Nietzsche v Foucault (Part One)

I just finished working on two essays for my fantastic Political Science class with Prof. James Ingram, who is unfortunately heading back to Canada rather than sticking around the University of Oregon. Here is the first half of the first essay, which doubtlessly will never be read by anyone, but will make up for some of the shorter posts I've been making as of late. Hah.

“There is no such thing as absolute certainty,
But there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life.”

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Prompt two: Nietzsche writes a ‘genealogy’ of modern morality; Foucault writes a ‘genealogy’ of modern punishment and the “modern soul.” Based on these two examples, what is ‘genealogy’? What are its main methods and aims? How does it differ from other types of political theory we have read? Does Foucault’s version of genealogy differ from Nietzsche’s?

Modernist political scientists have consistently attempted to examine the underpinnings of supposed failures in contemporary society. J.S. Mill did so by examining the dichotomous contest between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual, Alexis de Tocqueville explored the rise of the new form of democratic government presented by the United States of America, in comparison to revolutionary France. Max Weber and Karl Marx also make their arguments in support of fundamental, systemic changes to the government and societal values that form the basis of the problems they observe in society. So it can be seen that, in their works, Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault do not stray appreciably from the standard role of the modernist political scientist: a critic of the status quo. But it is their method of critique in which they are unique – for they part from the standard form of examination and attempt a genealogy. This method of argument is markedly different from the custom, as are its aims, but it also strikes upon a system of discourse that is as valuable as the classical method of debate.

Before exploring what Nietzsche and Foucault have done, what a genealogy is, we must first understand what a genealogy is not. J.S. Mill, Tocqueville and the rest can be seen as standard bearers of the customary form of literary exploration and written critical thinking. Mill identifies the principal problem(s) at hand (for example the subjection of women in society), as well as the contemporary advocates of that cause. He then uses argument and anecdote to prove his counterproposal (to include women as equal members of society without sharply defined gender roles, to continue the example).

Mill’s On Liberty is considered a sterling example of political thought, Raymond Geuss and Quentin Skinner, series editors of the Cambridge Texts in the History of Political thought, herald the work as “the most powerful defence [sic] of the freedom of the individual.” But it is important to note that the author keeps himself within the contemporary. His exploration of the past, of the history of the women’s rights movement itself, is tepid at best. Mill does not concern himself with such things, for he is quite busy taking on every facet of the argument of his chosen opponent. In doing so, Mill is utterly convincing (to this author, at least), and this style of writing is mirrored by previously mentioned authors such as Tocqueville, Weber and Marx.

Foucault and Nietzsche do not follow this line of argument. While they do examine contemporary problems, to a point, they are far more concerned with the exploration of the history of the problems, and of the previously attempted solutions to these problems, which have often existed throughout the duration of civilized society. This is their major contribution, Foucault and Nietzsche, the genealogical argument. It is one that is more focused on providing context and understanding than persuasion, and indeed it is difficult to identify the purposed solutions offered by either author. Despite this, Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals and Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and The Birth of the Prison are fascinating reads; they are major and significant explorations of the human psyche. The works attempt to lead you by the hand to the author’s conclusion, rather than the classic analytical proof of the other authors that often appears more akin to a literary press gang.