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.

Increased Cost of Commuting

I finished writing this enterprise article today. I've been meaning to write about rising gas prices since the beginning of the term, but it wasn't until the end of the year that I found an opportunity to do so. This article was submitted to my Reporting II class with Prof. Mark Furman, and I also sent it over to Gini Davis at the Creswell Chronicle, where it hopefully will be published next week. Let me know what you think!

Commuting Costs on the Rise

A daily commute to work, a child athlete, and errands in town. What do these three things have in common? They are driving commuters to the fuel pump, which is up a third in price since last year.

“We’re on the road a lot,” said Christopher Presley, a Creswell resident who works in Eugene at Hynix Semiconductor.

Presley has been following the same 30 minute commute in for the last four years, and he estimates that with his wife’s Honda Accord he spends $170 per month in fuel for the commute alone, never mind his three sport athlete son, Garrett.

“I would like to ride a bike,” Presley said. But Creswell is 10 miles south of Eugene on the freeway so biking that distance isn’t viable, and he calls the bus service “really inconvenient.”

Presley said that he is thinking about buying a scooter to help mitigate fuel costs, though he does have concerns about safety. When asked if he might try out his son’s efficient homebuilt motorized bike, he replied, “Oh hell no.”

Rising gas prices are forcing drivers to be more frugal in their fuel consumption, and to consider cheaper ways of getting to work. Public transportation, carpooling and smaller vehicles can be good ways to drive down costs, but safety and convenience can be real concerns.

For many people, like Richard Milne of Eugene, conflicting schedules make it difficult to use public transportation or set up a carpool with co-workers.

“It’s not really an option,” Milne said. As a coach and teacher at Creswell Middle School, most of his colleagues have left by the time his athletes go home.

And while more and more people are using the bus system, the Lane Transit District saw an increase in ridership of 16 percent over the last year, LTD Service Planning and Marketing Manager Andy Vobora says that funding concerns make it harder to make it more convenient for people like Milne and Presley.

“There’s a couple of tough years coming up,” Vobora said. He said budget cuts and a slow economy have mixed with rising oil prices that “couldn’t come at a worse time.”

80 percent of LTD payroll funding comes from taxes, and recession worries are making the service look for other sources of funding. Vobora expects a five to ten percent decrease in bus service next year.

But there is hope for Creswell. The Creswell / Cottage Grove bus route is the highest utilized of the rural communities around Eugene, with busses serving the community 10 times each day. While expansion is unlikely, the service probably will not be cut down.

“Don’t expect any changes to that route,” Vobora said.

So if bus service isn’t expanding, how can people save money on gas?

Companies are beginning to take notice of the commuter’s dilemma. LTD is working with them to provide vanpools to help employees, where vans are rented by LTD, fueled by the company and driven by employees to provide a cheaper and more accessible solution.

Van-pools can also be set up by the drivers themselves via the LTD website. The vans are centered around Eugene, but there are van pools that run all the way down from Corvallis.

Hynix spokesperson Bobby Lee said Eugene Hynix recently began offering the service, as well as on site bus service, and that biking and traditional car-pooling are also very popular.

Despite these options, high gas prices remain frustrating for drivers.

“The number one talk is gas prices,” Presley said. Narrowing down that cause is difficult, and will probably play a large role in election politics and national policies to come.

Presley says that he and his wife are leaning towards Barack Obama in the upcoming Presidential election, in part due to Obama’s fuel policy.

“It’s affecting our voting,” Presley said.

But Milne doesn’t think that prices at the pump will impact who he will vote for.

“I don’t spend that much time thinking about it,” Milne said. He compares the fuel crisis to similar worries in previous eras.“It’s a new wave of change that’s going to happen in my lifetime.

“It’s futures in Wall Street,” Presley counters. “It’s people in Wall Street, it’s Americans getting rich on Americans.”

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.