Marx, Weber and Foucault (Part One)

I just finished working on two essays for my Modernist Political Theory class with Prof. James Ingram at the University of Oregon. This is the first half of the second essay, which explores the writings of Marx, Weber and Foucault in the critique of freedom and equality. The previous essay parts can be found here and here.

“If these lines ever reach America, I am certain of two things: first, that all readers will raise their voice to condemn me; second, that many of them will absolve me in the depths of their conscience.”

- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Prompt four: Marx, Weber, and Foucault argue that, despite its undeniable advantages, modern liberal democracy fails to deliver on its promise of freedom and equality. Compare their accounts of why this is, paying special attention to their comments on democracy and the rule of law. Do you think their accounts are complementary, or are they in tension?

Freedom and equality - two concepts most often considered by political scientists and philosophers (whether they are renowned authorities or argumentative students). They are simultaneously synonymous and dichotomous. With freedom must come equality, but promoting one often dampers the other. Modern liberal democracy promises an abundance of both, but the details often seem to get lost in the fine print. As such, it is often the target of critics who fault democracy as being unable to provide a desired level of either quality. And although few would return to the dictatorial style of government of old, there is certainly a wide range of proposals for change.

If my previous essay compared the method and aim of modern political criticism, then this essay is an examination of that criticism itself. All of the authors read for this term (Friedrich Nietzsche and all the rest) have explored democratic freedoms and equalities in their own way, and from very different perspectives. J.S. Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville write from the beginning of the 19^th century, when kings and emperors still ruled the world, while Michel Foucault wrote until the waning years of the Soviet Union. It comes to no one’s surprise that these authors take different perspectives on these considerations. But there is a common strain throughout their works: a certain admiration for the idea of democracy and the rule of law.

Karl Marx, Max Weber and Michel Foucault focus upon different aspects of Western democracy, but despite some tensions, their conclusions as to the future of that democracy are largely complementary. Though they take issue with certain parts of democracy, they, collectively and individually, affirm the principles for which it stands.

So how do a revolutionary, a scientist-bureaucrat and a disciplinarian come together to agree on a system that they spend so much time haranguing? It sounds like something of a bad joke. Marx, the well-known socialist, wants to up-end the system and institute a new order that promotes equality above all else; Weber counters this proposal by legitimating the hierarchy between the common and the elite; Foucault seems to take the mid-line between these two, by wanting everyone to be imprisoned equally.