Facebook, you are constantly defining, redefining and reinforcing the standard of what is normal and what is abnormal. Who should be accepted and listened to and who should be silenced or considered not worthy of being taken seriously. Power, in this way, is incredibly diffuse. Power is not something that lies in the relationship between you and a king or you and Donald Trump. No, in our modern societies, power is something that operates at all levels of society…yes, at the level of public policy that effects everyone, but at the same time at an individual level that only effects you and dictates the narrow set of choices you have to navigate…power is between you and your government, but more relevant to your everyday life it’s between you and your therapist, your boss, your doctor, your teachers, your parents, your friends, your family, your co-workers, the strangers that may judge you in public…really stop for a second and try to get a sense of just how much these people shape who you are as a person. 

Power is everywhere, to Foucault…but to most people power is invisible. The ability for this power system to change your behavior has become so subtle, the micro tactics of power have become so normalized in your world that most people don’t even notice themselves gradually being shaped into a mold of normalcy like a soldier in boot camp…or like a prisoner in a cell.

In fact, think of yourself as a prisoner for a second…picture yourself in the Panopticon that we talked about on episode one of this series. Real quick if you don’t remember that was the hypothetical prison devised by Jeremy Bentham where a single guard in the middle can see what the prisoners are doing inside of every cell, but the prisoners can’t ever know when they’re being watched. 

What Foucault is saying…is that if you could somehow get the prisoners to be socialized in such a way that they watched each other, they created a system of norms and expectations, and they had some form of feedback where the prisoners felt judged and rejected when they get out of line…you wouldn’t even need a guard in the center of the Panopticon. That guy could go on vacation because the reality of that world would be to Foucault that the prisoners themselves would police each other far better than any system you could come up with that was implemented by force. You don’t need to use repressive power and force people to do anything if you can get them to want to do on their own what you were otherwise going to force them to do. Remember, knowledge to Foucault is intrinsically connected to power…and when you have one guard in the center that has access to complete knowledge of everyone’s actions…and a bunch of prisoners in a cell that can’t even see the outside world…this creates a massive imbalance of knowledge, and along with it, an imbalance of power. The prisoners themselves become active, supportive participants in the very system that suppresses them. To Michel Foucault, THIS example is far more comparable to the power model we face in our modern societies and FAR MORE EFFECTIVE than any king, on a throne, sentencing people to death. 

Like I mentioned earlier, to Foucault, there has been a fundamental shift in the way power is exercised in the west; we’ve moved from this outdated style of sovereign power to a new age that is defined by what he calls “Biopower”…now, why come up with a clever little name like that and why Biopower? Doesn’t bio mean it has something to do with life? Well, yes…yes it does. 

What Foucault’s talking about is similar to what we started to talk about towards the end of last episode…throughout the last 300 years or so, the more science has made society the object of scientific study, the more tactics scientists have come up with to 

1. optimize life and productivity and
2. to categorize people within a society. 

Because of science… and the way it tries to organize the world, for the first time in our history we are looking at BRAND NEW ways of objectifying people…things we’ve never really thought about much before…things like the population, birth and death rates, advanced demographics, the prevalence of disease, the happiness index and about 50 other things that we accept as the scientific discourse of our day, and then quietly USE these metrics to determine who we are and how we fit into the bigger picture. 

This is why the repressive hypothesis is wrong, to Foucault. Power…is not repressive in our modern world…power is productive. It doesn’t repress and do away with some true or natural sexuality that we all possess deep down…no, power is productive…it PRODUCES…through cultural norms and scientific discourse…the methods we use to even be able to identify and CONCEIVE of our sexuality…but here’s the crazy part: it’s NOT JUST our sexuality. 

Because it’s right here…this is a big reason why, to Foucault, the people that are TRULY in power are the thought leaders within the sciences that control the dominant narratives about the way that things are in the universe. Knowledge is intrinsically connected to power…and they’re the ones that produce all the knowledge. They control the parameters, the language, the concepts…they control the entire discourse that everyone uses to determine who they are, what they care about and what things are worth spending effort on. Foucault calls this “Biopower” because: 

“The exercise of power over living beings no longer carries the threat of death, but instead takes charge of people’s lives.” 

In other words, Biopower…there is no need anymore whatsoever to threaten people and force them to do things under penalty of death. Not only is that method outdated and inefficient, it’s also entirely transparent when it comes to identifying who is in power. Biopower, in a sense, hijacks the lives of unsuspecting people, and uses the current period’s scientific discourse and cultural norms to turn them into willing participants. Biopower is the type of power that actually effects us in our daily lives. 

Now, if there’s any part of you that hears this and thinks that the obvious next step is to try to do away with this Biopower, Foucault would probably tell you to rethink your strategy. Power dynamics, at this point, are an inexorable part of the world we live in. You’re never going to get rid of them. No matter how much you resist the micro tactics of power, no matter how much you question the dominant narratives of your time, all you can EVER hope for….is a world that is a little more tolerable. All you can ever hope for is a different set of dominant narratives that may, for all we know in the long run oppress more people than the CURRENT set of dominant narratives. Fight all you want against power, against narratives, against meta-narratives, fight all you want…but before you do, Foucault would want us all to take a second to stop and understand…what you’re replacing those meta-narratives with.

Thank you for listening. I’ll talk to you next time. 

Posted on

Episode 122 – Transcript

This is a transcript of episode #122 on Michel Foucault. Check out the episode page HERE.

So once upon a time Michel Foucault found himself living in an age of almost unparallelled optimism about science. He was living in a world in the early to mid 20th century, not far removed from those huge leaps forward that we talked about in quantum mechanics, general relativity, many other things…and there were a lot of thinkers around this time that were EXTREMELY enthusiastic about science being the way that we were finally going to figure things out for good. In fact, things looked so promising back then… there were even some scientists that were saying that it may be totally possible…that every phenomena that we observe, every cause and effect across the ENTIRE landscape of science…may be reduceable…to physics. This attitude is also known as Physical Reductionism. Now, at first this can seem like kind of a weird claim for a scientist to make, but when you consider the size and scope of the breakthroughs that had happened during their lifetimes and when you look at science the way they did it makes total sense…after all: for example, we often wonder about the psychology of an individual…and what led them to think some thought or make some choice. Well, it’s not crazy to think that someone’s psychology and the decisions they make is massively influenced by their biology and the way that biology interfaces with the world around them. Psychology, in a way, depends on Biology. Well, it’s not crazy to think that biology is massive influenced by a complex ecosystem of chemical reactions that are going on. Biology depends on Chemistry. It’s not crazy to think that chemistry is nothing more than the interactions between atoms and molecules that ultimately adhere to the laws of physics. What some scientists were saying during this time is that while we obviously are no where near this point yet…it’s not CRAZY to say that at some point in the future we may have such a deep understanding of all of these fields… that complex things like thoughts and behaviors may be able to be predicted by science at the level of physics. There’s a feeling at the time that things like physics, mathematics and cosmology are more pure in terms of being a science than something like psychology. Not that psychology is not important; the point is that these three fields are the simplest forms of science, they seem to be the most foundational forms of science and they require the least amount of conjecture or theory to justify the conclusions they arrive at, than any other science.

This is why, once upon a time, Foucault finds himself in a world where practically every person that came before him that sat down and wrote a history of science… looked at that history primarily in terms of the advancements in those three fields: physics, mathematics and cosmology. Well Foucault sees this…and immediately realizes that this may be creating a huge blind spot when it comes to our understanding of the history of science…what FOUCAULT wants to do, is take a look at that very same history, but instead look at it through the lens of three different fields, three neglected fields in the history of science: Biology, Linguistics and Economics.

See, because Foucault is much less concerned with the history of mathematics or physics or even the specifics of what particular scientists have said in the past. He’s more concerned with the underlying rules that exist in the background of ALL scientific inquiry, that make conducting science even possible…and the relationship between scientific knowledge and power structures in the world around us.

Let me explain over the course of the next two episodes. The fancy way of putting it is that Foucault would say that in our world there is a dichotomy between discursive formations and non-discursive formations. A dichotomy between what others would later call the articulatable and the visible. The non-fancy way of putting this is that since the 1700’s…we’ve had on one hand the institutions that make up our societies, hospitals, schools, prisons…social circles of many varieties, also known as non-discursive formations…but then on the other hand we’ve always had the systems of langauge that we use to TALK about these institutions…language that drastically changes the way we view the FUNCTION of those institutions, or discursive formations.

For example, in our modern world when we think of a school…the primary function of a school is educating the youth. When we think of a hospital: primary function of a hospital is to provide care to the patients…we think of a prison, primary function as we talked about last episode, is the reformation of the minds of the criminals.

In other words…and this is a massive thru-line in Foucault’s fifth book in 1966 titled The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Sciences…in other words we live in a world where Foucault says there is a clear dichotomy between seeing and saying. A dichotomy between SEEING systems of representation, the visible, things like hospitals and schools, and then SAYING things ABOUT those systems, the articulatable, or the language we use that drastically effects the way we see them.

If there was a primary concern of this book, that Foucault would want to make sure was clear so that it sets up all the OTHER primary concerns of this book, this would be it. Discursive is just a fancy word for talking about discourse. Discourse is also just a fancy word, but it’s complicated because it’s a fancy word that Foucault uses in many different ways all throughout his work. The meaning of the word seems to evolve over time…depending on where you’re reading it could mean anything from just the language that surrounds a topic, to the assumptions in the way that people think and talk about a subject, all the way to a set of concepts that relate in some way to another set of concepts that allow us to make sense of things in a particular period of time. The reason this is so weird right here, is because Foucault almost always uses the word discourse with the word “scientific” preceding it…and whenever he references scientific discourse… he’s usually talking about a large and complex network of meaning and baggage that gets smuggled in whenever scientists claim to have knowledge about the way that things are. See, living in a world where so many people around him are worshiping at the altar of science, Foucault wants to shine a light on the limitations of science and show how the conclusions of science often times have unintended consequences that hurt people. Foucault and his views on science are a perfect example of a structuralist and post-structuralist butting heads with those outdated, Enlightenment era assumptions about science and philosophy that we’ve talked about on previous episodes. The short version is that people may have become a little TOO enamored with science and logic BECAUSE of all the breakthroughs that occurred and BECAUSE they were trying to get away from the long tradition of philosophy being unverifiable speculation.

See, because another thing we missed by going over the Logical Positivists so quickly is that it wasn’t just the Logical Positivists that were skeptical of the last couple hundred years of philosophy…there were MANY thinkers around the early 20th century that thought of this entire period since the 17th century as what they would call The Metaphysical Age…or the age when all kinds of thinkers decided to apply themselves to creating these massive, complicated, metaphysical systems that tried to explain everything…a delusion that ran deep. With a lot of key players involved in the process…we had Descartes whose system was critiqued by Spinoza and Hume, who then were eclipsed by the work of Kant, who then had to concede to the system of Hegel; the problem with looking at the history of philosophy this way is that it COMPLETELY ignores the fact, that it’s a direct mirror of all the mistakes people were making when looking at ALL of history during this time.

What I’m trying to say is: Foucault’s problem with lumping everything in the last couple hundred years into something called The Metaphysical Age is a culmination of several problems we’ve already talked about on this show when it comes to assumptions made in the thinking of the early 20th century. Remember? The outdated way of looking at history where we hyper-focus on subjectivity and the actions of a few key players? What is history? Oh, well history is when Napoleon invades Russia…Harun Al Rashid captures THIS territory…Bismarck signs THIS treaty…but is this the totality of what history is? There are thousands of other angles you could view the history of the world from, and what happens when you do that? What new insights start to present themselves?

Remember Thomas Kuhn, and his history of science…and how he wants to move away from focusing on individuals like Copernicus and Newton and Einstein and THEIR subjectivity, THEIR individual achievements…and instead wants to focus on larger, structural shifts that occur…to instead look at history through the lens of large scale paradigm shifts as he calls them…moments, when paradoxes and contradictions pile up and create fractures in the existing way of doing science…fractures that eventually cause the whole scientific paradigm to break, at which point an entirely NEW method of doing science takes over. Doesn’t viewing science from this slightly different angle give us fresh, new insights into the history of science that we would never see if we always looked at history through that lens that favors subjectivity so much? More than that though…is THIS method the end all be all way of looking at the history of science? What possibile reason could anyone have to privilege Thomas Kuhn’s method over any of the countless OTHER angles we could view the history of the world from? How much are we missing, by having such a rigid and narrow method of cataloging history?

Well, Thomas Kuhn is just one example of many that are trying to find alternative histories…Foucault’s another thinker that’s calling this stuff into question…and you can see even before 1966 in The Order of Things that he’s already looking for alternative ways of interpreting what has happened in the past.

We talked last time about two distinct, sort of, epochs that exist when it comes to the way we punish criminals, the sovereign age and the disciplinary age…well there’s similar sort of thing in Foucault’s book titled Birth of the Clinic when it comes to the way we treat patients in hospitals. Once again, just so we’re clear, Foucault is NOT viewing history in terms of the achievements of individuals, but instead in terms of vast periods or epochs that occur, for example when you READ Birth of the Clinic…same sorta thing…no individual doctors or technicians are featured prominently…no, the feel of the book is more like: Well, in the 18th century, when people are sick, you have a building patients go to called a clinic…in the 19th century you have a building patients go to called a hospital. In other words, the language has changed in some small way between these two periods…another example: 18th century…when a patient is sick…they’re seen as sort of immersed WITHIN a disease…that’s how people talked about illness in the 18th century…the patient that’s being treated is under the grip of the disease Cholera, for example…whereas in the 19th century in a hospital the disease is seen as something inside the patient that needs to be fixed. Once again, the language used to describe the patient has changed…another example: 18th century disease is talked about as a thing that is almost A priori…disease exists as it’s own thing, out there, independent of any human being contracting it…in the 19th century the collection of symptoms within the person IS the disease itself.

In other words, in both centuries we’re studying the same disease, you could have the same exact patient in both periods, but when the fundamental language we use to describe the illness changes, so too does the way that we see the illness and the patient and the task of the doctor and really some pretty important things about the way that we see the world!

Now it might be tempting here to think that Foucault and Kuhn are essentially saying the same thing: instead of looking at individuals they’re just looking at movements and trends…but the nuances in the differences between them are actually crucial if we want to fully understand Foucault and his work.

Foucault breaks down history into long periods or epochs that he calls epistemes…and maybe the best place to start explaining this is to talk for a second about the differences between the paradigm shifts of Thomas Kuhn and these epistemes that Foucault is talking about.

Paradigms are easy…all that Thomas Kuhn is referencing when he says paradigm are the dominant theories, practices, instruments, methodologies of a given period of time within the sciences. The scientist using these things not only knows all about them, they know that they are the best practices of the time they’re living and if they’re going to be conducting any sort of respectable science, they better be using them. Paradigms, generally speaking, dont last very long. They last for a while, but it’s not long before better or different science comes along and replaces them. Paradigms…can quite possibly only effect one discipline, for example, there could be a dominant paradigm specific to Biology that doesn’t carry over into other fields of science.

Now, epistemes on the other hand are NOT so easy. Here’s the definition of what Foucault means by an episteme:

“the historical, but non-temporal, a priori which grounds knowledge and its discourses and thus represents the condition of their possibility within a particular epoch.”

So let’s unpack that and explain it using a bit more english. Similar to a paradigm, an episteme is a period of time. But UNLIKE a paradigm, where scientists are consciously aware of all the best scientific practices of the world they’re living in, an episteme is set of entirely unconscious assumptions that are made.

Foucault is making the case that every scientist, regardless of when they’re conducting their work, does that work proceeding from certain background epistemological assumptions that make conducting science even possible, and these assumptions…not only do scientists not realize that they’re making them, but they are so deeply ingrained within the culture that the scientist lives in… that they ultimately dictate everything from the experiments the scientists chooses to run, to the questions the scientist thinks are worth answering, all the way down to what the scientific community as a whole decides should be accepted or rejected as fact.

The best way I’ve ever seen it put is to think about it this way: you woke up this morning and chose the outfit that you were going to wear. Now, short of you being an exhibitionist or one of the chieftain nobles of a nudist colony, chances are there wasn’t a single second in your mind when you entertained the possibility of going to work completely naked today. In fact…let’s say you’re a complete weirdo…in the event your mind actually went to a place like that even for a second, what would happen?…well, you’d immediately dismiss it as an idea…and why? Because there is a cultural norm against nudity in public that runs so deep that to even entertain the possibility of going to work naked would not only be preposterous, but it would be a complete waste of your time to consider it as an option. Well, what if this same dynamic extended to the way you think and talk about everything? What if you were a scientist?

The point that Foucault’s making here is that all of discourse, the entirety of the way you think and talk about things has been filtered through a set of background assumptions given to you by the cultural and historical conditions you were born into…and these assumptions in the background are things that most people take to be just the common sense way that the world should be chopped up, if they’re even aware of these things at all.

But this set of background assumptions change over time…much less frequently than Thomas Kuhn’s paradigms, not only that though! WHEN one of these epistemes changes it has a much more transformative effect on the world than when a scientific paradigms changes. A paradigm can change and it may only effect one or two fields…when an episteme changes, it effects ALL of the sciences simultaneously. To return back to our definition…these epistemes are the historical A priori (prior to experience in the world) that GROUNDS KNOWLEDGE…and thus represents the condition of their possibility within a particular epoch or period of time…let’s talk about a couple examples of these epistemes.

Foucault would say that if you could go back in time to the 17th century and talk to Hobbes or Francis Bacon or many others that are doing work…and you could read their work from the perspective of someone living at the time, what you would notice is that they are always trying to make sense of things in terms of resemblances. The episteme of THEIR time, the background epistemological assumptions that they brought to bear unconsciously whenever they tried to make sense of things, was that they were always looking for similarities…how one plant or animal species resembled another…how one disease had similar properties to another disease…how some idea from earlier theology was the same as some idea within philosophy. Resemblances and similarities between things defined the entire epoch of the Reannaisance to Foucault.

Another example: if you could go back in time give or take to the 18th century, you would see the rise of philosophy that sees the world in terms of differences rather than similarities, you’d see abstractions about things like “human nature”, you’d see other ways of categorizing people, you’d see the period that gives rise to the taxonomy of many different fields, not just people, plants and animals. Again, these tendencies are a byproduct of the unconscious, background epistemological assumptions, the episteme that the thinkers of this time were born into. If you were in the 19th or early 20th century, the modern episteme may dictate that you’re done with things like taxonomies and are more in the business of categorizing what it means to be a human being. The question Foucault would want us to ask ourselves is: do you think even for a second that the 21st century DOESN’T have an episteme that we are all unconsciously participating in?

What Foucault’s getting at is that he wants to get away from this nonsense of lumping all of these periods together and referring to them collectively as The Metaphysical Age, and he wants to start breaking them up and calling them what they are: different periods, distinct from each other, each with its own unique systems of acquiring knowledge, it’s own systems of visibility and articulatability, it’s own discursive and non-discursive formations and here’s the kicker! All of these systems, and all of this discourse…ultimately put in place and maintained by people in positions of power…now, couple places your brain may go when I say that…

You may picture a king wielding a scepter enforcing this stuff by decree…you may picture a bunch of dudes in powdered wigs banging a gavel…for our post-modern episteme you may picture police in riot gear with their foot on the back of someone’s neck. In reality, systems of acquiring knowledge are rarely, if ever, enforced by this kind of power, and its right here…that Foucault would want to draw a distinction between two different types of power that we come face to face with in our societies: a distinction between what he calls repressive power and normalizing power.

Repressive power is the type of power I was just referencing…boots on the back of the neck, military invasion…essentially someone forcing you to do something you don’t want to do. But there’s a sense in which this type of power is inefficient and really only necessary if someone is actively defying you, which can raise the question: are you really in power if someone has the ability to cross you like that. No, TRUE power would be if you could somehow get people to believe that it was their idea to behave the way you want them to behave. True power would be if you could get people to think it was part of their personality, the very DEFINITION of what it is to be themselves is in accordance with the way you say they should be. THAT is the task that’s accomplished by the normalizing power of society.

Think about it. You woke up this morning and there was probably no part of you that thought what you want to do with your day today is you want to go down to a sketchy part of town and you want to score some black tar heroin from the guy on the street corner…and why is that? Is it because you are scared of being arrested? Are you scared of Hank and the DEA kicking down your door? Or is it because going to sketchy parts of town and doing hardcore drugs like that is just not who you are?

In other words, not only are people WILLING to not do drugs, not steal, not punch their neighbor in the face and countless other things, but they’re actually EXCITED about filling their role as a “normal person” within society.

That’s the power of normalization.

So if you consider all the stuff we’ve talked about on the episode so far you can start to see the problems that you run into as a scientist from the perspective of Foucault. Because if you’re someone born into an episteme, you already have a set of unconscious background assumptions that you’re making that shade every thought you have…you already have a narrow set of tools, instruments and methods that make up the scientific paradigm of your day, you already, by the time you’re a working scientist, have gone through the school and university system and have had 20+ years of influence from a society trying to normalize your thought.

Not only that though, the very field of science itself to Foucault, is an incredibly important part of the social structures that surround us…all of which have a normalizing influence on thought. We need doctors to determine who is sick and who is well. We need psychologists to determine who is sane and who is crazy. We need thought leaders within the sciences to determine who is credible and who isn’t. Science itself becomes a crucial part of the process of normalization…because it becomes the standard that everything is measured up against to make sure things fit.

But what is this scientific standard that we’re weighing everything up against other than a consensus, arrived at by a bunch of people born into an episteme, working through a scientific paradigm with 20+ years of normalizing influence on their thought? Foucault would say, the social structures that make so many aspects of our world even possible… are fueled by a narrow cultural discourse…a cultural discourse that is constantly changing…a cultural discourse that offers commentary on any topic you can possibly imagine, including, what it even is to be a human being.

You know, if it’s not completely obvious by this point, Foucault is first and foremost in the business of questioning dominant narratives about things that most people just take to be “the way that things are.” It’s been said, and this is where we will begin the next episode of the show…it’s been said that Immanuel Kant…considered by some to be the greatest philosopher to ever live…one of the primary ideas that he explores in his work is the idea that through analysis of the subjective we may be able to arrive at objectivity. Through analyzing the lens that we experience the world through, our senses, our mental faculties, our ability to reason, if we study these things closely enough… we may be able to arrive at properties that are necessarily true about them or the world of phenomena that we’re accessing. In other words, Kant is interested in taking the subjective, and arriving at things that are necessarily true about the world. Well, Foucault, again if it isn’t entirely obvious by this point, is turning that whole thing on its head. Foucault is interested in finding things that we THINK are necessarily true, and showing them to be subjective and grounded in history. We’ll pick up here next time. Thank you for listening. Talk to you then.