Where to start with Foucault? ...Can one start with Foucault?
December 11, 2022 9:12 AM Subscribe
Inspired by this SFW meme, I'm interested in learning more about Michel Foucault. Difficulty level: I have a "read Sophie's World 15 years ago" level of knowledge about philosophy. Can you recommend a primer, or alternatively, suggest who and what else I should acquaint myself with before approaching his work?
(saw this thread, seems really old)
In particular, I'm interested in whatever thoughts Foucault did indeed have about the necessity of society being defended, since that is a topic of interest to me.
(saw this thread, seems really old)
In particular, I'm interested in whatever thoughts Foucault did indeed have about the necessity of society being defended, since that is a topic of interest to me.
Oxford's Very Short Introduction series includes one for Foucault, and they are overall very good resources for getting a well constructed academic introduction to a concept or theoretician. Foucault himself is not actually horribly difficult to read, it's putting together all the little pieces of his claims into the big picture arguments he's presenting that can be tough without any background! Agreed that D&P is a good place to start, with the Very Short Intro book as a solid companion piece.
posted by Grim Fridge at 10:26 AM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Grim Fridge at 10:26 AM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Three things you should probably have before reading Foucault:
1) A general knowledge of European history. A lot of his topics are not broad, generalized philosophical ideas but are built out of addressing specific European social structures/ideas and how they've evolved over time in response to historical events and forces. Personally I don't know enough about history in other parts of the world to know whether those ideas can be applied elsewhere, but if you aren't familiar with European history it's going to be confusing.
2) A refresher on Nietzsche. Many of his ideas come out of Nietzsche's work and are an elaboration of it. It's a lot easier to understand how Foucault is using words like 'power' if you understand how Nietzsche defined that word. And Foucault uses the word 'power' a LOT. Nietzsche has a bad reputation as a favourite of right-wingers but he's also fundamental to a lot of leftist thinkers (such as Foucault) so idk, people see what they want in his work. Nietzsche is pretty readable and doesn't require a ton of extra work to understand.
3) A lot of patience for extra research. You may have to do a whole lot of googling to get context while reading, that is just kind of part of the process of reading Foucault. Looking at the contents for "Society must be defended" (I haven't read that one), he seems to talk about Boulainvilliers a lot. I had never heard of that guy until now, so if I was going to read this I'd look him up first. When I first read Foucault google didn't exist yet, so I just would keep a list of names or events as I was reading and then look them up at the library, then go back and reread the passage with the extra context. You can just read through without looking stuff up and still get something out of it. Usually his introduction and conclusion sections give a pretty good summary, but "Society must be defended" is a series of lectures so idk.
posted by 100kb at 10:29 AM on December 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
1) A general knowledge of European history. A lot of his topics are not broad, generalized philosophical ideas but are built out of addressing specific European social structures/ideas and how they've evolved over time in response to historical events and forces. Personally I don't know enough about history in other parts of the world to know whether those ideas can be applied elsewhere, but if you aren't familiar with European history it's going to be confusing.
2) A refresher on Nietzsche. Many of his ideas come out of Nietzsche's work and are an elaboration of it. It's a lot easier to understand how Foucault is using words like 'power' if you understand how Nietzsche defined that word. And Foucault uses the word 'power' a LOT. Nietzsche has a bad reputation as a favourite of right-wingers but he's also fundamental to a lot of leftist thinkers (such as Foucault) so idk, people see what they want in his work. Nietzsche is pretty readable and doesn't require a ton of extra work to understand.
3) A lot of patience for extra research. You may have to do a whole lot of googling to get context while reading, that is just kind of part of the process of reading Foucault. Looking at the contents for "Society must be defended" (I haven't read that one), he seems to talk about Boulainvilliers a lot. I had never heard of that guy until now, so if I was going to read this I'd look him up first. When I first read Foucault google didn't exist yet, so I just would keep a list of names or events as I was reading and then look them up at the library, then go back and reread the passage with the extra context. You can just read through without looking stuff up and still get something out of it. Usually his introduction and conclusion sections give a pretty good summary, but "Society must be defended" is a series of lectures so idk.
posted by 100kb at 10:29 AM on December 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
Best answer: Yes, you can just start by reading Discipline and Punish - I remember as undergrad hearing so much about Foucault and all the hype made me nervous before reading it and was pleasantly surprised by how approachable it was - you don't need to get every historical reference to follow his main arguments.
posted by coffeecat at 10:33 AM on December 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 10:33 AM on December 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I'm not sure whether this will be useful (how one takes in theoretical ideas can be a very individual, personal thing). It's worth checking out though: the 1971 debate (in full on YouTube) between Foucault and Noam Chomsky, recorded and televised in the Netherlands.
I agree with so fucking future and coffeecat that Foucault's writing is quite accessible, and that it doesn't hurt to just dive in! The nice thing about watching Foucault debate with Chomsky is that Chomsky serves as a counterpoint, making it easier (in a way) to catch what was particularly unique and powerful about Foucault's approach relative to other theoretical frameworks at the time. In this sense, the video offers a glimmer of the kind of context that 100kb is referencing, via the framing of the debate, the interviewer's questions, and Chomsky's presence as a foil. (Plus it's just plain fun to see two intellectual luminaries battle it out on TV - a rare treat, that.)
Personally, I don't think you need the kind of intense pre-research that 100kb describes in order to get what Foucault was up to. His thinking is so thoroughly embedded in contemporary thought that reading his ideas will likely be recognizable and clarifying regardless of how versed you are in European history, Nietzsche, etc. But - caveat - I tend to think of theoretical texts as akin to jazz or poetry. They're highly complex, carefully crafted works that you can learn much by dipping into, even if you don't get every reference. The more willing you are to let yourself enjoy swimming in the strangeness of a theoretical text, the more you will get out of it.
Enjoy!
posted by marlys at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
I agree with so fucking future and coffeecat that Foucault's writing is quite accessible, and that it doesn't hurt to just dive in! The nice thing about watching Foucault debate with Chomsky is that Chomsky serves as a counterpoint, making it easier (in a way) to catch what was particularly unique and powerful about Foucault's approach relative to other theoretical frameworks at the time. In this sense, the video offers a glimmer of the kind of context that 100kb is referencing, via the framing of the debate, the interviewer's questions, and Chomsky's presence as a foil. (Plus it's just plain fun to see two intellectual luminaries battle it out on TV - a rare treat, that.)
Personally, I don't think you need the kind of intense pre-research that 100kb describes in order to get what Foucault was up to. His thinking is so thoroughly embedded in contemporary thought that reading his ideas will likely be recognizable and clarifying regardless of how versed you are in European history, Nietzsche, etc. But - caveat - I tend to think of theoretical texts as akin to jazz or poetry. They're highly complex, carefully crafted works that you can learn much by dipping into, even if you don't get every reference. The more willing you are to let yourself enjoy swimming in the strangeness of a theoretical text, the more you will get out of it.
Enjoy!
posted by marlys at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Oh and here's bit of context for the above answer: I've taught theoretical texts to college students for many years now. I have found that for students, the biggest challenge to understanding theoretical texts is assuming that they won't understand them. This mindset is a huge barrier to learning.
So: can one start with Foucault? Yes! And the most important preparation you can do is to give yourself permission to jump in.
posted by marlys at 11:55 AM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
So: can one start with Foucault? Yes! And the most important preparation you can do is to give yourself permission to jump in.
posted by marlys at 11:55 AM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
On further reflection, and seeing some of the other answers here, it occurs to me that my approach to Foucault was more indicative of my mindset* at the time that I read it than the text itself. As the slogan goes, YMMV.
*If you give Foucault to a teenage anxiety-ridden perfectionist with an inferiority complex about the fact that they attended a terrible public high school, in contrast to the fancy New England prep schools of their college classmates, you can watch them have a full breakdown bc they don't know what the Counter-Reformation was and everyone else does.
posted by 100kb at 12:39 PM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
*If you give Foucault to a teenage anxiety-ridden perfectionist with an inferiority complex about the fact that they attended a terrible public high school, in contrast to the fancy New England prep schools of their college classmates, you can watch them have a full breakdown bc they don't know what the Counter-Reformation was and everyone else does.
posted by 100kb at 12:39 PM on December 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
I dropped out of college and had no philosophy education when a friend dropped a bunch of "May 1968" type xeroxes of chapters from stuff like the (Docherty) Postmodern Reader, and I took to Foucault via those pieces pretty easily. I fell more on the "Discipline and Punish" and "Madness and Civilization" side of things; I think the History of Sexuality books are more thick with historical whozits and were harder for me to get into. I think I've looked up the word "hermeneutics" every single time I've seen it.
There's also the (Rabinow) Foucault Reader (archive.org), and I shoiuld say that as a layperson I do prefer reader-type overviews than the depth of the sources for this stuff.
posted by rhizome at 1:40 PM on December 11, 2022
There's also the (Rabinow) Foucault Reader (archive.org), and I shoiuld say that as a layperson I do prefer reader-type overviews than the depth of the sources for this stuff.
posted by rhizome at 1:40 PM on December 11, 2022
I suggest the low-barrier entry point of "what was Foucault all about?"-type YouTube videos. School of Life has a short one, Then and Now has a longer one, and after that you can just pop around to videos about specific topics or whichever youtuber's voice you find least annoying. Tom Nicholas has a good overview of Foucault's main books, Great Books Prof has three little lectures, Theory & Philosophy has a lot of quite in-depth explorations.
posted by Pwoink at 2:25 PM on December 11, 2022
posted by Pwoink at 2:25 PM on December 11, 2022
Foucault's writing is more accessible than most modern philosophers to dive into, he thought of himself as more a historian than a philosopher (subject to interpretation). I was gonna suggest the infamous debate mentioned above. There's also Forget Foucault by Baudrillard, which is something.
posted by ovvl at 5:48 PM on December 11, 2022
posted by ovvl at 5:48 PM on December 11, 2022
Best answer: Oh yeah, I am with @marlys! Studying theory tends to stir up a lot of shit for people because of how education / class work but you can choose to just read it anyway. (Sidebar: so, so many people told me I had to (re)read Nietzsche in grad school to better understand Foucault/others and let me just tell you......... you really don't.).
I think the only thing that is "tough" about Foucault is that he is French, haha, and so doesn't put his concepts into a nice thesis paragraph with a little blinking light around it like: "here is my central idea." Double true in his lectures, which are a little clearer but also at the same time more diffuse in the argumentation. So I would say those explainer-videos are really good for like, here is what the ideas are, followed by the texts themselves, where you'll see how Foucault himself builds out the concepts.
You could indeed even start with Society Must Be Defended, although I am not sure that's a great title, in the sense that the lectures don't really add up to anything so sound-bite-y as "society must be defended." But in the first two lectures he explains his views on power, and expands on / complicates the repressive hypothesis so that's very central in terms of "understanding Foucault's body of work" or whatever. After that, IIRC, that book gets a little more bogged down in the "historical" weeds which is another Thing About Foucault. But you can just move on! There's no final exam! Anyway, I am excited for you. Do memes really get people to read critical theory for fun? Omg. That's the best.
posted by athirstforsalt at 1:29 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think the only thing that is "tough" about Foucault is that he is French, haha, and so doesn't put his concepts into a nice thesis paragraph with a little blinking light around it like: "here is my central idea." Double true in his lectures, which are a little clearer but also at the same time more diffuse in the argumentation. So I would say those explainer-videos are really good for like, here is what the ideas are, followed by the texts themselves, where you'll see how Foucault himself builds out the concepts.
You could indeed even start with Society Must Be Defended, although I am not sure that's a great title, in the sense that the lectures don't really add up to anything so sound-bite-y as "society must be defended." But in the first two lectures he explains his views on power, and expands on / complicates the repressive hypothesis so that's very central in terms of "understanding Foucault's body of work" or whatever. After that, IIRC, that book gets a little more bogged down in the "historical" weeds which is another Thing About Foucault. But you can just move on! There's no final exam! Anyway, I am excited for you. Do memes really get people to read critical theory for fun? Omg. That's the best.
posted by athirstforsalt at 1:29 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
I recommend these collections from The New Press, as they include some of the most highly cited of the Collège de France lectures (e..g the one on governmentality.) Discipline and Punish, as others have said, is highly readable and a great foundation for looking at his other works.
The other very accessible work of Foucault's is The History of Sexuality vol. 1. It is very funny about Victorian prudery. Essentially it disproves the "repressive hypothesis" that shaped the way historians approached the period, pointing out that in their efforts to conceal and manage sexuality the Victorians made it clear that they were obsessed with sex.
posted by Morpeth at 5:48 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
The other very accessible work of Foucault's is The History of Sexuality vol. 1. It is very funny about Victorian prudery. Essentially it disproves the "repressive hypothesis" that shaped the way historians approached the period, pointing out that in their efforts to conceal and manage sexuality the Victorians made it clear that they were obsessed with sex.
posted by Morpeth at 5:48 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Start with Foucault ‘s treatment of boys in Tunis.
posted by Ideefixe at 7:55 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Ideefixe at 7:55 AM on December 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
You're getting lots of proper academic answers. Me, I just wanted to know enough about Foucault to bluff my way through a cocktail party conversation. And for that I read a graphic novel introduction in the late 90s. I'm a little confused, it probably was Introducing Foucault. But maybe it was Foucault for Beginners; that cover looks familiar but I don't think it's a graphic novel. Reading real academic works is better but was more difficult than I felt like.
posted by Nelson at 8:00 AM on December 12, 2022
posted by Nelson at 8:00 AM on December 12, 2022
The "...for Beginners" series is graphic novel-style, and I've liked them a lot over the years (and are probably likely to be carried by your local library). I own the Miles Davis and Nietzsche ones and they're legit overviews.
posted by rhizome at 10:59 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 10:59 AM on December 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks all, very helpful :)
posted by miltthetank at 11:02 AM on December 12, 2022
posted by miltthetank at 11:02 AM on December 12, 2022
> Start with Foucault ‘s treatment of boys in Tunis.
That entire generation, more or less, of male 1968er's (soixante-huitards) have a very fucked up attitude towards pedophilia, I don't know if it means we throw it all out, but man, once you open that can of worms you find it everywhere, and it's something to keep in mind when reading Foucault for sure, not just in Discipline and Punish but in the later stuff on the greeks.
posted by dis_integration at 10:09 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
That entire generation, more or less, of male 1968er's (soixante-huitards) have a very fucked up attitude towards pedophilia, I don't know if it means we throw it all out, but man, once you open that can of worms you find it everywhere, and it's something to keep in mind when reading Foucault for sure, not just in Discipline and Punish but in the later stuff on the greeks.
posted by dis_integration at 10:09 AM on December 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older Southern Spain around the holidays | Buying (OTC) gastritis supplements & medicine... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by so fucking future at 10:05 AM on December 11, 2022 [6 favorites]