Nietzsche v Foucault (Part Two)

Here is the follow-up to the previously posted essay written for my Political Theory class.

Now that the terms have been established, we continue to the heart of the discussion.

The titles of the authors’ works do well to describe their contents: Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals is relatively self-explanatory, and while Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and Birth of the Prison only tell the reader of the content of the discussion, rather than the form, his genealogy quickly becomes apparent from his historical focus and regular citation of Nietzschean language. And it is clear that along with mirroring each other’s method, the authors also share similar aims in their works: that is, to guide the reader towards a conclusion by contextualizing the debate. It is an all-encompassing style of argument, wherein the author seeks to offer the totality of societal understanding of the issue, believing that the knowledge of such will prompt the reader to hold opinions similar to the author. In this way, the aim genealogy is to provide a perspective argument where the author wins the reader by shaping their viewpoint, rather than directly changing their beliefs.

Friedrich Nietzsche, whose writings predate that of Foucault’s by some 50 years, first popularized this genealogical argument in his work. Due to this prima nature, his style is at once original and reflective of the analytical argument. At the beginning of his work he sets off with the standard mode of argument wherein you first establish the aim of the work – “We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values themselves must first be called into question.” (Nietzsche, 20) – and then conclude with a congratulatory self-pat on the back reminding the reader what the author has done.

But after doing so in the introduction, he then launches into a historical narrative which examines morality in the light of previous philosophers, the traditional struggle between the aristocrat and the plebe, and then an etymological examination of the words “good” and “bad.” It is a remarkable form of argument, which nonetheless remains persuasive at the end of the work (as the legions of youthful nihilists can attest).

“Now it is plain to me, first of all, that in this theory the source of the concept “good” has been sought and established in the wrong place: the judgment “good” did not originate with those to whom “goodness” was shown! Rather it was “the good” themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common and plebeian. It was out of this pathos of distance that they first seized the right to create values and to coin names for values.” (Nietzsche, 26)

By exploring the meaning behind the meaning and the context of the debate, Nietzsche achieved a cohesive argument that would be quite difficult to attain in the traditional style. ‘Proving’ nihilism to a critical audience in a debate format would be a difficult task, because it is an attack upon the basic fundaments of their character. A Grecian argument cum Plato would force the reader to question and dismiss his or her own sense of morality, a rather untenable position. But by providing that genealogy of morals, Nietzsche can contextualize his perspective and convince the reader of their similarity of viewpoint.

Michel Foucault wrote his works in the light of Nietzsche’s success, and his style of argument was strongly affected by Nietzsche’s work. But the interval had given time for Nietzsche’s acolytes to refine the perspective, which left Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and his Birth of the Prison somewhat derivative in nature, but also more strongly removed from classical argument than that of Nietzsche himself. Foucault makes no real attempt to convince the reader of any overriding thesis – other than extending this mode of thinking to the school and barracks – he only outlines his genealogy of punishment and control.

Foucault explores the history of penal reform, the slow progression from the tortuous punishment of the autocrat, to the idealistic reform and attempted rehabilitation advocated by Enlightenment philosophers, and finally to the modern system of his contemporaries, which attempted a shallower yet more over-arching form of impersonal control and punishment for the population at large. While he is less proscriptive than Nietzsche, he nonetheless clearly lays out his chosen perspective solution.

“It was not so much, or not only, the privileges of justice, its arbitrariness, its archaic arrogance, its uncontrolled rights that were criticized; but rather the mixture of its weaknesses and excesses, its exaggerations and its loopholes, and above all the very principle of this mixture, the ‘super-power’ of the monarch. The true objective of the reform movement, even in its most general formulations, was not so much to establish a new right to punish based on more equitable principles, as to set up a new ‘economy’ of the power to punish, to assure its better distribution, so that it should be neither too concentrated at certain privileged points, nor too divided between opposing authorities; so that it should be distributed in homogenous circuits capable of operating everywhere, in a continuous way, down to the finest grain of the social body.” (Foucault, 80)

The genealogy is the common link between Foucault and Nietzsche, and it serves to differentiate the two from the majority of other political scientist authors. And the system was borne out by both of them; both authors used it successfully to promote their arguments. Nietzsche’s critique of morality has been embraced by potent socio-political movements (nihilism, atheism, reformism, Nazism) since his heralded first publishing of Genealogy of Morals. Foucault’s impersonal yet hyper-vigilant system of order and punishment has been embraced by Western law enforcement throughout the world.

While it would be imprudent to lay entirety of their success at the feet of their books, it is clear that the genealogical style of argument can be powerfully persuasive, even if it is not as widely practiced as the classical confrontational style used by many other political scientist authors.