scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)

The emptying of the metanarratve: Foucault´s archaeology and genealogy in the study of normativity

Correia, Tomás David Rocha · 2021

Abstract

The twenty-first century is characterized by drastic changes in epistemology, as a result of academical shifts in important fields since the 60s. The decline of metanarratives – defined by Lyotard as grand-narratives about narratives (which, in turn, legitimate historically-situated events) – provided a fertile research ground for new methodological practices based on sharp critiques of Enlightenment rationality. One of the founding authors of the “postmodern condition” (as Lyotard labels it) is Michel Foucault. Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical project regarding epistemology redefined our conceptual approach to knowledge and its legitimation, by situating both concepts in specific historical contexts, at specific historical times. Recurring themes in the Foucauldian project involve skepticism about objective truths, anti-historicism and subjectivity. In this dissertation, I seek to answer the question “Why is Foucauldian methodology relevant in the (post-)modern world, especially in light of the decline of metanarratives?”. The main goal is to address the role of Foucault’s works in the rethinking of historically given narratives and expose the contingency of practices embroiled in power-knowledge relations, while keeping in mind the dispersibility of the origins of those narratives. This is particularly relevant under the framework of an emptying of over-arching narratives about knowledge and the human condition, i.e., the Lyotardian metanarrative. Human societies are usually seen in a context of a larger narrative to which each of our lives in an element. The metanarrative serves as an umbrella for smaller narratives in which other epistemic and moral narratives find their place. There seems to be a clear intersection in Lyotard and Foucault’s works: the former studies the conditions in which the metanarratives empty themselves, while the latter occupies himself with the archaeological/genealogical study of the narratives within the metanarratives that, in turn, occupy the vacuum left by the original metanarrative. There is, nonetheless, a distinction between both authors: while Lyotard sees this replacement as normative-laden, Foucault focuses on a strictly analytical view of discourse and practice.

Read accessible full text

The emptying of the metanarratve: Foucault´s archaeology and genealogy in the study of normativity

Author: Correia, Tomás David Rocha
Year: 2021
Source: https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/136214/1/THE%20EMPTYING%20OF%20THE%20METANARRATIVE_TC_2019110018.pdf
THE EMPTYING OF THE METANARRATIVE:
FOUCAULT’S ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENEALOGY IN THE
STUDY OF NORMATIVITY
by
Tomás Da id Rocha Co eia
In Pa ial Ful illmen o he Requi emen s
o he
Deg ee o Mas e o Philosophy
_________________________________________
NOVA Uni e si y Lisbon
Supe ised by P o . Gio anni Damele
Augus 2021
2
Abs ac
The wen y- i s cen u y is cha ac e ized by d as ic changes in epis emology, as a esul
o academical shi s in impo an ields since he 60s. The decline o me ana a i es –
de ined by Lyo a d as g and-na a i es abou na a i es (which, in u n, legi ima e
his o ically-si ua ed e en s) – p o ided a e ile esea ch g ound o new me hodological
p ac ices based on sha p c i iques o Enligh enmen a ionali y. One o he ounding
au ho s o he “pos mode n condi ion” (as Lyo a d labels i ) is Michel Foucaul .
Foucaul ’s a chaeological and genealogical p ojec ega ding epis emology ede ined ou
concep ual app oach o knowledge and i s legi ima ion, by si ua ing bo h concep s in
speci ic his o ical con ex s, a speci ic his o ical imes. Recu ing hemes in he
Foucauldian p ojec in ol e skep icism abou objec i e u hs, an i-his o icism and
subjec i i y. In his disse a ion, I seek o answe he ques ion “Why is Foucauldian
me hodology ele an in he (pos -)mode n wo ld, especially in ligh o he decline o
me ana a i es?”. The main goal is o add ess he ole o Foucaul ’s wo ks in he
e hinking o his o ically gi en na a i es and expose he con ingency o p ac ices
emb oiled in powe -knowledge ela ions, while keeping in mind he dispe sibili y o he
o igins o hose na a i es. This is pa icula ly ele an unde he amewo k o an
emp ying o o e -a ching na a i es abou knowledge and he human condi ion, i.e., he
Lyo a dian me ana a i e. Human socie ies a e usually seen in a con ex o a la ge
na a i e o which each o ou li es in an elemen . The me ana a i e se es as an
umb ella o smalle na a i es in which o he epis emic and mo al na a i es ind hei
place. The e seems o be a clea in e sec ion in Lyo a d and Foucaul ’s wo ks: he o me
s udies he condi ions in which he me ana a i es emp y hemsel es, while he la e
occupies himsel wi h he a chaeological/genealogical s udy o he na a i es wi hin he
me ana a i es ha , in u n, occupy he acuum le by he o iginal me ana a i e. The e
is, none heless, a dis inc ion be ween bo h au ho s: while Lyo a d sees his eplacemen
as no ma i e-laden, Foucaul ocuses on a s ic ly analy ical iew o discou se and
p ac ice.
Keywo ds: De iance; Discipline; Me ana a i e; No ma i i y; Powe .
3
Table o con en s
1. In oduc ion ................................................................................................................. 4
2. The Lyo a dian Pos mode n....................................................................................... 7
2.1 The Mode n and he Pos mode n .............................................................................. 7
2.2 Language P oblems and he Di e end .................................................................... 8
2.3 Legi ima ion c i e ia in he Pos mode n .............................................................. 11
2.4 Capi alism as he las mode n me ana a i e ..................................................... 18
3. The A chaeology o who we a e ............................................................................... 23
3.1 The econs uc ion o Madness ............................................................................... 24
3.2 A chaeological p ac ices ...................................................................................... 29
4. The Genealogy o who we a e ................................................................................... 33
4.1 The econs uc ion o he Penal sys em ................................................................... 35
4.2 No ms and No maliza ion ..................................................................................... 42
4.3 Powe and No ms ................................................................................................ 45
4.4 Powe and No maliza ion .................................................................................. 49
5. Genealogy oday ......................................................................................................... 53
6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 57
Bibliog aphy ................................................................................................................... 64
4
1. In oduc ion
His o y, o Foucaul , is based on p ac ices. P ac ices, simply pu , a e wha people
li e. They shape us, de e mining who we a e, no by imposing a se o exogenous
es ic ions, bu h ough his o ically gi en no ms and guidelines, h ough which we hink
and ac . They se he la ge heme o “no mali y” and canno be sepa a ed om wha
people o en conside hei la ge his o ical con ex . P ac ices a e c ea ed and ep oduced
h ough wha Foucaul calls “discipline”, which is de ined as a mechanism o powe ha
egula es hough and beha io h ough sub le means. In o he wo ds, discipline in ol es
a se o powe ela ions which a e o ien ed, bu no necessa ily imposed.
One o he mos impo an aspec s o he analysis o p ac ices is hei deep
connec ion wi h he no ion o “knowledge”. Knowledge is si ua ed in ou p ac ices. This
b ings wo di e en implica ions. Fi s , ou knowledge changes as ou p ac ices change.
We know di e en ly a di e en pe iods o ou his o y. This does no necessa ily mean
ha he e is no “ ue” knowledge; i only implies ha , since we canno sepa a e ou sel es
om ou p ac ices, ou knowledge is bound o ou con ingen p ac ices. Secondly, wha
indeed happens in hose p ac ices a ec s ou p ojec o knowing. Ou knowledge is
insepa able om he no ms, ac ions and expec ed beha io s o which hese p ac ices
consis o . Simply pu , i knowledge occu s wi hin ou con ingen p ac ices and powe
a ises om hose p ac ices, hen he e mus be a deep connec ion be ween knowledge and
powe .
Foucaul ’s wo ks can be boiled down o i e dis inc ea u es. Fi s ly, he
collec i e de e mina ion o who we a e is complex, as he e is no a single uni a y heme
ha cons i u es who we a e a a gi en momen , bu , ins ead, a complex ne wo k o hemes
ha in e ac wi h each o he . Bi d-eye iews a e clea ly ejec ed in a o o his o ically
gi en p ac ices. Foucaul dismisses he use o Wel geschich e (wo ld his o y) o explain
phenomena, a guing, ins ead, ha e e y his o ical judgemen is con ingen o i s social
s uc u es and no uly objec i e u h can be es ablished. Secondly, he ac ha hese
p ac ices a e his o ically gi en means hey a e, indeed, changeable. Al hough we did no
con ol how we became who we a e now and we a e bound o ou his o ical he i age, we
do no ha e o emain who we a e. His o y has di e en pa hs and b anches; who we we e
did no necessa ily had o led us o who we a e now, no o who we wan o be. Thi dly,
hese p ac ices shape no only he way we beha e and ac bu also ou knowledge abou
he wo ld and abou ou sel es. This is in insically ela ed wi h he no ions o c ea i e
5
powe and powe -knowledge ad anced by Foucaul . Fou hly, he de e mina ion o who
we a e is deeply his o ical, which makes us indissociable wi h ou his o ical legacy and
unable o simply choose who we a e in a se epoch. Las ly, hese ea u es imply ha he
ques ion o who each o us is, indi idually, is a collec i e ma e : he e is no an “I” in
ou his o y, bu a “We”.
Foucaul ’s a chaeological phase las ed om 1961 o 1969. The goal o his phase
was o desc ibe discou ses as p ac ices speci ied in he elemen o an a chi e. In o de o
achie e his, i is necessa y o unco e he a chi es which help c ea e an unde s anding
o a con ingen p ac ice in ou pas , i.e., a cheology ames he consequen genealogy by
his o ically econs uc ing a con ingen his o ical p ac ice in a linea way. The a che ype
o his phase is Madness and Ci iliza ion (1961). In his wo k, he e is a clea ejec ion
o phenomenology; i shi s he g ound om Foucaul ’s ea lie p ojec s o unpacking and
de ailing an expe ience (which had no ye been ully cla i ied) o a his o ical
in es iga ion, in his case, o he di e en s uc u es o he ea men o madness. Wha
was aimed in his wo k was o s udy madness as he “O he ” o Reason in h ee dis inc
e as: he Renaissance, he Classical Age and Mode ni y. Madness and Ci iliza ion,
howe e , is no a book abou madness; i is a book abou Reason’s monologue on
madness.
The use o he e m “genealogy” is usually dis inguished om ha o
“a chaeology,” al hough genealogies a e based on a chaeologies. Foucaul ’s wo ks a e no
excep ion o his. In an a chaeological iew, he e is, wi hin a gi en a chi e, a s abili y o
discu si e ules ha do no change un il a his o ical b eak occu s. In a genealogical iew,
p ac ices con e ge and di e ge, bu hey do no do so unde any la ge o e -a ching
hemes, as hese hemes a e luid and his o ically si ua ed. While a chaeology wo ks o
unde s and how a i ac s i oge he in a his o ical momen , p o iding con ex ual and
con ingen meaning o hem, genealogy wo ks by igu ing ou wha kind o people would
i in o ha se o a i ac s, i.e., how hese a i ac s c ea e no ms and guidelines o ou
p ac ices. Genealogy is, abo e all, non-linea and based on acing back he o igins o
his o ically gi en p ac ices. This phase las ed om 1969 o 1978 and i s a che ype is
Foucaul ’s Discipline and Punish (1974). As is cha ac e is ic o he genealogical phase,
he e is a signi ican change in wha is being analyzed: con a y o he a chaeological
phase, whe e he e was a la ge in e es on how discou ses ma e ialized in ce ain
p ac ices, wha is now being add essed is how p ac ices hemsel es a e cons i u ed and
how hey cons i u e ou knowledge, ocusing on he ac ha he genealogies o p ac ices

6
a e many and a ied. In Discipline and Punish, Foucaul aces he genealogy o he
disciplina y socie y (which Foucaul a gues is he basis o oday’s socie y) in ou
di e en ins ances: To u e, Punishmen , Discipline and P ison.
Foucaul ’s philosophical p ojec con e ges on an in-dep h a chaeological and
genealogical s udy o he disciplina y socie y. Di e en c i ics, anging om Deleuze’s
“con ol socie ies” o Baud illa d’s “hype eali y” di ec ly engage wi h Foucaul ’s iews
o who we we e, a e and will be. Howe e , hese al e na i e concep ual models also wo k
wi hin he pos mode n amewo k, i.e., acco ding o Lyo a d in The Pos mode n
Condi ion, unde a sha p ans o ma ion o he game ules o li e a u e, a and,
especially, science, which laid he ounda ion o a c i ical e hinking o Enligh enmen
a ionali y and on how economic and poli ical powe is main ained, by decons uc ing he
discou ses ha legi ima e hem.
Th oughou his disse a ion, I will seek o cha ac e ize he pos mode n condi ion
and, in pa icula , he Lyo a dian pe spec i e on wha i means o be a pa o he
pos mode n. I will also p esen how knowledge is cons uc ed and legi ima ed by
applying a Wi gens einian (i.e., by means o an analogy o language games) app oach o
na a i e-building, dis inguishing be ween di e en ypes o legi ima ion c i e ia o
knowledge. In o de o unde s and how he pos mode n condi ion a ec s ou p oduc ion
o knowledge, I will e isi Foucaul ’s ea lie a chaeological wo ks and, especially, his
genealogical p ojec , p o iding insigh s as o why Foucaldian me hodology can help us
il e how his o ically con ingen momen s can c ea e ce ain discou ses ins ead o o he s,
which, in u n, legi ima e a la ge na a i e ega ding wha we conside o be ue. To his
end, I hen ocus on how no ms a e c ea ed and sus ained h ough powe ela ions, leading
o a dis inc ion be ween he no mal and he abno mal, c ea ing he need o no maliza ion.
Finally, I will p esen he ele ance o a genealogical app oach in he p oduc ion o
knowledge and how i can make clea e how, why and when do we conside some hing
o be ue, i.e., why do we choose o cons i u e ou sel es in a speci ic way.
In o de o unde s and how he Foucaldian p ojec ope a es, we need o de ine and
unde s and he amewo k in which i ope a es. I is unde he de ini ion o he concep o
he pos mode n ha we shall begin his disse a ion.
7
2. The Lyo a dian “Pos mode n”
2.1 The Mode n and he Pos mode n
Al hough he discussion o he “pos mode n” is a ecu en heme in he
Lyo a dian p ojec , i is on The Pos mode n Condi ion whe e he clea es dis inc ion
be ween he mode n and pos mode n appea s. F ed ic Jameson (2019, p. ii), w i ing on
he o ewo d o he English e sion o The Pos mode n Condi ion sugges s ha :
(…) pos mode nism, as i is gene ally unde s ood, in ol es a adical b eak, bo h
wi h a dominan cul u e and aes he ic, and wi h a a he di e en momen o
socioeconomic o ganiza ion agains which i s s uc u al no el ies and inno a ions
a e measu ed: a new social and economic momen (o e en sys em), which has
a iously been called media socie y, he "socie y o he spec acle" (Guy Debo d),
consume socie y (o he "socié é de consomma ion"), he "bu eauc a ic socie y
o con olled consump ion" (Hen i Le eb e), o "pos indus ial socie y" (Daniel
Bell).
Wha is key o unde s and he e is how he pos mode n e e s o an epoch/mindse
o c i ical ac i i y owa ds he mode n, exp essing i sel in he o m o a angua dis
zei geis in he ields o philosophy, science, poli ics and a . The aim o his “ angua d”
is o unco e he limi s and ules on which hese a eas ope a e and, consequen ly, c ea e
new wo ks based on ules ha we e hi he o uniden i ied un il he c ea ion o ha wo k.
In o he wo ds, he pos mode n s ance mus always a emp o p oduce ha which canno
be p oduced and canno be ully ep esen ed. To iden i y he “b eak” om whe e he
pos mode n sp ou s, Lyo a d de ines he ounda ion o his p ojec h ough his own
de ini ion o he mode n:
I will use he e m mode n o designa e any science ha legi ima es i sel wi h
e e ence o a me adiscou se o his kind making an explici appeal o some g and
na a i e, such as he dialec ics o Spi i , he he meneu ics o meaning, he
emancipa ion o he a ional o wo king subjec , o he c ea ion o weal h.
(Lyo a d 2019, p.10)
The Pos mode n Condi ion was Lyo a d’s a emp o diagnose his own ime,
which was cha ac e ized by d as ic changes on how knowledge was pe cei ed and, mo e
p ecisely, i s legi ima ion, aking as a ocal poin he so-called “de eloped” wo ld. I is
Lyo a d’s mos ex ensi e a emp a de ining he pos mode n using six majo opics o
discussion, which a e summa ized by B ügge (2001, pp.78-79) in his ecollec ion o he
8
Lyo a dian p ojec . Fi s , he main aim o Lyo a d’s s udy o he pos mode n is o discuss
“ (…) he condi ion o knowledge in he mos highly de eloped socie ies.” (Lyo a d, 2019,
p. xxiii). Second, he “pos mode n” e e s o he condi ion o knowledge oday, especially
aking in o conside a ion he pe spec i es which s em om he philosophy o his o y,
whe e he “mode n” epoch is eplaced by a “pos mode n” epoch. Thi d, i is impo an o
ake no ice ha Lyo a d uses he e m “pos mode n” as a poin o depa u e and no as a
ixed epoch wi h a beginning and a (possible) end. The aim he e is o ocus on he c isis
o legi ima ion o he pos -indus ial wo ld and, especially, he wiligh o mas e -
na a i es. Fou , he mode n gi es special emphasis o science, he pu sui o u h and o
he di e en ins i u ions ha a e able o con ol o in luence social bonds, namely he ones
which end o ocus on he concep o jus ice, as well as hose which legi ima e hei
ac i i ies (and e ol ing phenomena), in acco dance wi h some g and na a i e. These
mas e -na a i es a e, acco ding o Lyo a d (2019, p. xxiii) “(…) he dialec ics o Spi i ,
he he meneu ics o meaning, he emancipa ion o he a ional o wo king subjec , o he
c ea ion o weal h”. I was based on hese na a i es ha bo h science and social bonds
we e legi ima ed in he mode n epoch. Lyo a d, howe e , a gues ha hey ha e now
become obsole e and un us wo hy, hus c ea ing a new pos mode n con ex which is
mainly de ied by his obsole e ins ance and by he emp ying o he g and na a i es o he
mode n epoch. Fi h, by “(…) losing i s unc o s, i s g ea he o, i s g ea dange s, i s
g ea oyages, i s g ea goal” (Lyo a d, 2019, p. xxi ), he obsole e condi ion o he
mas e -na a i e becomes e iden and leads o a agmen a ion o an o he wise ela i ely
clea ins i u ion, discou se o p ac ice, in o ones which a e di used and ha “(…) gi e
ise o ins i u ions in pa ches—local de e minism”. The six h and las discussion in The
Pos mode n Condi ion akes in o conside a ion h ee plausible c i e ia o legi ima ion,
which mainly appea in he ealm o science: pe o ma i i y, consensus and pa alogy. We
will analyze hese c i e ia in de ail la e .
2.2 Language P oblems and he Di e end
The Lyo a dian p ojec examines he legi ima ing na a i es o science and social
bonds h ough he usage o language games, pa icula ly Wi engs ein’s (la e ) wo ks.
B ügge (2001, p.79) a gues, in his eading o Lyo a d, “ (…) ha language ough o be
concei ed as a se ies o di e en and incommensu able language games. The de ini ion
o he di e en language games is ied o he p agma ic si ua ion in which a s a emen
places he sende , e e en , and add essee.”. The (pos )mode n wo ld is usually
9
cha ac e ized by a plu ali y o discou ses which equen ly con lic wi h each o he , as a
di ec consequence o wha happens in language and speech, in a ealm o in e connec ed
speech-ac s. Acco ding o Boe e (1998, p.300):
Once a ph ase has happened, nume ous o he ph ases can be linked o i , acco ding
o he gen e o discou se (wha Wi gens ein called a language game, consis ing
o a s a egy o linking ph ases o pu sue a ce ain goal) which egula es he
linking. Bu al hough he e a e many ph ase candida es, only one o hem can
ac ually ealize he linking, and his acco ding o he gen e o discou se which
inally o e comes he o he gen es. O he ph ases, i ing wi hin he s a egies o
linking in o he gen es o discou se, hen emain unac ualized.
Discou ses unc ion in a simila way o Wi gens einian linguis ics: one discou se
can only unc ion and be legi imized i a gi en se o ules and p ocedu es acknowledges
ha discou se as alid. In Wi gens ein’s (1986, p.48) wo ds, “A pic u e held us cap i e.
And we could no ge ou side i , o i lay in ou language and language seemed o epea
i o us inexo ably.”. In he same way ou language has di e en meaning and
in e p e a ions unde di e en con ex s, so do ou p ac ices and ou knowledge o ou
p ac ices. Language games unc ion, o Lyo a d, as an analogy owa ds wha we a i m
o be he pos mode n condi ion; i language canno be unde s and when used ou side o
i s con ex (i.e., wo ds ha e a di e en symbology when used in di e en ci cums ances),
hen p ac ices a e also only unc ional and legi ima e when he ules ha su ound hem
a e accep ed and unde s ood by he p ac i ione s. Essen ially, he pos mode n condi ion
does no add ess p oblems and phenomena in an empi ic, quasi-posi i is way, bu
add esses hem by looking a how discou ses (such as a speci ic use o language, o
example) and (me a-)na a i es impac ou ques o knowledge and u h:
These a e, o cou se, no empi ical p oblems; hey a e sol ed, a he , by looking
in o he wo kings o ou language, and ha in such a way as o make us ecognize
hose wo kings: in despi e o an u ge o misunde s and hem. The p oblems a e
sol ed, no by gi ing new in o ma ion, bu by a anging wha we ha e always
known. Philosophy is a ba le agains he bewi chmen o ou in elligence by
means o language. (Wi gens ein 1953, p.47)
Plu ali y o discou ses hen, is no simply a s agnan phenomenon, bu a deep and
complex ne wo k o di e ences and o he ness, which, ine i ably, c ea es a lesse o
highe s age o con lic be ween he agen s o he plu al space. F om a mac o pe spec i e,
16
discou ses we do no en e a Pla onic hea en o ideas, bu we "b acke " ce ain
cons ain s o space and ime, suspend belie in he u h o p oposi ions, in he
igh ness o no ms, and he u h ulness o ou pa ne s, and examine e e yday
con ic ions in which we ha e los belie . Fo Lyo a d, by con as , "discou se"
and "na a i e knowledge" a e adically discon inuous. Na a i e knowledge
appea s o be in need o no legi ima ion. Lyo a d desc ibes he p agma ics o
na a i e knowledge such ha i eo ipso seems o p eclude he kind o ques ioning,
puzzling, and disag eemen which e e yday communica i e p ac ices in ac
always al eady allow. (Benhabid, 1984, p.112)
I is discon inui y and luidi y, hen, wha cha ac e izes he Lyo a dian
pos mode n. Consensus, o Lyo a d, is an impe ec mode o acqui e knowledge, since
consensus can only be ob ained wi h he aim o achie ing a gi en pu pose o o execu e
a gi en ask; i inhe en ly en ails objec i es, mo i es and end-goals. Lyo a d does no
necessa ily ejec he di e en pu poses o knowledge; ins ead, Lyo a d seems o ocus
on he locali y and con ingency o he pu poses o ha knowledge. By ejec ing
uni e salism (and, by ex ension, uni e sal “linking” ules in discou se), a new s a us o
knowledge eme ges. I knowledge is now con ingen o local p ac ices, o local discou ses
and o local ules, hen knowledge is bound o be his o ically and/cul u ally si ua ed. This
is no he same as o say ha knowledge which de i es om a me ana a i e is necessa ily
in alid. I only means ha knowledge di e ges as he ules which legi ima e a ce ain ype
o knowledge as “ ue” knowledge di e ge. Such is he case o na a i e knowledge ha ,
a om being p esen ed as complemen a y o mode n scien i ic knowledge (one which
usually aims o consensus), is o en desc ibed as “(…) i i we e "p emode n" knowledge,
a his o ically los mode o hough.” (Benhabid, 1984, p.118). Fo Lyo a d, na a i e
knowledge is usually seen as an “O he ” o “ ue” (scien i ic) knowledge – no a pas ,
his o ical ype o knowledge, bu a di e en ype o knowledge, subjec o di e en
legi ima ion c i e ia. None heless, na a i e knowledge s ill seems o be ega ded as an
in e io ype o knowledge:
The scien is ques ions he alidi y o na a i e s a emen s and concludes ha hey
a e ne e subjec o a gumen a ion o p oo . He classi ies hem as belonging o a
di e en men ali y: sa age, p imi i e, unde de eloped, backwa d, aliena ed,
composed o opinions, cus oms, au ho i y, p ejudice, igno ance, ideology.
Na a i es a e ables, my hs, legends, i only o women and child en. A bes ,
a emp s a e made o h ow some ays o ligh in o his obscu an ism, o ci ilize,
educa e, de elop. (Lyo a d, 2019, p.27)

17
Na a i e knowledge is seen as a sel -sus aining, p e e lexi e whole. In Lyo a d’s
(2019, p.27) wo ds “(…) na a i e knowledge does no gi e p io i y o he ques ion o i s
own legi ima ion and ha i ce i ies i sel in he p agma ics o i s own ansmission
wi hou ha ing ecou se o a gumen a ion and p oo .“ By lacking clea legi ima ion
c i e ia, his ype o knowledge ope a es in a amewo k whe e he ocal poin is no “How
u h ul is his s a emen ?” bu ins ead “Does he way in which I ansmi his knowledge
su ices in o de o pe pe ua e i sel as alid knowledge?”. Na a i e knowledge is
ope a ional, bound o con ingencies and local p ac ices. I does no need an o e -a ching
na a i e o legi ima e i sel ; he e y ac o being used as a discu si e p ac ice is enough
o be acknowledged as legi ima e. Howe e , his also means ha na a i e knowledge
does no ha e a sel -co ec ing mechanism able o asse wha should be legi ima e and
wha should no , leading o a me e eplica ion o discu si e p ac ices. The e o e, na a i e
knowledge can “(…) de ine wha has he igh o be said and done in he cul u e in
ques ion, and since hey a e hemsel es a pa o ha cul u e, hey a e legi ima ed by he
simple ac ha hey do wha hey do.” Lyo a d’s (2019, p.23). The only way o in e up
his cycle is by s imuli om exogenous sou ces.
Di e en ypes o knowledge appeal o di e en na a i es (o , in some cases, o
no na a i e a all). This c ea es an ins ance whe e di e en aspec s o knowledge migh
coexis a he same ime. Na a i e knowledge is u ilized by Lyo a d o show ha his
knowledge is no necessa ily an “O he ” o ou (scien i ic-empi ic) knowledge; i is also
*ou * knowledge. The way knowledge legi ima es i sel , as well as he di e en c i e ia
o i s legi ima ion, causes a pe manen s a e o con lic , whe e knowledge becomes
incommensu able and clashes wi h o he knowledge’s claims o alidi y. This s ance is
no necessa ily an i-scien i ic; qui e he opposi e, i is ac ually a sel -c i ique o science.
The Lyo a dian pos mode n does no ejec he knowledge ha , o example, a physician
acqui es o e he human body and illness. Ins ead, he pos mode n ale s he physician
ha his o he knowledge is no absolu e, bu a con ingen and condi ion-dependen ype
o knowledge, suscep ible o be al e ed acco ding o he ad ance o science and ha i
should be e e -adap ing o cu en si ua ions o p ac ices. The physician does no know
i a ea men is gua an eed o wo k on a ce ain pa ien , no he o he can know o ce ain
ha a pa ien will eac posi i ely o a ea men . The pos mode n s ance is ecognizing
ha he “bes ” knowledge is he one which bes ul ills a speci ic legi ima ion c i e ion;
his does no make ha knowledge unc i icizable, unin ol ing o subjec o u u e change.
18
Lyo a d app oaches di e en ypes o knowledge as di e en occu ences
wo king unde speci ic condi ion. Al hough we migh be emp ed o asse he dissociable
no ion o knowledge(s), Lyo a d claims ha knowledge is a wide spec um in which
di e en discou ses eme ge, ins ead o sepa a e blocks ha c ea e an “o he ness”:
I is he e o e impossible o judge he exis ence o alidi y o na a i e knowledge
on he basis o scien i ic knowledge and ice e sa: he ele an c i e ia a e
di e en . All we can do is gaze in wonde men a he di e si y o discu si e
species, jus as we do a he di e si y o plan o animal species. (Lyo a d, 2019,
p.26)
To Lyo a d, “(…) language species, like li ing species, a e in e ela ed, and hei
ela ions a e a om ha monious.” (Lyo a d, 2019, p.27). The pos mode n s ance
exposes he ac ha knowledge is no longe mainly na a i e, hus c ea ing a sense o
“loss o meaning”. I we a i e a an ins ance whe e i is no possible o indica e a line o
ansi ion be ween ypes o knowledge (and his seems he case), hen no ype o
knowledge can claim uni e sal alidi y. I can, howe e , claim con ingen alidi y. The e
a e no epis emic p io i ies in he pos mode n since all ypes o knowledge ail o jus i y a
ce ain p io i iza ion owa ds o he ypes. The pos mode n, hen, “(…) is p o ided by he
model o a discon inuous, ac u ed, and sel -des abilizing epis emology, said o
cha ac e ize mode n ma hema ical and na u al science.” (Benhabid, 1984, p.120). Thus,
we a e able o conclude ha wha Lyo a d p oposes is no ha knowledge is inhe en ly
meaningless, bu ha knowledge, is, in ac , e e ywhe e and ha alidi y depends on he
se o c i e ia we u ilize, in o de o ga he , in e p e and dissemina e knowledge.
2.4 Capi alism as he las mode n me ana a i e
The mode n e a saw capi alism as he pinnacle o a hegemonic mas e na a i e.
I p esen ed i sel as an emancipa o y na a i e and a enewed “ ace” o he p e ious
na a i e o emancipa ion. The p oli e a ion o wel a e and, mo e p ecisely, he wel a e
s a e, p omised humani y a u u e whe e ma e ial need would no longe cons ic he
human desi e o eedom. To Boe e (1998, p.304) he economic mas e na a i e is a
synonym o he accumula ion o capi al wi h he aim o gaining (domina ing) ime
h ough money:
The ules o linkage in he economic gen e a e clea (and show he domina ion
o ime h ough money): when ph ase ‘x’ (add esso ‘a’ hands o e e e en ‘c’ o
19
add essee ‘b’), hen ph ase ‘y’ is p esupposed (‘b’ gi es e e en ‘d’ o ‘a’). The
linkage is hus no only expec ed, bu e en p esupposed om he ou se : ha
which is in ended is exchange. Ph ase ‘x’ makes o ‘b’ one who s ands in deb o
‘a’; ph ase ‘y’ cancels his deb . While he na a i e a emp s o acknowledge he
e en ( he deb ) and main ain i ( educ i ely) by encapsula ing i wi hin he la ge
whole, ph ase ‘y’ immedia ely a emp s o e ase, o undo, he e en (causing deb )
o ph ase ‘x’ in he hegemonic discou se.
Capi alism p o ides an o e -a ching na a i e h ough a sys emic ma ke si ua ion
o ade and exchange. E en s do no “p og ess” anymo e because hese e en s ( ime) a e
calcula ed a p io i, in an inpu -ou pu amewo k which adically debili a es he po en ial
o in e up i e “now-momen s”. The e is no “nex ” ph ase, no “o he ” linkage; he e en
is eplaced by a coe ci e logic o exchange. To Boe e, he con empo a y me ana a i e
o capi alism inds i sel a he c oss oad o ou gen es o discou se: an amalgama ion o
poli ical, echnological and scien i ic discou ses ha suppo a p edominan economic
discou se:
The la e (economic discou se) is uled by he inali y o idea o p o i ( he
accumula ion o ime); he poli ical discou se s i es o he common good; he
discou se o science is guided by he idea o pe ec knowledge; and he
echn(olog)ical discou se a emp s o each he highes deg ee o pe o mance and
e iciency. In capi alism, all ou o hese a e mu ually ela ed. (Boe e, 1998, pp.
304-305)
Con empo a y mixed economies encompass a clea conjunc ion o economic and
poli ical sphe es, wi h ac o s such as he S a e pe o ming a i al ole in he economic
discou se (as a banke , a edis ibu o , an employe , a se ice p o ide , e c.) On he o he
hand, he scien i ic and echnical sphe es p o ide a si ua ion whe e he na u e o
knowledge su e s changes; he echnical discou se aims a p o iding he necessa y p oo
o alida e ce ain ph ases, while he scien i ic discou se, usually in he o m o esea ch,
suppo s he echnical discou se by c ea ing new ways o make i mo e “e icien ”. These
wo discou ses in e play wi h he economic and poli ical discou ses in a eas o c ea e an
emancipa ion-by-e iciency na a i e. Capi alism, hen, aims o c ea e a na a i e ocused
on imp o emen s o “e iciency”, ei he h ough imp o emen s o he wel a e s a e (a
mo e e icien way o edis ibu ing money) o imp o emen s o he echnical aspec s o
a eas such as indus y, housing, educa ion, heal hca e, e c.
20
Mode n (neolibe al) capi alism ailed o keep i s p omises, which led o a c isis in
i s own legi imacy. The wel a e s a e ailed o adequa ely edis ibu e wel a e, as he e e -
g owing gap be ween he ich and he poo inc eases. The ma ginal imp o emen s o he
quali y o li e a e con ined o Wes e n coun ies, who p o i om he di ec exploi a ion
o he Sou h, o whom he bene i s o he capi alis me ana a i e ne e ully eached.
Global indus ializa ion p ocesses a e leading o an unbea able si ua ion o en i onmen al
c isis. Technical p og ess is no u ning ou o be a synonym o accessibili y o ha
“p og ess”. In he 1986 essay Rules and Pa adoxes, Lyo a d co ec ly iden i ies ha “(…)
capi alism, he libe al o neo-libe al discou se, seems o me o ha e li le c edibili y in
he con empo a y si ua ion: ha does no mean ha capi alism is inished, qui e he
con a y. Bu i does mean ha i no longe knows how o legi ima e i sel .” (Lyo a d,
1986, p.210). As wi h any o he me ana a i e, capi alism has i s own way o sol ing
di e ends, wi h speci ic ules, ope a o s, expec ed beha io s and ins i u ions; o he wise,
we would ha e ana chy. Ye , ana chy is p ecisely he pos mode n condi ion. Capi alism
is able o answe he ques ion “Why should we p oduce and exchange he way we do?”,
by saying ha “ o -p o i ” p oduc ion ela ions imply a clea boos o he emancipa ion
o he human being, by aising he e iciency h ough which we can sa is y ou ma e ial
needs. Howe e , capi alism ails o answe he ques ion “How should we p oduce and
exchange?”. The e is no a uni e sal answe o how many wo k-hou s a day o labo
should ha e, how wo ke s should pa icipa e in he capi aliza ion s age o he p oduc ion
p ocess o wha gua an ees should be en i led o he agen s wi hin p oduc ion cycles. The
di e en “-isms” o he las cen u y p o ided di e en discou ses o answe hese
ques ions. Di e en linkages we e p oposed, and all ailed o p o ide a de ini i e answe ,
leading o an inc easing de e io a ion o he g and na a i e o he 20 h cen u y –
capi alism –, which now seems o exis in a me ely pallia i e s a e.
The wiligh o he “-isms”, some bo n au onomously, o he s bo n as eac ions o
a g and na a i e, ha e shown us ha o alizing answe s a e inc easingly owned upon.
Capi alism, libe alism, communism o posi i ism a e no longe a sa e ha en o guide
p og ess, no do hey e ain he au ho i y which hese (and o he ) ideologies had in he
19 h and he 20 h cen u y. They a e no longe capable o linking ph ases beyond a local o
egional le el. Thei c isis o legi ima ion u ned o alizing and almos unques ionable
g and na a i es in o small na a i es, which e en s uggle o legi ima e hemsel es a
lowe le els. I was “P ecisely hei all ( ha ) has made mani es he adical plu ali y o
21
ou con ex , and inspi ed pos mode n c i ical consciousness o he gene al condi ion o
di e end.” (Boe e, 1998, p.304).
In he S el e Appendix, Lyo a d cla i ies how capi alism became “(…) one o he
names o mode ni y goes by”, a guing ha “(...) capi alism was able o b ing unde i s
con ol he in ini e desi e o know which p opels he sciences, and o submi i s ealiza ion
o capi alism's own c i e ion o echnici y: he pe o ma i i y ule ha demands he
endless op imiza ion o he expense/ e u n (inpu -ou pu ) ela ion.” (Lyo a d, 1986,
p.215). Capi alism, Lyo a d a gues, has anscended i s economic, poli ical and
sociological o m, becoming a “me aphysical” igu e which aims o p o ide an
unde lying me ana a i e o human ac ions. By p o iding a sys em o expec a ions and
(po en ial) u u e p ospe i y, capi alism posi ions i sel as an in ini e and la gely
inde e mined locus, whe e new ules a e c ea ed as a means o legi ima e i s own ailu e,
i.e., capi alism c ea es he necessa y discou ses in o de o ein en i sel and p e en
delegi ima ion:
Capi alism, howe e , is a igu e. (…) As a igu e, i s o ce de i es om he idea
o he in ini e. Tha idea may p esen i sel in people's expe ience as he desi e o
money, o powe , o he new. And we may ind ha e y ugly and dis u bing.
Bu hese desi es a e he an h opological ansla ion o some hing ha
on ologically is he ins an ia ion o he in ini e in he will. (Lyo a d, 1986, p.216)
Wha solidi ies capi alism as a me ana a i e is i s capaci y o go beyond a me e
ma e ial app oach o emancipa ion. When Lyo a d app oaches capi alism, he does no
mean he owne s and manage s o capi al, no he p ole a ia o he socioeconomic
classes. Lyo a d akes he anscenden al app oach, i.e., he analyses wha p ecep s suppo
he “ ules” ha p o ide he linkages wi hin he di e ends o capi alis socie ies.
Capi alism, in con as wi h mos o he “isms”, can sus ain i sel because i goes beyond
ma e ialism (which is he basis o mos o hodox Ma xis analyses, o example): he oad
o emancipa ion is one o accumula ion – o money, in as uc u e, echnical p og ess –
in sum, he pe ec ing o e iciency, wo king unde he ules o pe o ma i i y.
Unde he amewo k o (economic) hegemonic domina ion, Lyo a d’s c i iques
p o ide an al e na i e me hodology o he decons uc ion o he e ec s o mas e -
na a i es upon discou se, by suppo ing he pos mode n s ance. I he hegemony o “ he
Spi i ”, “ he a ional o wo king subjec ” and, la e , “ he c ea ion o weal h” canno boas
any easonable uni e sal claim o legi imacy (since hey a e all bu one o di e en

22
discou ses a ailable), he Lyo a dian pos mode n aises i s coun e -na a i e c i ical
s ance as a guideline o analysis and decision-making. The goal he e is o always be awa e
o he insidious dange s o domina ion. The economic mas e -na a i e, o example,
“(…) no only egula es he linkages, i an icipa es hem and e en o e s he semblance o
aking e en s se iously, while ac ually p oducing hem.” (Boe e, 1998, p.308). Lyo a d
p oposes a s ance in which he hinke , he pain e and he scien is emb ace he
he e ogenei y cha ac e is ic o he (pos )mode n wo ld, unmasking all alse claims o
uni e sali y. To “ ew i e mode ni y” is no o simply in es iga e he pas by analyzing he
whole o mode ni y again and pass a new, con ingen judgemen . I also does no include
he “co ec ion” o he “mis akes” o mode ni y, o i is no he aim o he pos mode n
s ance o “ ul ill” he p omises o he mode n epoch. I ha would be he case, hen “(…)
he his o y o he a e o mode ni y would hen be encapsula ed once again wi hin a
hegemonic na a i e, p edic ably a ou own decep ion.” (Boe e, 1998, p.309).
“Rew i ing”, Boe e con inues “boils down o a emembe ing o wha one ac ually should
no /canno o ge because i ne e was/can be w i en down: an al eady
sha e ed/sha e ing p esence o which only he in e up i e e en can be emembe ed,
which in i sel can ne e be called o mind.”. This “ ew i ing” o mode ni y mus be aced
as an end in i sel ; an ac ion wi hou any decisi e goal o he han unco e he speci ici ies
o knowledge. Only he pos mode n a i ude owa ds knowledge p esen s he oppo uni y
o iew he pas (and he p esen ) no as i is ep esen ed, bu on how i was p esen ed.
The aim is no o acqui e knowledge abou he pas , bu o unco e new ways in which
knowledge p esen s i sel .
23
3. The A chaeology o who we a e
I belie e ha one o he asks, one o he meanings o human exis ence— he
sou ce o human eedom—is ne e o accep any hing as de ini i e, un ouchable,
ob ious, o immobile. No aspec o eali y should be allowed o become a
de ini i e and inhuman law o us. We ha e o ise up agains all o ms o powe —
bu no jus powe in he na ow sense o he wo d, e e ing o he powe o a
go e nmen o o one social g oup o e ano he : hese a e only a ew pa icula
ins ances o powe . Powe is any hing ha ends o ende immobile and
un ouchable hose hings ha a e o e ed o us as eal, as ue, as good. (Foucaul ,
1980a, p.1)
The Foucauldian p ojec cen e s i sel a ound he con en ion ha p inciples,
concep s, ca ego ies, ac ions and ins i u ions, which migh appea as undamen al o
making sense o ou socie ies, a e no immune o being called in o ques ion, o being
sc u inized and decons uc ed. The non-accep ance o hese ounda ional blocks c ea es a
ealm o possibili ies aimed a de eloping al e na i e modes o hough , as well as
allowing a be e unde s anding o how powe and na a i es wo k, especially aking in o
conside a ion how powe a ec s he way ce ain p inciples and ins i u ions a e accep ed
in a gi en socie y. By no accep ing wha is p esen ed o us as necessa y, na u al o , in
o he wo ds, as no mal, i.e., by acing back he way in which a no m became a no m, we
a e able o c ea e a c i ical space whe e ue epis emic eedom can o m. We will
app oach his ques ion, in de ail, la e .
The o e -a ching heme o he Foucauldian p ojec , e en in i s ea lie s ages,
e ol es a ound he ques ion o who we a e o , mo e p ecisely, o who we a e now.
Foucaul app oaches he mode n human sciences (mainly social, biological and
psychological ones) in o de o ask wha migh be con ingen in ou ques o knowledge.
E e since he Enligh enmen and, especially, since posi i ism became he go- o
ounda ion o (scien i ic) knowledge, “science” became a synonym o unco e ing some
unde lying uni e sal u h, jus wai ing o be disco e ed. Howe e , o Foucaul , hese so-
called “uni e sal u hs” a e always mainly exp essions o some poli ical, cul u al, e hical
o economic commi men o a scien is li ing in a speci ic ime and place, acco ding o
con ingen ules o he knowledge he o she acqui es. I is he goal o c i ical philosophy
o unde mine uni e sal claims o knowledge by iden i ying and p o ing ha knowledge
is acqui ed as a me e ou come o con ingen his o ical o ces and no as a scien i ic
24
unco e ing o unde lying u hs. Foucaul ’s majo wo ks p esen such a c i ique, usually
aimed a he use o Reason h oughou His o y.
3.1 The econs uc ion o Madness
Foucaul i s majo wo k (and he one which b oke wi h ea lie wo ks, s a ing
he a chaeological phase o his p ojec ) was Madness and Ci iliza ion (1961). In his
wo k, Foucaul add esses he eme gence o he mode n concep o men al illness and how
i changed h oughou he cen u ies. He e, Foucaul ejec s phenomenology and shi s he
ocus om simply unpacking and analyzing a gi en expe ience (as he hi he o did) o a
ull-on his o ical in es iga ion in o he di e en s uc u es e ol ing a ound he ea men
o men al illnesses. By asking he ques ion “Wha a e he e e -changing his o ical
amewo ks wi hin a gi en phenomenon?”, he in es iga ion goes om wha a ce ain
indi idual eels o goes h ough o, ins ead, he his o ical condi ions in which a gi en
indi idual li es. I his o ical amewo ks a e e e -changing, hen, in he s udy o
madness, we canno assume he concep o “madness” as an objec i e gi en. As Todd
May (2006, p.26) in his ew i ing o he Foucauldian p ojec , exposes:
I is no ha he e is his disease o his s uc u e o his way o being called
madness ha has been expe ienced di e en ly in di e en his o ical pe iods. Why
should we assume ha benea h he amewo ks wi hin which madness is ea ed,
he e is some cons an ha in o ms hem all? This would assume oo much.
Al e na i ely, we need no assume he opposi e, ha he e is no hing ha any o
hese amewo ks is looking a , ha hey a e all p eoccupied wi h an illusion.
Ra he , we should make no assump ions abou he objec o s udy and ea men
called "madness". We should look a he his o ical amewo ks o wha hey a e,
and, mo e impo an , o wha hey e eal o us abou ou sel es, a he han o
wha hey may o may no e eal abou he objec o hei in es iga ion.
To be able o analyze a phenomenon in i s awes o m, Foucaul op s o e u n o
an ini ial, mo e ocal poin om whe e o s a he analysis o he phenomenon, meaning
“We mus y o e u n, in his o y, o ha ze o poin in he cou se o madness a which
madness is an undi e en ia ed expe ience, a no ye di ided expe ience o di ision i sel .”
(Foucaul , 2013, p.ix). In he Middle Ages, madness eme ges in a speci ic his o ical
con ex , as an expe ience ha is qui e dis inc om Reason. Madness, a ha ime, did no
ha e he cha ac e ha we now asc ibe o i , ha o madness as he “O he ” o Reason. A
he end o he Middle Ages, he igu e o he “mad” begins o become commonplace in
25
Eu opean socie ies, eplacing he igu e o he medie al lepe : “As lep osy anished, in
pa because o seg ega ion, a oid was c ea ed and he mo al alues a ached o he
lepe had o ind ano he scapegoa . Men al illness and un eason a ac ed ha s igma o
hemsel es.” (Foucaul , 2013, p. i). The lepe was once he a ge o i uals and p ac ices
o exclusion, leading a li e a away om he ci y cen e s, con ined o laza houses, whe e
hey would be kep , as a way o p o ec ing he es o he popula ion. Lep osy, being a
slow-sp eading, slow-ac ing disease, was usually del wi h by a bina y exclusion o he
sick; a model based on ep ession and he exclusion o he O he . Howe e , as lep osy
dwindled, he same i uals and p ac ices s a ed o be applied o he “mad”, whose numbe
also included c iminals and ag an s:
Lep osy disappea ed, he lepe anished, o almos , om memo y; hese
s uc u es emained. O en, in hese same places, he o mulas o exclusion would
be epea ed, s angely simila wo o h ee cen u ies la e . Poo agabonds,
c iminals, and "de anged minds" would ake he pa played by he lepe , and we
shall see wha sal a ion was expec ed om his exclusion, o hem and o hose
who excluded hem as well. Wi h an al oge he new meaning and in a e y
di e en cul u e, he o ms would emain - essen ially ha majo o m o a
igo ous di ision which is social exclusion bu spi i ual ein eg a ion. (Foucaul ,
2013, p.7).
The au a o d ead exhaled by he lepe was now played by he mad. Bu why we e
he mad seen as a h ea ? In he la e Medie al/Ea ly Renaissance pe iod, madness was
usually associa ed wi h animali y, da kness, obscu an ism, and dea h. Madness was he
indeciphe able, he hidden, he unin elligible. May (2006, p.27) sugges s, “I (madness)
is he unde side o exis ence ha can nei he be escaped no unde s ood. (…) an objec
o bo h ascina ion and epulsion”. This dualism was ep esen ed by he igu e o he
Ship o Fools (a ship en us ed wi h he ask o anspo ing he mad, wi h he aim o
“cu ing” hem a sea), a me apho ical igu e whose his o ical exis ence is dispu ed, bu
ha , none heless, encapsula es he ela ion be ween socie y and i s madmen. On he one
hand, he Ships o Fools a e pain ed, discussed and w i en abou ; in sum, objec s o
ascina ion. On he o he hand, hey ha e a unc ional objec i e: hey a e o be emo ed
om sigh and expel “undesi ables” om a pa icula place.
The Renaissance b ough a esigni ica ion o wha i means o be mad. Madness
is no longe a symbol o da kness and dea h. A his o ical b eak occu s, as madness
32
in s one, no a e no subjec o be al e ed. One can sugges di e en ules o di e en
ways o doing some hing; howe e , he epis emic s uc u e o ha ime usually
delegi imizes he pu po ed al e na i e. I some hing deemed unaccep able is said in a
pa icula ins ance o ha same sugges ion/ph ase is said by someone no ecognized as
a legi ima e agen , hen i will almos ce ainly no be ecognized as a legi ima e pa o
discou se. These ules a e no iden i ied as limi a ions by he ones engaging in a gi en
p ac ice. The mos pe e se cha ac e is ic o hese ules, howe e , is he ac hey se he
bounda ies and cha ac e on how deba e and discussion abou a gi en p ac ice can
happen, due o he ac ha hey a e unconscious s uc u es.
Du ing his a chaeological phase, mo e speci ically, in The O de o Things,
Foucaul (1993, pp.xi-xii) would amously ca ego ize hese s uc u es “ (…) as a posi i e
unconscious o knowledge: a le el ha eludes he consciousness o he scien is and ye
is pa o scien i ic discou se, ins ead o dispu ing i s alidi y and seeking o diminish i s
scien i ic na u e.”. These s uc u es a e no dic a ed by an ou side o ce, no imposed on
he p ac ice i sel ; hey a e a amewo k in which he pa icipan s o ha p ac ice
ecognize each o he as pa icipan s wi h a gi en ole ( he pa ien and he psychia is , o
example), ha con ibu e o he p ac ice in a pa icula o m, om a pa icula placemen .
To Foucaul (2002, pp.146-147), hese s uc u es o m “ (…) he a chi e (which) de ines
a pa icula le el: ha o a p ac ice ha causes a mul iplici y o s a emen s o eme ge as
so many egula e en s, as so many hings o be deal wi h and manipula ed.” meaning
ha he pu pose o his a chaeological wo k is “(…) o desc ibe discou ses as p ac ices
speci ied in he elemen o he a chi e.”. Con as ing wi h mo e mains eam iews o
his o y as p og essi e and con inuous, a chaeological his o iza ion po ai s his o y as a
concep ha always en ails pa icula s uc u es which ca e ou wha can be legi ima ely
said (i.e., aken as “knowledge”), as well as he legi imacy o he ones who p oduce
knowledge. These s uc u es a e subjec o change, bu , when hey do change, his does
no necessa ily happen because o imp o emen s in knowledge o he e o s o indi idual
agen s (al hough hey can, ob iously, impac he way in which hey change). How exac ly
hese s uc u es change is beyond he scope o his disse a ion. Wha we mus keep in
mind is, p ecisely because knowledge is s uc u ed in a speci ic way a a speci ic ime,
hen e e y ime ha he e is a undamen al al e a ion in hose s uc u es, hen, in a iably,
ou knowledge also changes, cons i u ing an his o ical b eak.

33
4. The Genealogy o who we a e
Wha is genealogy? The mos common use o he e m is linked o i s applica ion
in acing amily lineages. To ace one’s amilia genealogy is o ace his o he s
ances o s, o ace back kinship and amily lines, o edisco e long- o go en cha ac e s
and link hem o he p esen . Foucaul ’s genealogical p ojec builds on his p inciple. Jus
like amily genealogies, his in es iga ions aim a acing how one became who one is
oday. The e is no p i ileged s a ing poin and he u he one goes back in acing one’s
his o y, he mo e dispe se ha his o y becomes. Au ho s such as Tamboukou (2013, p.2)
p o ide a clea connec ion be ween he Foucaldian genealogy and he cons uc ion and
main enance o he na a i e:
Genealogy as a Nie zschean concep edeployed in Foucaul ’s wo k is, pu e y
simply, he a o a chi al esea ch, he pa ience o wo k me iculously wi h g ey
dus y documen s, looking o insigni ican de ails, b inging in o ligh un hough -
o con ou s o a ious ways, discou ses and p ac ices ha human beings ha e used
o make sense o hemsel es and he wo ld. Ins ead o se ing i sel he ask o
eaching he ul ima e and hidden u h, genealogy o e s a chaeological jou neys
wi h no inal des ina ions. Wo king in pa allel wi h a chaeology, i keeps
unco e ing laye s o dis o ions/cons uc ions and is di ec ed o he u u e a he
han o he pas . (Tamboukou, 2013, p.2)
E en du ing his la e a chaeological phase, Foucaul hin ed a wha his
philosophical p ojec would become. In he A chaeology o Knowledge, Foucaul (2002,
p.230) w o e ha he aimed o show “(…) how se ies o discou se a e o med, h ough, in
spi e o , o wi h he aid o hese sys ems o cons ain : wha we e he speci ic no ms o
each, and wha we e hei condi ions o appea ance, g ow h and a ia ion.”. The
genealogical shi in his wo ks b ough abou ou majo cha ac e is ics. Fi s ly, Foucaul
aimed a acing he e olu ion o p ac ices and discou ses. Secondly, he collec i e
ques ion o who we a e cemen s i sel e en mo e as a collec i e ma e , building on wha
was al eady a sub-in ended pe spec i e in his a chaeological phase. Thi dly, he di e se
and non-mu ually exclusi e cha ac e o p ac ices becomes he ocal poin o his p ojec .
I we a e in ol ed in mul iple p ac ices, hen no single p ac ice can be a decisi e answe
o he ques ion o who we a e, as i is no concei able ha any gi en p ac ice gains a
deg ee o p i ilege owa ds o he . Fou hly, and pe haps mo e impo an ly, genealogies
a e mainly conce ned wi h he poli ics o u h. Alongside he p ac ices hemsel es,
34
Foucaul is also in e es ed in he bond be ween he poli ics and epis emology o hose
p ac ices.
To Foucaul , genealogy has he aim o analyzing he “(…) o ce ela ions in
ega d o pa icula ins i u ions o p ac ices.” (May, 2006, p.64). These o ces can be,
in Nie zschean e ms (an au ho who inspi ed Foucaul ), ei he ac i e o eac i e. Ac i e
o ces can be ei he des uc i e o p oduc i e; howe e , e en i hey a e des uc i e, i is
only as a byp oduc o hei p oduc i i y. They seek o exp ess hemsel es and be isible,
o elabo a e and c ea e a gi en si ua ion o p ac ice. Reac i e o ces, on he o he hand,
do no seek o exp ess hemsel es, bu only o eac o ac i e ones. They ep ess and
unde mine he exp essi e na u e o ac i e o ces. The ques ion Foucaul seeks o answe
is how we can know, in a gi en p ac ice o ins i u ion, wha ype o o ce is cu en ly
domina ing? This is he ole o genealogy.
Genealogy aces he his o y o a p ac ice o ins i u ion p ecisely by asking wha
a e he o ces ha ha e aken hold o i . His o y, o Foucaul , is a s uggle o dominance
be ween ac i e and eac i e o ces, o one discou se o e he o he . In o de o do his,
genealogy does no need o sea ch o an o igin o a gi en p ac ice. Mos o he imes,
his is an impossible ask. E en i we we e able o iden i y he spa k ha enabled a gi en
p ac ice o discou se, his would no gi e us any pa icula ly p i ileged insigh o e how
ha p ac ice o discou se wo ks o on how hey a e legi ima ed and sus ained. The eason
o his is he ejec ion o essen ialism in Foucaul ’s wo ks. In he analysis o a gi en
p ac ice o discou se, wha is uly ele an o i s unde s anding is no some supposed
immanen ea u es o p ac ice o discou se, bu i s his o ical legacy. To unde s and hem,
one mus ace he oles hey played, hei in e sec ions, hei con ingen meaning and he
consequences o hei exis ence.
A key componen o Foucaul ’s genealogy is a mo e no ma i e-laden analysis o
his o y, albei a sub le one. While in his a chaeological w i ings one could ha dly ind
mo e han a desc ip ion o s uc u es, no ms and legi ima ing ac o s o a gi en p ac ice,
in genealogy we can easily ind a mo e c i ical p ojec , such as Foucaul ’s analysis o he
e olu ion o he penal sys em. I is no ha he genealogical p ojec is c i ical pe se, bu
ha i is amed in a c i ical me hodology, dis inguishing wha should be ole able in a
gi en ins ance om wha should no . The ac ha he objec s o his analysis a e pe sons
in posi ions o weakness (such as he mad, p isone s, ou cas s and non-no ma i e
sexuali y) p oo s he unde laying exis ence o an emancipa o y p ojec which would
cha ac e ize his wo ks un il his un imely dea h. Foucaul iden i ied a ce ain con o mism
35
o wha people we e li ing, iden i ying hem as ic ims “(…) o his o ically g ounded
eali ies, such as he eme gence o capi alism and he e olu ion o chu ch doc ine.”
(May, 2006, p.65).
The e i no a single s o y o who we a e ha Foucaul wan s o ell. The genealogy
o who we a e does no seek o co e he en i e y o ou his o ical legacy. In a dis inc
way om a chaeology, genealogies ies o ace aspec s o who we ha e become. In
Foucaul ’s (1980b, p.79) own wo ds:
S ill I could claim ha a e all, hese we e only ails o be ollowed, i ma e ed
li le whe e hey led; indeed i was impo an ha hey did no ha e a
p ede e mined s a ing poin and des ina ion. They we e me ely lines laid down
o you o pu sue o o di e elsewhe e o me o ex end upon o edesign as he
case migh be. They a e in he inal analysis, jus agmen s and i is up o you o
me o see wha we can make o hem.
I , indeed, ou his o y is mainly a ma e o unw apping empo a y uni ies om a
ple ho a o di e en and complex o igins, hen genealogy seems o sugges ha who we
a e is no a ma e o any pa icula uni y ha made us who we a e, bu a a ie y o
in e sec ing, o e lapping and, some imes, e en con lic ing uni ies o p ac ices sus ained
by di e en discou ses.
4.1 The econs uc ion o he Penal sys em
Foucaul ’s majo genealogical wo k and, pe haps, his magnum opus, is Discipline
and Punish (1974). We can ind ce ain simila i ies be ween his wo k and his book on
madness. On bo h, Foucaul aims o c ea e an in e sion a ecei ed iew. In he His o y o
Madness, his in e sion occu s du ing he analysis o Tuke and Pinel’s wo k, who a e
widely concei ed as he i s libe a o s o he mad, unchaining hem and eleasing om
hei iolen , physical cons ain s. To Foucaul , howe e , wha happened was p ecisely
he opposi e; a echaining o he mad h ough mo al bonds, which we e e en mo e
e ec i e a es ic ing he men ally ill han hei physical coun e pa s. We should no ,
howe e , succumb o he emp a ion o concluding ha Foucaul a gues ha p ac ices
we e “be e ” in ea lie pe iods and jus became mo e pe e se o e ime. This is no wha
he Foucauldian p ojec app oaches, as his would be jus ano he way o e elling he pas
h ough mode n lens ins ead o unde s anding and econs uc ing he pas con ingen ly.
The in e sion pe o med is no simply one ha says some hing is be e o wo se han i
36
was. This is no o say ha o no emb ace a p og essi e iew o his o y is o adop a
eg essi e one; he a gumen he e is ha p og essi e iews o his o y a e usually
accompanied wi h a dange ous occul a ion o his o y. I do no seek o e e se he no ion
o his o ical p ojec , bu o show ha his no ion is much mo e complex han mos au ho s
seem o sugges .
The his o y o penal p og ess is one which s a s wi h engeance and ends wi h
ehabili a ion. In he ea ly s ages o punishmen (Foucaul ocuses on he La e Middle
Ages and Ea ly Mode n e as he e), punishmen akes he o m o e ibu ion. The o ende
(i.e., he c iminal) is ea ed as someone benea h human conce n, a pa iah o socie y who
ejec s es ablished no ms. In o de o epay his o he deb o socie y, he c iminal mus
be subjec ed o wha e e o m o punishmen ha he social body deems app op ia e. The
usual o ms o punishmen included o u e, public humilia ion, and psychological abuse.
The sole objec i e o hese p ac ices is o enac engeance upon he de ian . Such is he
case o an a emp ed egicide in he eigh een h cen u y named Damiens, an example om
which Foucaul exempli ies wha we e he penal p ac ices a he ime, accoun ing he
se e al ins ances o o u e and lynching ha Damiens was subjec ed o. This accoun is
hen ollowed by a p ison schedule om he nine een h cen u y ha o e s a glimpse o
he mundane, edious and s ic ou ine o a p isone . The ecei ed iew o his o y he e is
ha he exe cise o engeance in he i s case is ba ba ic, while he second case po ai s
a leas an a emp a ehabili a ion, showing an imp o emen in he penal sys em. Bu
his is an o e -simpli ied iew o his o y, and one which Foucaul aims o decons uc .
Foucaul does no ake any majo issues wi h he ea ly pa o he ecei ed
his o ical iew. The physical body was subjec ed o pain up un il he e o ms o he
nine een h cen u y. In ac , o u e occu s a e wo di e en s ages o he c iminal
p ocedu e, he i s one sec e ly and he second one openly public. In e oga ion and
con essions we e c ucial o he adminis a ion o jus ice. In o de o ob ain admissions o
guil , pain was in lic ed o he suspec ’s body. Du ing he adminis a ion o jus ice
(usually ollowing a o ce ul con ession), pain and o u e became a public a ai :
In F ance he p ocedu e is called “supplice”, which ansla es in o English as
o u e. Howe e , we should no hink o “supplice” as a simple ba ba i y
pe o med upon he body o he c iminal. “Supplice” is no chao ic o a bi a y. I
is a measu ed and calcula ed esponse o c iminali y, one ha has h ee elemen s:
he in lic ion o a measu ed amoun o pain; he egula ion o ha pain; and he
i ualis ic cha ac e o he applica ion o echniques p oducing pain. “Supplice” is
37
a igh ly cho eog aphed public i ual o agony, and i inds i s sea in he na u e o
c iminali y i sel . (May, 2006, p.70)
Wha was he necessi y o such a i ualiza ion e ol ing a ound he c iminal ac ?
C iminali y was (and s ill is) o en seen as a majo o ence agains he social body. I one
commi s a c ime, hen one does no espec he ules o socie y and mus be pu ged o
co ec ed. In ea lie pe iods, he social body was ep esen ed by he mona ch. The S a e
and he mona ch, especially du ing he Absolu is e a, we e o en synonyms. I a c iminal
commi ed a c ime, hen he o she was commi ing a c ime agains he king, who had his
au ho i y ques ioned and legi imacy den ed. The au ho i y igu e had o asse i s powe
and co ec he imbalance o powe ; i he c iminal is no isibly punished o his o he
o enses, hen he au ho i y igu e migh be pe cei ed as ulne able and powe less. The
elabo a e i ual o public o u e maximizes pain and asse s he powe and dominance o
he au ho i y igu e in a way ha is bo h belie able and un elen ing, bo h o he o ende
and he es o socie y. To Foucaul (1994, p.47), “The public execu ion is o be
unde s ood no only as a judicial, bu also as a poli ical i ual. I belongs, e en in mino
cases, o he ce emonies by which powe is mani es ed.”. When he i ual is comple ed
and powe is ees ablished, he people a e, on he one hand, es o ed o he secu i y ha
he igu e o au ho i y (i.e., he king) can o e hem and, on he o he hand, wa ned
agains commi ing ano he a ack on he social body:
(…) he public execu ion (was) mo e han an ac o jus ice; i was a mani es a ion
o o ce o a he , i was jus ice as he physical, ma e ial and awesome o ce o
he so e eign deployed he e. The ce emony o he public o u e and execu ion
displayed o all o see he powe ela ion ha ga e his o ce o he law. (Foucaul
1994, p.50)
The logic behind he appa a us o o u e is s aigh o wa d: e en i his iolence
is exc ucia ing o he c iminal, i has a pu pose, as i is he mechanism h ough which he
so e eign exp esses himsel (wi h an ac i e o ce) and asse s i s con ol o e he
populace, main aining he s a us quo. The legi imizing ac o o his s a us quo is mainly
ea o ep isal and, as long as he powe o he mona ch emained unchallenged, hen
iolen p ac ices would con inue. None heless, p ecisely because i was a i ual, public
punishmen had i s own se o ules, limi s and ways o ac ing. Failing o con ol one’s
own powe i o succumb o being domina ed by ha same powe , showing ea and
weakness by pa o he mona ch. E en in ul a- iolen p ac ices, powe was no unlimi ed

38
no was i enac ed wi hou consequence. The powe o he mona ch was equen ly
ques ioned, shaking he o e -a ching na a i e o he king as an almos omnipo en igu e.
The social body ( he people) would equen ly empa hize wi h he subjec o o u e o
execu ion, o en when he iolence exe cised seemed excessi e, illegi ima e o ce ain
ules we e no espec ed. This would be especially ue i he c ime commi was a c ime
agains p ope y, as a esponse o a condi ion o po e y by he c iminal. The es o
socie y would equen ly ind eason in hese despe a e ac s, as hey would usually ind
hemsel es unde a sys em wi h la ge economic dispa i ies.
By his poin , i was clea ha iolence was ailing o legi imize i sel as a o m
o conduc owa ds c iminali y. No only e o ms we e s a ing o ake place in o de o
appease he populace and c ea e a na a i e o legi ima ely wielded powe , bu also he
co e aspec s o c iminali y we e changing as well:
In ac , he shi om a c iminali y o blood o a c iminali y o aud o ms pa o
a whole complex mechanism, emb acing he de elopmen o p oduc ion, he
inc ease o weal h, a highe ju idical and mo al alue placed on p ope y ela ions,
s ic e me hods o su eillance. a igh e pa i ioning o he popula ion, mo e
e icien echniques o loca ing and ob aining in o ma ion: he shi in illegal
p ac ices is co ela i e wi h an ex ension and a e inemen o puni i e p ac ices.
(Foucaul , 1994, p.77)
Up o he end o he nine een h cen u y, punishmen , al hough g uesome and
iolen , was spo adic; he consequences o being caugh commi ing a c ime we e
d ead ul. Howe e , punishmen o a c ime was a om a common occu ence, as mos
c imes we e ne e judged, no he culp i s ound. When he ins i u ion o p ope y igh s
became i mly es ablished, he e was an immedia e need o a mo e uni e sal, holis ic
o m o punishmen . I p ope y had o be p o ec ed (and, wi h he ise o he bou geoisie,
p ope y was accessible o a la ge po ion o he popula ion), hen p o ec ion om
c iminali y mus be a p io i y o he S a e. Acco ding o Foucaul , i was mainly his shi
ha p opelled he e o me s o change he penal sys em:
The ue objec i e o he e o m mo emen , e en in i s mos gene al o mula ions,
was no so much o es ablish a new igh o punish based on mo e equi able
p inciples, as o se up a new 'economy' o he powe o punish, o assu e i s be e
dis ibu ion, so ha i should be nei he oo concen a ed a ce ain p i ileged
poin s, no oo di ided be ween opposing au ho i ies; so ha i should be
dis ibu ed in homogeneous ci cui s capable o ope a ing e e ywhe e, in a
con inuous way, down o he ines g ain o he social body.· The e o m o
39
c iminal law mus be ead as a s a egy o he eal managemen o he powe o
punish, acco ding o modali ies ha ende i mo e egula , mo e e ec i e, mo e
cons an and mo e de ailed in i s e ec s; in sho , which inc ease i s e ec s while
diminishing i s economic cos ( ha is o say, by dissocia ing i om he sys em o
p ope y, o buying and selling, o co up ion in ob aining no only o ices, bu he
decisions hemsel es) and i s poli ical cos (by dissocia ing i om he
a bi a iness o mona chical powe ). The new ju idical heo y o penali y
co esponds in ac o a new 'poli ical economy' o he powe o punish. This
explains why he ' e o m' did no ha e a single o igin. (Foucaul , 1994, pp.80-81)
The e o ms had o answe o wo majo ques ions: one, how can we cons uc a
penal s uc u e ha will p o ec agains all c imes agains p ope y; and wo, how can his
s uc u e be always espec ed and be unc ional a all imes? The e o me s answe ed his
by changing he discou se om engeance o de e ence. In u ili a ian e ms, i he
po en ial loss o be incu ed ou weighs he gain o p ac icing a c ime (and i one eels like
i will almos always lead o hese losses ac ually occu ing), hen one is much less likely
o commi ha c ime: “To ind he sui able punishmen o a c ime is o ind he
disad an age whose idea is such ha i obs o e e he idea o a c ime o any a
ac ion.” (Foucaul , 1994, p.104). The i ual o punishmen becomes less public,
cen e ed a ound he de e ence o c ime and no o he punishmen o he body. As i is
much mo e sub le and equi es less spec acle, he punishmen ecei es less ou c y on pa
o he populace, imp o ing public o de .
To he e o me s, he e was a single, uni a y answe o he p oblems o mode n
c iminali y: imp isonmen , in he o m o he ca ce al sys em. The e is a deg ee o
con inui y be ween ea lie and la e o ms o punishmen : hey a e bo h dealing wi h
c iminali y and bo h use echniques upon he body. Bu he simila i ies end he e. While
physical punishmen o he body was seen as e alia ion, he la e punishmen s o e he
body we e concei ed as disciplina y con ol o e he body. Acco ding o May (2006,
p.73):
Discipline, as Foucaul uses he e m, is mo e speci ic han simply he con ol o
he beha io o o he s. I may be de ined as he p ojec o he body's op imiza ion,
o u ning he body in o a well- egula ed machine by means o b eaking down i s
mo emen s in o hei smalles elemen s and hen building hem back in o a
maximally e icien whole. This p ojec does no simply conce n indi iduals,
howe e . I also conce ns hei ela ions. Discipline mus ensu e ha space is
p ope ly pa i ioned so ha indi iduals can ela e o one ano he in maximally
e icien ways. I mus ensu e he p ope ime coo dina ion among ac i i ies as
40
well as wi hin hem. I is a p ocess ha is applied bo h o bodies and o he
in e ac ion be ween hem.
In o de o be able o discipline indi iduals, one needs o ind a con ollable,
encased en i onmen in which mo emen s and ac ions a e igh ly con olled by he
disciplina y body. This en i onmen would ake he o m o he p ison. Fo Foucaul , he
necessi y o disciplina y ins i u ions is undamen al o he main enance o coe ci e
s uc u es. As he explains, “(…) discipline 'makes' indi iduals; i is he speci ic echnique
o a powe ha ega ds indi iduals bo h as objec s and as ins umen s o i s exe cise”
(Foucaul , 1994, p.170). Discipline agg ega es a se ies o echniques by which he body
and he mind can be con olled. I wo ks by ea anging he indi idual's ac ions, belie s
and place in socie y, using subliminal coe cion. This is achie ed by de ices such as
ime ables, con inemen o speci ic places and adhe ence o ce ain ules, es ablishing an
au ho i a i e and disciplina y powe , which “(…) is exe cised h ough i s in isibili y; a
he same ime i imposes on hose whom i subjec s a p inciple o compulso y isibili y.”
(Foucaul , 1994, p.187). Th ough discipline, indi iduals a e shaped ou o a mass. This
disciplina y powe usually ope a es unde h ee main elemen s: hie a chical obse a ion,
examina ion and no maliza ion o judgmen .
Hie a chical obse a ion en ails a ela ion be ween he obse e s and he
obse ed. The obse e moni o s he obse ed om a an age poin so ha he obse e
can see bu canno be seen, and he obse ed knows he o she is being seen bu does no
see he obse e . This ela ion can be demons a ed, o example, in he dynamic be ween
he men ally ill and he psychia is o he p isone and he p ison gua d. The poin o his
dynamic is o allow he obse e o see wha he obse ed is doing, no doing and how
well o poo ly hey a e (no ) doing i . As o he obse ed, since hey a e unde cons an
supe ision (o a leas hey hink hey a e), hey will always ac in a way ha
acknowledges he cons an su eillance, limi ing he p obabili y o de iance om
es ablished no ms, in an e o o no malize judgmen . We will e u n o he ole o he
no m and he need o no maliza ion la e .
The second elemen o discipline is examina ion. The sole goal o examina ion is
o ein o ce he eedback loop o discipline. Examina ion depends on he exis ence o a
no m (a desi ed s anda d), o which we a e being compa ed and should s i e o . I
p o ides he necessa y in o ma ion ha allows a gi en obse e o iden i y he deg ee o
which e iciency (i.e., how well he obse ed ollow ules and no ms) has been
41
in e nalized, how much i became a pa o hem and how can p ac ices be co ec ed o
ully ul ill hei designed objec i e.
Foucaul u ilized he analogy o he Je emy Ben ham’s “Panop icon” p ison as a
synopsis o he elemen s o powe . Ben ham's “Panop icon” consis s o a p ison wi h a
wa ch owe a i s cen e , combined wi h a ound sys em o sepa a ed cells ci cling he
owe . The cells a e buil so ha p isone s canno communica e wi h one ano he and hey
ne e know when hey a e being wa ched. This sys em, o Ben ham, allowed he
unc ioning o a highly e icien p ison, in which only one gua d could supe ise many
p isone s. In ac , he same e ec is possible e en wi hou gua ds since he p isone s ac
on hei own as i hey a e being cons an ly wa ched. Cons an obse a ion ac s as a
con ol mechanism; a consciousness o cons an su eillance is hen in e nalized by he
p isone s. Essen ially, he p isone s gua d hemsel es, wi hou he need o any ac i e
su eillance, ac ing as hough hey a e, in ac , being wa ched.
Ou mode n socie y s ill wo ks on a simila model. Fo example, when someone
pa ks his o he ca in a zone whe e paymen is manda o y, he o she usually goes o he
pa king me e and pay o he pa king. This is done almos na u ally and in ui i ely, e en
hough nobody is o cing him o he o do so, and, ealis ically, he chances o ge ing
ined a e somewha slim. This ac ion is s ill done anyway, ou o an in e nalized ea o
being punished. A no maliza ion o so s, s emming om he h ea o discipline, is bound
o happen unde a socie y based on hese p inciples. As Foucaul (1994, p.187) explains
“(…) in his space o domina ion, disciplina y powe mani es s i s po ency, essen ially by
a anging objec s”. Sui able beha io is achie ed no h ough o al su eillance, bu by
panop ic discipline and by inducing he popula ion o con o m o no ms by he
in e naliza ion o his se o ules. S uc u es, main ained h ough disciplina y powe ,
become an unconscious p ison o he mind.
To Foucaul , “panop icism” is he condi ion o ou socie y, pe pe ua ed and
legi imized by disciplina y p ac ices in ac o ies, schools, p isons, and o he ins i u ions.
These p ac ices c ea e a e y s ong incen i e o con o ma ion, hus main aining and
legi ima ing he s uc u es ha c ea e he no ms o ollow in he i s place, ou o an
in e nalized ea o nega i e ep isals. Mos mode n ins i u ions beha e his way. When
a child i s en e s p ima y school, a s ic code o conduc is es ablished: he e a e
schedules o ollow, manda o y a endance and no ma i e ypes o beha io o eplica e.
All hese aspec s a e ca e ully supe ised and examined by he “local au ho i y” – ha is,
he eache - who quali ies s uden s on how well hey adhe e o es ablished no ms, as well
48
his case, he mad) in o wha hey will become. These in e en ions upon he subjec
c ea e he iden i y o who hey a e and i is on he basis o ha iden i y ha he subjec is
no malized: “No maliza ion is no some hing hey impose, bu ins ead some hing in which
hey pa icipa e.” (May, 2006, p.83). The ela ion be ween he subjec and he
no malizing en i y can be a ela ion ha is, in i sel , one o discipline and no an
exogenous imposi ion.
Knowledge is no ex e io o powe . Powe is in e wined wi h p ac ices in
complex ways. To ecognize ha powe has a ole in he dissemina ion o p ac ices is o
ecognize ha , by unde s anding how powe ope a es wi hin hese p ac ices, we lay he
ounda ions o a s udy o how powe a ises wi hin hese p ac ices and how i expands.
This is a me hodology ha con as s sha ply wi h simple gene aliza ions abou e e y hing
being a simple ma e o powe and i s exe ion.
Powe , in a Foucaldian sense, i no he exp ession o an o e -a ching heme, a
consequence o economic eali ies o a possession o he S a e. Powe lies in e e y hing
and exp esses i sel cons an ly in ou daily li es. Powe exis s in he p ac ices hemsel es,
being i how a eache educa es a s uden o on how a jou nalis deon ological code
unc ions. We should always emind ou sel es ha , despi e e e y hing ha ing some
deg ee o powe in i , no e e y hing is powe . Tha is Foucaul ’s con ibu ion: o y and
dis inguish how and whe e powe is a ele an ac o in ou daily li es.
When we say ha powe is non-subjec i e and in en ional, we a e no e e ing o
a inal objec i e o powe which guides i s usage. Foucaul (1978, p.93) sugges s ha
“(…) he e is no powe ha is exe cised wi hou a se ies o aims and objec i es. Bu his
does no mean ha i esul s om he choice o decision o an indi idual subjec ;” Powe
ela ions do no seek o achie e any hing hemsel es; ne e heless, hey a e o ien ed
owa ds ce ain di ec ions, which lead o some p ac ices being p e e ed o e o he s.
Disciplina y powe , o example, equi es a se o powe ela ions which a e o ien ed. A
ple ho a o di e en p ac ices come oge he o induce indi iduals in o a i ual o
no maliza ion, while also c ea ing hei iden i y in ela ion o no ms. This o ien a ion is
no necessa ily he goal o any hing in pa icula ; i is only he p oduc o he in e sec ion
o he ple ho a o p ac ices ha cha ac e ize an his o ical momen which, in u n, lead o
somewha p edic able consequences. I is he ole o genealogy o app oach hese
in e sec ions, iden i y hem and decons uc hei consequences. This is wha Foucaul
claims is “in en ional” in powe ela ions.

49
Finally, we a i e a he idea ha “Whe e he e is powe , he e is esis ance.”
(Foucaul , 1978, p.93). We mus esis he emp a ion o asse ha powe equi es an
opposi ion o be en o ced. Tha would be iolence, no powe -as-in luence. Ins ead, we
should in e p e his ene as an asse ion ha whe e he e exis powe ela ions, he e also
exis indi iduals (o g oups o indi iduals) which seem o esis i . Powe , al hough i
does no imply esis ance, i is usually me wi h some o m o esis ance. Th oughou he
Foucaldian p ojec , we can iden i y, especially in Discipline and Punish, ha he a ious
powe ela ions ha e been me wi h esis ance, bo h by he subjec s o punishmen and
he e o me s o he ca ce al sys em, e en i hey didn’ exac ly knew wha hey we e
esis ing.
These i e ene s, combined, suppo he hesis ha powe does no me ely
ep ess, supp ess and opp ess; i can also (and o en does) c ea e. Wi hou anyone
con olling i , wi hou a mas e , powe seems o exis and eplica e i sel in ou p ac ices,
shaping bo h ou beha io and ou knowledge, c ea ing his o ical si ua ions whe e
knowledge is deemed legi ima e and beha io accep able by he c ea ed no ms. E en i
we o en a e no ully awa e o hei exis ence, we pa icipa e in his ela ion, c ea ing and
being c ea ed by ha o ce. We mos likely become wha hose o ces o ien us o be and
we legi ima e ha pa icula iden i y owa ds o he s, c ea ing he c i e ia o wha is
no mal. Powe is a pa o who we a e; i c ea es who we a e now. I is he p ojec o
genealogy o ell us how we came o be.
4.4 Powe and No maliza ion
Powe , independen ly o i s o m, sedimen s i sel h ough he unc i ical
accep ance o no ms. Tha is why, o Foucaul , we mus be e e - igilan o how no ms
a e o med and why do we accep hem. Taylo (2007, p.53), w i ing on he ole o he
no m in he Foucaldian p ojec , sugges s ha “No malizing no ms a e hose which
acili a e such sedimen a ion by linking he inc ease o capaci ies and expansion o
possibili ies o an in ensi ica ion o exis ing powe ela ions” Sedimen a ion occu s when
concep ions and unde s andings become na u alized in socie y. Taking in o conside a ion
he example abo e, wo ke p oduc i i y, unemploymen and po e y a e na u alized
elemen s o he economic landscape. I is no ha people do no hink c i ically abou
hese ypes o phenomena; mos people do no e en gi e hem any hough a all. E en i
we ha e some deg ee o discussion abou he economic landscape, hese na u alized
50
elemen s a e assumed du ing he discussion. To Taylo (2007, p.53) “Such na u aliza ion
e ec i ely p omo es accep ance and con o mi y wi h p e ailing no ms on bo h an
indi idual and socie al le el.” No only his na u aliza ion allows o he dis inc ion
be ween he no mal and he abno mal, bu , mos impo an ly, i also legi ima es
in e en ion upon non-con o man s, b inging hem in o he old o he desi able s anda d,
while also elimina ing po en ial h ea s by esis ing indi iduals. The e is an inhe en
dange o concep ualizing poli ics and e hics assuming he necessi y o some no ma i e
ounda ions. The inabili y o imagine wha poli ics and e hics a e ou side o a gi en
amewo k, combined wi h he inabili y o e en iden i y ha he e is a amewo k o ou
p ocess o acqui ing knowledge, c ea es an ins ance whe e ou c i ical e lec ions abou
he wo ld become limi ed by he p e ailing modes o hough and wha is al eady
conside ed legi ima e knowledge. The powe o en o ce no mali y, hen, becomes a
necessa y “commodi y” o s abili y. To Foucaul , powe exis s e e ywhe e and comes
om e e ywhe e; i is a key concep because i ac s as a ype o ela ion be ween
indi iduals, as well as o mula ing a complex o m o s a egy, wi h he abili y o, almos
sec e ly, shape one’s beha io . S uc u es and ins i u ions a e p ope ly main ained i he e
is an e ec i e and knowledgeable use o powe .
F om a Foucaldian poin o iew, e using o unc i ically accep he “no mal” is a
necessa y ounda ion o a c i ical analysis o phenomena. The concep o he “no m” and
he “no mal” can be opp essi e in he sense ha , while hey inc ease one’s capaci ies
(acco ding o a p ede e mined no m), his inc emen happens a he expense o o he
modes o ac ing and hinking. Limi a ion o possibili ies cu ails he po en ial low o
p oduc i e powe and es ain s one’s posi ion ega ding exis ing powe ela ions:
Inso a as Foucaul sees eedom being cha ac e ized no by an escape om powe
bu a he by he abili y o nego ia e powe ela ions in ways ha inc ease
capaci ies and possible modes o hough and exis ence. Fo him such cu ailmen
has he po en ial o lead o s a es o domina ion in which all aspec s o pe sons’
li es a e dic a ed o hem. (Taylo 2007, p.57)
I we accep p ede e mined no ms, hen, by ex ension, we ha e o accep ha he e
a e ce ain ques ions we do no need o ask, ce ain ways o hinking which a e no alid
and some o ms o c i ical analysis which is no allowed. The Foucaldian app oach is one
ha ejec s ce ain y and o ali y; i we desi e o he wise, i is because mode n modes o
hough, in hei ques o con ol and domina ion, ha e silen ly been di ec ing us owa ds
51
hem. Bo h wha we belie e o be ue and why do we belie e some hing o be ue mus
be sc u inized. Foucaul ’s app oach o no maliza ion poin s he no m as an in eg al pa
o ela ions o powe . This does no mean ha he unc ion o he no m is necessa ily
ain ed; i does mean, howe e , ha all no ms ha e he po en ial o be no malizing and,
because o ha , we mus be e e igilan o e e y no m. All no ms enmesh us in ela ions
o powe ; none heless, some no ms can mi iga e powe and p omo e eedom while o he
p omo e con ol and es ic us. I is p ecisely his ques o eedom and he dissolu ion
o o ce ul, illegi ima e no ms, ha mo i a es Foucaul :
(…) his c i ique (o unc i ically accep ed u hs) will be genealogical in he sense
ha i will no deduce om he o m o wha we a e wha i is impossible o us
o do and o know; bu i will sepa a e ou , om he con ingency ha has made us
wha we a e, he possibili y o no longe being, doing, o hinking wha we a e,
do, o hink. I is no seeking o make possible a me aphysics ha has inally
become a science; i is seeking o gi e new impe us, as a and wide as possible,
o he unde ined wo k o eedom. (Foucaul , 1984a, p.46)
In Discipline and Punish, we can obse e ha he ole o he no m plays an
essen ial pa in Foucaul ’s genealogies. Ea lie and la e o ms o punishmen aimed a
disciplining he body; howe e , he e is a undamen al di e ence in oduced wi h he
dissemina ion o ca ce al sys ems: penali y is no longe a p ojec o jus punishmen , bu
mainly, one o de e ence. I became a p ojec o no maliza ion, one which expe s usually
call “ ehabili a ion”. In he place o engeance and o u e we ind ca e and discipline.
The p ojec o punishmen no longe aims a ex ac ing a compensa ion o an inju y
agains he social co pus. The ole o he body, mo e han he p ojec i sel , has also
changed. I no longe is a si e o pain, whe e punishmen is exe cised; i is now a si e o
no maliza ion and co ec ion. The p ison, howe e , ailed o become he si e o discipline
in which discipline can ac ually ake hold; ecidi ism is high, p isone s o en do no
app ehend he no ms which a e ins illed upon hem and psychological he apy (i.e.,
no maliza ion) has had ew successes in i s e o s, I he ca ce al p ojec is a ailu e, hen
why do we s ill insis so much on i ? Foucaul does no deny he ailu e o he ca ce al
sys em. Bu ha is no he objec o his genealogy. Wha Foucaul aims o unde s and is
he insis ence upon his p ojec , e en a e i became a ecognized ailu e. I p isons
con inue o be so popula oday, i mus be because hey se e addi ional pu poses han
jus hei designa ed unc ion. May iden i ies wo o he unc ions o he p ison, he i s
one, ega ding he p isone s hemsel es:
52
Rega ding p isone s, he p ison becomes pa o an en i e sys em whe e ce ain
c iminals who canno be ehabili a ed can a leas be moni o ed. P isons, pa ole
o ice s, police, in o man s: all hese become elays in a la ge sys em o
su eillance whe e c iminali y can be o e seen, a imes e en u ilized, when i
canno be elimina ed. The d eam o he ea ly p ison e o me s, o la e o he
p ac i ione s o discipline, is indeed a d eam. The e will always be c iminali y,
pa icula ly in socie ies whe e goods a e as une enly dis ibu ed as hey a e in
Wes e n socie ies. The e o e, whe e one can impose discipline success ully, one
does. Whe e one canno , one uses he same esou ces o cons uc a sys em o
su eillance ha can a leas moni o wha i canno change. (May, 2007, p78)
I p isons a e unable o p o ide a disciplina y ehabili a ion o he c iminal (i.e.,
o he non-con o man ), i can, a leas , be able o isola e him o he om he es o
socie y. Disciplina y powe is used he e wi h he main pu pose o con aining and no
no malizing. Al hough one is ideally expec ed o be ein oduced o socie y, he simple
ac ha we can cu ail “abno mal” indi iduals om ain ing i is enough o a jus i ica ion
o he insis ence on he p ison p ojec .
The e ec s o he ca ce al sys em on he es o socie y a e a mo e in e es ing.
They go beyond he p isons hemsel es, bu o wha Foucaul call he “ca ce al
a chipelago”, composed by social wo ke s, doc o s, judges, eache s and o he s. The
analysis o he ca ce al a chipelago se es as a s ep-s one o unde s and how disciplina y
socie y wo ks. Foucaul isola es six majo e ec s o he ca ce al socie y. Fi s , i blu s he
line be ween wha is legal and wha is illegal, which allows o pe manen disciplina y
in e en ion upon indi iduals. Second, i can use i s own de ian s o moni o o he
de ian s. Thi d, i na u alizes punishmen , especially aking in o conside a ion he non-
iolen na u e o punishmen . Fou h, i changes he pe mi ed/no pe mi ed dualism in o
a legal amewo k ha anscends dualism. Fi h, i maximizes he p oli e a ion o
p ocedu es o no maliza ion h oughou socie y. Finally, i ein o ces he impo ance o
he p ison (o o he school, he ac o y, e c.) as a de ini i e si e o disciplina y
in e en ion. The disciplina y a chipelago hen, wi h he p ison a i s cen e , sus ains
disciplina y socie y, e en when i ails o ehabili a e de ian s. As Foucaul (1994, p.304)
decisi ely concludes:
The judges o no mali y a e p esen e e ywhe e. We a e in he socie y o he
eache -judge, he doc o -judge, he educa o -judge, he social wo ke -judge; i is
on hem ha he uni e sal eign o he no ma i e is based; and each indi idual,
53
whe e e he may ind himsel , subjec s o i his body, his ges u es, his beha io ,
his ap i udes, his achie emen s. The ca ce al ne wo k, in i s compac o
dissemina ed o ms, wi h i s sys ems o inse ion, dis ibu ion, su eillance,
obse a ion, has been he g ea es suppo , in mode n socie y, o he no malizing
powe .

54
5. Genealogy oday
Genealogical me hodology demands ha we s uggle agains ou own mode o
easoning. In a genealogical amewo k, he esea che mus become skep ical abou wha
he o she app ehends o he na a i es in es iga ed. Genealogy app oaches he heme o
he (me a-)na a i e by “(…) s ipping away as i we e he eils ha co e na a i e
p ac ices…” (Tamboukou, 2013, p.3), in an e o o unde s and how hese na a i es may
ha e been he p oduc o discu si e cons uc ion o a gi en his o ical con ingency and
how hey should be ques ioned.
The mos impo an componen o he genealogical app oach is he ac ha wha
we conside o be ue canno be emo ed om he amewo k and p ocedu es ha led o
he p oduc ion o knowledge. P ecisely because he genealogical app oach is conce ned
on how p ocedu es, p ac ices and ins i u ions a ec he way in which we cons uc and
legi ima e knowledge, i gi es i he main ask o ying o sepa a e which pa o ou
knowledge is cons i u ed by wha is al eady no mal, legi ima e and accep ed as
knowledge. I makes he p oduc ion o knowledge a less ci cula a ai : one should no
p oduce knowledge because i i s a p ede e mined amewo k o wha knowledge
should look like bu , ins ead, one should unde s and why knowledge ha is p oduced in
a ce ain way can pa icipa e in discou ses abou a p ac ice. This way, “A genealogical
analysis o na a i es will hus pose he ques ion o which kinds o p ac ices, linked o
which kinds o ex e nal condi ions de e mine he discu si e p oduc ion o na a i es
unde in es iga ion. (Tamboukou, 2013, p.4). I powe in e enes in each p ac ice and
legi ima es a discou se, hen he e is an inhe en endency o ollow ha end, as speci ic
na a i es eme ge as dominan , while o he a e ma ginalized. Genealogy unco e s he
ma ginalized na a i es and b ings hem o he cen e o discussion. To ejec he
me ana a i e is o unde s and how he aliena ed “pe i -na a i es” also p oduce us and
ell us who we a e. We mus , howe e , always apply a me hodological app oach ha
looks a powe as no me ely a ep essi e o ce – one ha blocks ma ginalized knowledge
-, bu as a o ce ha econ igu es “ u h” in ce ain ways.
Foucaul ’s genealogical p ojec is an on ology o he p esen . By ques ioning wha
we deem sel -e iden and sel -explana o y in he p esen , we can de ach ou sel es om
ou con ingen u hs and seek new ways o c ea ing and p omo ing knowledge. To w i e
he his o y o he p esen , one has o de ach himsel o he ways knowledge was
cons uc ed in he pas ; “(…) i is necessa y o dis ance ou sel es om his p esen o ou s,
55
objec i y ou sel es and pose p ac ical ques ions abou li e. (Tamboukou, 2013, p.9). This
way, we can sc u inize (me a-)na a i es and exca a e he e en ual dis o ions and
cons uc ed egimes o u h which accompany hem. The speci ic ocus on he na a i e
and i s decons uc ion p omo es an unde lying logic o hinking abou knowledge no in
gene al e ms and holis ic iews, bu a he in a way ha p omo es he ole o singula
ideas, complex hemes and complica ions o an his o ically gi en momen .
The Foucaldian app oach o genealogy s a s wi h he cons uc ion o disposi i ,
de ined as “(…) a g id o in elligibili y whe ein powe ela ions, knowledges, discou ses
and p ac ices c oss each o he and make connec ions. (Tamboukou, 2013, p.9). A
disposi i is a ne wo k o ela ions ha a e es ablished be ween mo e o less he e ogenous
p ac ices, discu si e and non-discu si e elemen s, “(…) he said as well as he unsaid
(…) ” including “ (…) discou ses, ins i u ions, a chi ec u al a angemen s, egula ions,
laws, adminis a i e measu es, scien i ic s a emen s, philosophic p oposi ions, mo ali y,
philan h opy, e c.” (Foucaul , 1980c, p.194). Taking in o conside a ion ha disposi i s
a e he e ogenous and dispe se, genealogical me hodology allows he esea che o d aw
an immense a ie y o in o ma ion, da a and app oaches in he cons uc ion o knowledge.
A e he cons uc ion o he disposi i , he genealogis should pu oge he all he di e en
pa cels which a e ele an o his o he esea ch, while also iden i ying wha na a i es
migh be ain ing wha is conside ed legi ima e knowledge in a ce ain ield o s udy. One
should always ques ion how knowledge was cons uc ed up o ha poin be o e
con ibu ing o a ield o s udy. The genealogical app oach o knowledge should always
in e oga e wha is he “ u h”, while being especially mind ul o he ela ion be ween
knowledge and he his o ically si ua ed legi ima ion c i e ia o knowledge. I he e a e
na a i e p ac ices ha cons i u e indi iduals, hen i is up o genealogy o unco e and
unde s and hem, acing he his o y o how we came o be. I ac s as a map o unde s and
how di e en s o ies connec wi h each o he , how discou ses and p ac ices shape hose
s o ies and how he subjec cons i u es himsel h ough hose s o ies.
In analyzing (me a-)na a i es, he genealogis app oaches ca e ully any mino
ex ual de ails, examples and elemen s ha cons i u e he pic u e o a phenomenon. He o
she iden i ies, compa es and jux aposes discou ses and aces hei eplica ion,
appea ances and disappea ances. While wo king wi h na a i es, he genealogis mus
disce n a ia ions and wea e a nexus o powe ela ions, as well as he in luence o social,
cul u al, economic and his o ical condi ions which a ec ha nexus. The aim he e is o
56
unde s and whe e hese connec ions in e sec and why hey in e sec each o he . To
Tamboukou (2013, p.11):
Being sensi i e o he uniqueness o he sel , he genealogis is e y much
in e es ed in wide biog aphical elemen s o he subjec s whose na a i es a e
unde sc u iny. These biog aphical de ails howe e a e ead in a way ha
decons uc s hei cohe ence and e eals con adic ions, gaps and b oken na a i e
lines, agmen ed and incomple e ske ches o he sel .
By doing his, we a e able o app oach na a i es by s essing hei his o ically
si ua ed limi s, as well as he pa icula i ies wi hin which gi en na a i e is p oduced. The
ocus is on he unsaid, he unspoken, he o go en. The skep ical a i ude o he
genealogis does no mean ha he o she opposes wha is conside ed o be “ ue” a a
gi en his o ical ime; on he con a y, he genealogis seeks o unde s and why he
di e en na a i es, discou ses and p ac ices did no a ise o we e subs i u ed. I we a e
now wha we a e, hen we need o unde s and why we a e no some hing else en i ely.
This way, we can ace he ans o ma ions o old na a i es in o new na a i es and
pe cei e how hey came o be, by unco e ing he laye s o elemen s which cons i u e a
phenomenon and c ea e a ce ain ype o subjec o knowledge.
To unde s and who we a e, we mus adop a s ance ha ejec s he p emise ha
u h is ou - he e, wai ing o be disco e ed acco ding o an objec i e eali y. T u h is
usually bound o p inciples and p ocedu es. T u h, in a Foucaldian pe spec i e, e ol es
a ound a game o u h (i.e., a combina ion o discou ses which compe e o sup emacy)
ins ead o an obliga ion o u h (i.e., ha u h can be objec i ely pu sued). The obliga ion
o u h leads o a s a e whe e wha is deemed ue is le unques ioned by hose who aspi e
o p oduce knowledge.
57
Conclusion
A he beginning o his disse a ion, I se ou o answe he ques ion o why we
should e isi Foucaul ’s philosophical/his o ical p ojec . In sho , he answe o his
ques ion is linked o a second, mo e complex ques ion: Who a e we oday? Be o e we ask
his, howe e , we mus ask ou sel es who we a e no . The pos mode n condi ion b ough
wi h i a dissocia ion wi h he p esen , a sel -conscious scien i ic, a is ic and discu si e
an i-na a i e ha has wo majo cha ac e is ics. Fi s , he pos mode n e e s o a c isis o
legi ima ion o he majo g and-na a i es o legi ima ion in he mode n e a and he
appea ance o o he legi ima ion c i e ia ha illed he acuum (such as pe o ma i i y,
consensus and pa alogy). Secondly, and pe haps mo e impo an ly, he pos mode n is a
condi ion whe e c i ical discou se can lou ish, since he amewo k unde which we ha e
been p oducing knowledge and guiding ou ac i i ies is c umbling and can no longe
sus ain i sel .
The Lyo a dian pos mode n po ai s a wo ld illed wi h di e ends, no because i
endogenously became mo e sel -awa e o i s pa icipan s s a ed c ea ing mo e discou ses
hemsel es, bu because he amewo k o discou ses and na a i es became uncapable
o c ea ing he ules and limi s o he c ea ion o sel -legi ima ing discou se. The
pos mode n wo ld g an s us he eedom o ask ques ions, bu no he answe s o hem o ,
mo e impo an ly, i does no gi e us he ules and c i e ia om which o asse ha a
gi en answe is he co ec one. Bu why do we need o answe de ini i ely o any
ques ion? In eali y, we do no . Unde he pos mode n, one does no achie e an answe ;
one inds ou wha a e no he answe s, while e e pe ec ing he disposi i ha can ell us
who we a e, by a elling he di e en pa hs ha could ha e also made us we a e, bu did
no .
This is p ecisely wha Foucaul seeks o add ess. Madness and Ci iliza ion is an
a chaeological discussion o who we a e. I ocuses on he use o Reason as a cons i u i e
aspec o ou sel es. By using a monologue o eason o desc ibe he O he , we es ablish
and main ain an image o he O he which ells us who we a e by elling who we a e no
– i demons a es wha lies ou side o us, a cha ac e iza ion o who we ough no o be.
Foucaul ’s wo k sugges s ha Reason is no a imeless, cons an , immu able human ool.
Fa emo ed om being he cen e o who we a e, he use o eason is an his o ically
con ingen p ojec , aking di e en o ms a di e en imes. Du ing he classical pe iod,
eason was usually in e wined wi h mo ali y, which also was, in i sel , connec ed o
64
Bibliog aphy
Baud illa d, J. (1994). Simulac a & Simula ion. The P ecession o Simulac a: Uni e si y
o Michigan P ess;
Baud illa d, J. (2007). Fo ge Foucaul , Semio ex (e);
Benhabib, S. (1984). Epis emologies o Pos mode nism: A Rejoinde o Jean-F ançois
Lyo a d. New Ge man C i ique, (33), 103-126;
Boe e, L. (1998). J.-F. Lyo a d's C i ique o Mas e Na a i es: Towa ds a Pos mode n
Poli ical Theology?, Re ie ed om li ias.kuleu en.be (Accessed 02-02-2021);
B ügge , N. (2001). Wha abou he Pos mode n? The Concep o he Pos mode n in he
Wo k o Lyo a d. Yale F ench S udies, (99), 77-92;
Deleuze, G. (1992). Pos sc ip on he Socie ies o Con ol, The MIT Jou nal;
Deleuze, G. (1995) “Con ol and Becoming,” in Nego ia ions 1972‐1990, (New Yo k:
Columbia Uni e si y P ess;
Foucaul , M. (1978). The His o y o Sexuali y Vol I: The Will o Knowledge, Random
House;
Foucaul , M. (1980a). Powe , Mo al Values, and he In ellec ual. In e iew wi h Michael
Bess, His o y o The P esen 4;
Foucaul , M. (1980b). T u h and powe : an in e iew. In C. Go don (ed.)
Powe /Knowledge: Selec ed In e iews and O he W i ings 1972–1977. London:
Ha es e Whea shea ;
Foucaul , M. (1980c) The con ession o he lesh: a con e sa ion. In C. Go don (ed.)
Powe /Knowledge: Selec ed In e iews and O he W i ings 1972–1977. London:
Ha es e Whea shea ;
Foucaul , M. (1982). The Subjec and Powe . C i ical Inqui y, Vol. 8, No. 4;
Foucaul , M. (1984a). Wha is Enligh enmen ? The Foucaul Reade , New Yo k,
Pan heon Books;
Foucaul , M. (1993). The O de o Things: An A chaeology o he Human Sciences,
Vin age;
Foucaul , M. (1994). Discipline and punish: he bi h o he p ison, Vin age;

65
Foucaul , M. (2002). A chaeology o Knowledge, Rou ledge Classics;
Foucaul , M. (2003). Socie y Mus Be De ended Lec u es a he Collège de F ance,
Michel Foucaul Lec u es a he Collège de F ance, Picado 5);
Foucaul , M. (2004). Abno mal: Lec u es a he Collège de F ance, Michel Foucaul
Lec u es a he Collège de F ance, Picado , 4);
Foucaul , M. (2013). Madness and Ci iliza ion: A His o y o Insani y in he Age o
Reason, Vin age;
Golds ein, M. (2003). Rep oduc i e Technologies o he Sel : Michel Foucaul and Me a-
Na a i e-E hics, Jou nal o Medical Humani ies olume 24, 229–240;
Kelly, M. (2019). Wha ’s In a No m? Foucaul ’s Concep ualisa ion and Genealogy o
he No m, Foucaul S udies, Numbe 27;
Lyo a d, J., & Massumi, B. (1986). Rules and Pa adoxes and S el e Appendix. Cul u al
C i ique, (5), 209-219;
Lyo a d, J. (2019). The Pos mode n Condi ion: A Repo on Knowledge, Manches e
Uni e si y P ess;
May, T. (2005). Foucaul Now?, Foucaul S udies, Numbe 3;
May, T. (2006). The Philosophy o Foucaul , McGill-Queen's Uni e si y P ess;
Tamboukou M. (2013). A Foucauldian App oach o na a i es, Doing Na a i e
Resea ch, Sage;
Taylo , D. (2009). No ma i i y and No maliza ion, Foucaul S udies, Numbe 7;
Wi gens ein, L. (1986). Philosophical In es iga ions, Blackwell Publishe s.