Foucault's work represents a decisive advance over any form of Marxist analysis. Discuss
Foucault's work represents a decisive advance over any form of Marxist analysis. Discuss
When addressing the effect of Foucault`s work on the validity of Marxist analysis we are confronted with a problem in that, though much has been written about the relationship between the two, Foucault himself says less. However, this is not to say that his work bears no relation to it for, just as with the work of Nietzsche and Freud, Foucault feels that "all social thought takes place within the space delimited by these figures and he uses them just as modern scientists use Einstein`s theories, without feeling the need to cite the obvious reference". Many, such as Barry Smart, go further than this in claiming that, in much of its analytic focus and methodological orientation, Foucault`s work can be seen to be, to a large extent, a response or critique of Marxist strategy.
Before any useful comparison between the methods of analysis can be made, the differences in style and subject matter must be highlighted. An appreciation of Foucault`s intention to never spawn an ideology or to propose general theorems universal laws or irreducible truths defines him as in a very different light to Marx the dialectician, polemecist but also prophet, for whom "all history is the history of class struggles" universally and unavoidably determined by economic factors. The disparate nature of Foucault`s studies may lead one to believe that it might be inconsistent in direction but to admit the often "fragmentary character" of Foucault`s work is not to deny its coherence: Foucault`s purpose has been said to be not to formulate a global systematic theory which holds everything in place but to "analyse the specificity of mechanisms of power, to build little by little a strategic knowledge".
This difference of intention accepted if we turn to how it can be legitimately claimed that Foucault`s methodology represents an advance over Marxist analysis then we can divide our appraisal into, for the most part, two not unrelated divisions. Firstly the areas of disagreement over the treatment of subject: best seen in the analyses of conceptions of history and transference of power and secondly what, from the Foucauldian standpoint are seen as the gaps, limitations or vital omissions in Marxist analysis. These Foucault covers in much of his work and concern amongst others, the concepts of sexuality and the relationship between power and knowledge. It is useful to give a brief explanation of the two conceptions of historical analysis before comparison.
The Marxist conception of history as dialectic in nature was derived to a large degree from the work of the nineteenth century philosopher, Hegel. The Hegelian understanding of history was that it proceeds in a series of stages thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Simplifying, Hegel saw any given epoch in history (thesis) as having contradictions in an opposite tendency (its antithesis), and that there resulted a combination which he called synthesis, which itself became a thesis with its own antithesis. This process continues throughout history until a final synthesis is reached which contains no contradictions. For Hegel the motivating force behind this progression was something he variously called "Reason, Idea, Spirit and the Absolute". Marx was in agreement with the Hegelian concept of history advancing via a dialectic mechanism of contradiction and conflict, but for Marx the motivating force behind the process is to be found in the economic relationships between men. The Marxist case for the history of the ownership of the means of production being the basis for the history of all other social phenomena is neatly put by Engels:
When addressing the effect of Foucault`s work on the validity of Marxist analysis we are confronted with a problem in that, though much has been written about the relationship between the two, Foucault himself says less. However, this is not to say that his work bears no relation to it for, just as with the work of Nietzsche and Freud, Foucault feels that "all social thought takes place within the space delimited by these figures and he uses them just as modern scientists use Einstein`s theories, without feeling the need to cite the obvious reference". Many, such as Barry Smart, go further than this in claiming that, in much of its analytic focus and methodological orientation, Foucault`s work can be seen to be, to a large extent, a response or critique of Marxist strategy.
Before any useful comparison between the methods of analysis can be made, the differences in style and subject matter must be highlighted. An appreciation of Foucault`s intention to never spawn an ideology or to propose general theorems universal laws or irreducible truths defines him as in a very different light to Marx the dialectician, polemecist but also prophet, for whom "all history is the history of class struggles" universally and unavoidably determined by economic factors. The disparate nature of Foucault`s studies may lead one to believe that it might be inconsistent in direction but to admit the often "fragmentary character" of Foucault`s work is not to deny its coherence: Foucault`s purpose has been said to be not to formulate a global systematic theory which holds everything in place but to "analyse the specificity of mechanisms of power, to build little by little a strategic knowledge".
This difference of intention accepted if we turn to how it can be legitimately claimed that Foucault`s methodology represents an advance over Marxist analysis then we can divide our appraisal into, for the most part, two not unrelated divisions. Firstly the areas of disagreement over the treatment of subject: best seen in the analyses of conceptions of history and transference of power and secondly what, from the Foucauldian standpoint are seen as the gaps, limitations or vital omissions in Marxist analysis. These Foucault covers in much of his work and concern amongst others, the concepts of sexuality and the relationship between power and knowledge. It is useful to give a brief explanation of the two conceptions of historical analysis before comparison.
The Marxist conception of history as dialectic in nature was derived to a large degree from the work of the nineteenth century philosopher, Hegel. The Hegelian understanding of history was that it proceeds in a series of stages thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Simplifying, Hegel saw any given epoch in history (thesis) as having contradictions in an opposite tendency (its antithesis), and that there resulted a combination which he called synthesis, which itself became a thesis with its own antithesis. This process continues throughout history until a final synthesis is reached which contains no contradictions. For Hegel the motivating force behind this progression was something he variously called "Reason, Idea, Spirit and the Absolute". Marx was in agreement with the Hegelian concept of history advancing via a dialectic mechanism of contradiction and conflict, but for Marx the motivating force behind the process is to be found in the economic relationships between men. The Marxist case for the history of the ownership of the means of production being the basis for the history of all other social phenomena is neatly put by Engels:
