Foucault, Madness

Foucault ascertains that madness is not a natural, concrete notion, but is something determined predominantly within the context of its society. He explores the extent to which society marginalises those who defy their preconceived notions of normality, challenging the idea that a person’s thoughts must be limited to the confines of society’s norms for them to be considered rational.
Ideas are often strengthened if they are contrasted with a concept deemed to be their opposite; by undermining one, the other seems more tangible. Foucault argues that madness can only exist through reason, and are therefore fundamentally tied to one another. Contrastingly, knowledge and power are two that can function independent of each other. It could be argued that it is the ‘madmen’ who think outside the box who possess a more knowledgeable, coherent understanding of the world, whilst it is society who possess the power to marginalise them.  Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was considered insane by Creationists, and yet the work of a genius by others. If it is possible for people to coexist in a society when their fundamental beliefs are so different, it is logical to expect the ‘normal’ and the ‘madmen’ to live with the understanding that for one person’s opinion to be considered rational, the other person’s does not have to be irrational.
The rejection of difference in society is inherent in Said’s notion of ‘Orientalism’, in which Western society’s preconceived notions of the Orient has resulted in many people considering their way of living as abnormal. It is a system of thought and representations cultivated not from fact, but through imagined constructs present in literary and historical texts which portray the East as “Other”. If Western society was informed about the realities of the Orient, rather than its stereotypes, it could theoretically reduce cultural marginalisation. The same can be applied to the notion of ‘madness’.  Marginalising people simply for thinking in a different way  is illogical,  as norms and values themselves are something that are socially constructed rather than natural. It is necessary that we challenge the division of reason and madness in order to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of it.

Emily Nelson, N0217820

Foucault, The Prison System and Society by Victoria Ellis N0284959

As Foucault talks about in his book, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of The Prison, one of the main roles of prisons in our society is to maintain power over criminals as well as to punish them.  The way he describes it is to keep prisoners separate and under constant surveillance so that there can be no revolts, Foucault believes this is the best way to hold power of them, as they have no idea when they are being watched and so the prisoners feel isolated and alone. The prisoners are monitored by a higher power that they cannot see and this is represented in Jeremy Bentham’s idea of the Panopticon prison. 

This is mirrored in today’s society by the emergence of security cameras and the ever present feeling of being watched. With advances in technology it is hard to escape the feeling of being watched as there are thousands of cameras all over the country. The government states that mass surveillance is needed in order to maintain social control and to protect society from criminal activity. However, many have criticised mass surveillance as it is a violation of privacy and some even fear it will lead to a totalitarian state or an electronic police state. This means that the government would use electronic technologies, such as monitoring phone calls, checking emails, video surveillance and more to record and monitor its citizens. I have to agree that this is a massive violation of personal privacy. But what can be done about it? It seems with each technological advance comes a bigger violation of privacy. While the government attempts to justify their actions, it is us, society, that is paying the cost. It’s understandable to want to protect ourselves from outside threats but how far are we willing to go? And when does mass surveillance stop being purely for the protection of society, and instead start being used for mass social control?

Maurice Blanchot, Literature and Revolution

In “Literature and the Right of Death,” Maurice Blanchot asserts that literature begins with a question which it addresses to language. For Blanchot, beneath the ruins of literature—the paradoxical “cliché” of the literary critique—there resides an exceptional “force laboring in the secrecy” of the literary object: “If literature coincides with nothing for just an instant,” Blanchot explains, “it is immediately everything, and this everything begins to exist.” [301-2]

Through the example of the ideation of the strove—emerging from the desire for warmth—that irrevocably transforms its constituent elements of stone and cast iron, Blanchot traces the enigmatic force at work in the literary object to Hegel and Marx, and their emphasis on the historicity of the object, as the embodiment of the changing state of things—the gesture of “denial and destruction” achieved through the work—that is exhibited in the particular—in the author—and in general, in the revealed existant of the literary object that leaves an indelible imprint on the world [313-14]: the movement from “nothing to everything.” [318]

This action of literature is, for Blanchot, analogous with revolution: not only in the conceit of it’s historicity, but also, in it’s “demand for purity,” it’s “absolute value,” and it’s inherent telos—“that it is itself the ultimate goal, the Last Act.” [319] In this respect, the inactivity of the author, his neglect of the reality of his “emancipation" is—itself—a realization of “absolute freedom” as an event, as instantiated “above time, empty and inaccessible.”[315]

“Freedom or death,” then, for Blanchot, is the slogan of literature. For the question of literature, is none other than a question of becoming; it is the “to be, or not to be” of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy; a monologue of revolution where, as Blanchot states, “life endures death and maintains itself in it.” But it is a death that is the “impossibility of dying,” a death viewed through a naked consciousness devoid of identity. [329]

Marlon Smith N0290682

Ref: Blanchot, Maurice, "Literature and the Right to Death" from M. Blanchot, The Work of Fire (Stanford University Press: Stanford,1995), pp. 300-344

Visiting Lecture Series

Nottingham Trent University: Philosophy in the Humanities Lecture Series.

Time 5-7

Venue: George Eliot 215, Clifton Campus

7th of March, Steve Tromans, Middlesex University, “Relating with the non-human: a Deleuzian ethological model of improvised music-making in events of performance”.

14th of March, David Webster, University of Gloucestershire, “Dispirited: A Non-Spiritual Manifesto.”

21st of March, Mark Sinclair, Manchester Metropolitan University, “Teaching-Led Research: Heidegger and the Idea of the University.”

11th of April, Miles Kennedy, NUI Galway, “Politically Man Dwells: Heidegger and the Occupy Movement.”

25th of April, Neil Turnbull, Nottingham Trent University, “Should we believe in Science?”

For further info contact patrick.oconnor@ntu.ac.uk

Maurice Blanchot on Literature

How many of us go to the library and pick up a book at random?

Usually, we arrive at the library already looking for something: this genre, that author, a certain subject matter. We want to get more out of the book than just the experience of reading it; we look for some meaning in it – call it knowledge, or truth, or what you will. But what happens if we pick up a book without these expectations and preconceptions, if we allow ourselves to read without searching?

Maurice Blanchot believes that the best literature challenges the idea that there exists a hidden meaning in the text which everyone can get at. Each text works in its own right, and each reader will interpret it differently. Literature should evade any definition, because the process of categorisation misses out on something fundamental about the experience of reading.

Literature is a historical, existential phenomenon. We shouldn’t engage with texts as objects, or as messengers of information, but rather we should regard each text as an existential experience. Engaging with a text in this way opens us up to historicity, the meaning of life, the ‘other’, and so on, and in doing so demands us to challenge our beliefs, and our ethics.

Here is the paradox: at the core of a literary text, there is no core. Since a text has no absolute meaning, texts have an infinite capacity for meaning. Although our cognitive limits are trapped within our temporality, literature remains open to infinite interpretation.

Classification closes things down, but infinity opens.

So, next time we visit the library, and pick up a book, we should not obstruct what the text has to show us by searching for some meaning that just isn’t there; we should see what we are opened up to.

Stephanie Kirby, N0243693

Merleau-Ponty. Respect for the body.

The role that Habit plays for Merleau – Ponty is one that centre’s our bodies within the world, it places huge importance on the body, whereas previous phenomenological philosophers have started with the mind, Merleau-Ponty starts with the relation of our embodiment to things and people within the world. Our body does not exist ‘partes extra partes’, as other objects do, in relation to external and mechanical relationships (Merleau-Ponty 1962) it exists in relation to other things and beings and to our own mind. Our own body not only exists to us now, but also is a kind of imprint of those bodies that have gone before us, a historical make up of habit. Actions for Merleau-Ponty are embodied; however they are above all habit. When the habit of an action is broken for Merleau-Ponty it makes us realise the enormity of the action that we are carrying out.

As the body plays such a central role for Merleau-Ponty I have chosen to focus on the ethical perspective that comes from looking at his philosophy. The body is not an object separate from us; it exists in relation to others and our own embodiment. It is not an extension of oneself such as a hockey stick is an extension of a hockey player but is part of our-being. We must treat the body with utmost respect, to preserve the nature of ourselves both philosophically and physically. To understand the world, the body must be intact and able to explore and fit within the environment. This leads me to question whether for Merleau-Ponty we must treat our body with ethical consideration, not to abuse it with drugs, alcohol and other substances that may harm both our mental and physical representations. How would we as thinking beings fit into the world without the full use of the body we were born with, I believe that Merleau-Ponty would advocate that we must respect our bodies above all else. Neglect the body, neglect the mind.

Merleau-Ponty, M, 1962, ‘Phenomenology of perception’ Translated by Colin Smith., Routledge, London.

Imogen Blundell
N0270340