Marico Gabrielle B.

Navarro III- AB POS, 092581 PH101-QQ CIRCULATING MORALITIES: A READING OF NIETZCHE AND FOUCAULT THESIS:

"Foucault's later work (The Use of Pleasure) prioritizes

subjectivity and truth while the earlier work (Discipline and Punish, The History of Sexuality Vol. 1) focus on power and knowledge. More specifically, in the later work, Foucault aimed

"to study the games of truth, and the relation of self with self
and the forming of oneself as the subject" (UP, 6). In this later work, Foucault analyzed how particular truths are mobilized in the formation of the subject, such that one might be required to recognize oneself as a subject through these truths. For instance, Ancient Greeks recognized themselves as individuals through their gender, class, age, wealth, marital status, and so on. An important part of what it meant to be a subject, then as today, was to recognize that one has a certain truth to manifest in one's conduct. This focus on subjectivity and truth tends to prioritize the agency of the individual in that it highlights the action of the individual in constituting himself/herself as a subject through manifesting certain truths. Foucault's emphasis on the activity of the individual in constituting themselves makes it possible for us to spot openings for individual resistance, that is to say, activities we might perform to subvert or resist the power relations we are enmeshed in."

I.

Introduction: Nietzsche

From Nietzsche to Foucault, Foucault to

Foucault may as well be famed among social scientists as a pioneer of social constructivists. The notion of the formation

of a subject within institutionalized truths crystallizes the foundation of this particular branch of thought; or at least captures and encapsulates the very essence of it. Through a

review of Foucaults Discipline and Punish alongside the History of Sexuality Volume One, this paper highlights Foucaults assertions regarding the formation of the subject vis--vis constructed truths. At the same time, it will dissect its

antithesis, or as Foucault observes the surfacing of subjects defiance against such constructed truths. An analysis of

Nietzsches work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra would in turn, be reference to strengthen this claim through a discussion on his most famous concept of the bermensch. Later, the idea on

institutionalized moralities will again be opened with a different light, with less stress on institutional molding as imposition but more of a necessary exercise of power for the purposes of establishing peoples aesthetics of existence, or better placed in a collective, the aesthetics of society. more genealogical and historically structured analysis by Foucault in the second volume of the History of Sexuality would serve reference to this. Before dissecting the power dynamics within their individual works, it is important to operationalize the relationship between Foucault and Nietzsche by reviewing the congruence and divergence between their philosophies. One must A

note that Nietzsche had much influence on Foucault to the extent that the latter gave praise and honored the previous by attributing a new school of thought, postmodernism1, as a substantial contribution in the field of political philosophy and used similar themes as frameworks in his own writing. This

is evident first and foremost within comparisons laid out in the Art of Ethics by Timothy O Leary where clear similarities or better yet, transitions [developments from Foucault to Nietzsche] are mapped out from the very beginning of the book. Consequently, the disparity in period between Nietzsches time and that of Foucaults gave much appraisal to the former as to the realization of his theory that of the thinning, disappearance even, of morality2. Second in OLearys line of comparison is that of the

aesthetics of existence if framed solely in Foucauldian terms.

Basically it talks of the idea of designing or giving style to ones life3 which is basically the heart of each parable within Thus Spoke Zarathustra. What must be deducted (although I will

focus on this more extensively later) is the fact that while there is much discussion that comes off as a critique on institutionally fashioned moralities, particular dynamics of stylized morals are imposed within Nietzsches parables as well. As much as I regret having to introduce a critique as early as in this section of the paper, it is simply more pragmatic for me to question the way individualized moralities can be realized
1

Robinson, Dave. "Foucault and Nietzsche." In Nietzsche and Postmodernism, 47. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books ;, 1999. 2 OLeary, Timothy. "Introduction." In Foucault: The Art of Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2002), 1.
3

OLeary, 2-3.

with the way moral assertions were pegged down by Nietzsche through Zarathustra. Perhaps, as Dave Robinson asserts in his

work Nietzsche and Postmodernism, Nietzsche is indeed carried off in thought by arbitrary ideas and personal idiosyncrasy such that no strict method is followed4. Add to that is his

translator, R.J. Hollingdales assessment of him as one who is guilty of mixing both emotion and intellection in his writing5. Hollingdale also inserts a critique, an assertion of fault that Nietzsche is guilty of excess as characteristic of this explosion of feelings found in his metaphors and style of language. This notion of excess as a fault is where I disagree As much as there is indeed an over-

with the translator.

compensation with regard to the style of writing, this very fact concretely illustrates several notions of his teaching after all, doesnt going beyond oneself entail extremes, exaggeration, of excess? Moderation, unlike its glorification

within the philosophies of Aristotle in the Nichomachean ethics, is to Nietzsche a form of mediocrity6. To me, Nietzsches

excess is simply an embodiment of his philosophy such that he goes beyond the institutionalized notions of political philosophy as pure intellection but go in so far as to dwell in a poetic delivery of phenomenological literature. With secularization and sexual liberation at its peak, the lines that seem to plague the advent of post-modernity is the
4

Robinson, Dave. "Foucault and Nietzsche." In Nietzsche and Postmodernism, 47-48. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books ;, 1999. 5 R.J. Hollingdale, introduction to Thus Spoke Zarathustra; by Friedrich Nietzsche(England: Penguin Books, 1969), 11-35. 6 Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (England: Penguin Books, 1969), 190

question how is one to live?

This particular question is

problematized by Foucault and Nietzsche in their discussion of ethics; put quite simply, the deregulation of morality. controlled by a set of laws7. Catholic Church. They

argue that morality has either ceased to exist or is no longer By laws it is arguable that they

speak of the highly conservative, self-entitled piousness of the Consequently, people have begun to distinguish

their own values based on their own deliberations which are often, given the growing liberal society, is free of dignified inducements. Before we get lost within all these assertions on morality, it is necessary that we define it by virtue of how it was used . Let us question - What is morality? morals8) In his construction of the

idea of genealogy (in reference to Nietzsches genealogy of to repudiate the conception of knowledge through a linear account of history9, Foucault lacks a concrete definition by which he terms the word morality. A literal reading of the

concept through his discussions in the History of Sexuality can denote that this abstraction was used in reference to repressive institutions the Victorian era in general and the Church for example10. Let us establish

morality

therefore

as

OLeary, Timothy. "Introduction." In Foucault: The Art of Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2002), 1-3. Gutting, Gary. "Michel Foucault (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ (accessed October 3, 2011). Foucault, Michel. "Nietzsche, Genealogy and History." In Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Interviews and Essays (Ithaca: Cornell: University Press, 1977) 139-164. Foucault, Michel. "The Repressive Hypothesis." In The History of

10

confinement

of

actions

based

on

conservative

dictation

of

institutions (e.g. society as a whole, established decorum in schools, teachings of the Church). This paper will therefore

re-examine morality as a socially constructed set of actions performed by docile bodies shaped by social institutions This idea will instigated by a multiplicity of power relations.

establish a contradiction by Foucault, arguing that morals are indeed instituted by inevitable trends that are constructed by a multiplicity of power11. experiences of This multiplicity of power creates particularly because its

dissatisfaction

heterogeneity lacks organization. Just as Foucault argues that genealogy should explore

instances in absence or remain unrealized12, it is easy to impose that the lack of response from dictated action constitutes to the affirmation of the body of power that channel out impositions. By virtue of rebellion against imposed rules, those rules are reaffirmed. In the case of morality, by virtue of the

fact that we implore the lack of it or the degradation of it rather, we also establish that morality is instituted and that the rebellion happens in reference to it. To put it quite

simply, the fact that secularization is established and that morality is misplaced due to the lack of religious restrictions, suggest that this is done in reference to the fact that religion is still a statist function that is instilled as the very foundation of society.

Sexuality(New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1986),17-29.

11 12

Gutting, Gary. "Michel Foucault (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Foucault, Nietzsche, Genealogy and History, 140.

While

morality

has

been

established

in

the

bounds

of

religious teachings with the Church as its institution, it may be speculated that its has existence existed in society will is rooted even even deeper. religion.

Morality

and

exist

beyond

The Church or religion in general is just one power There are other

that dominates the instigation of morality. actors that constitute it. Hobbes and Lockes idea

We can illustrate this idea with of self-preservation. order is to protect The very

fundamentals of morality are egalitarian13 but its formation as a whole is selfishly Morality made in oneself from by a another.

therefore

institutionalized

multiplicity of power from people who follow and normalize it. Perhaps the most inquisitive angle in the discussion of morality would be the fact that it is always associated to sexuality. much on the In fact, the degradation of morality is not so idea of people turning

bad or becoming less

subservient to etiquette and general interactive behavior, but more of the fact that sex is not as repressed as it used to be. Nevertheless, Foucaults assertion that sex is no doubt still

censored (a century after the Victorian era)14 still holds

true. This censorship however, just as he later concludes, is It is

the very reason why sex is multiplied and proliferated.

just interesting to see however, that contrary to the conditions Foucault wrote the history of sexuality, within these bounds, sexuality is slowly re-aligning itself to fit the general and

13

Foucault, Michel. "Prison." In Discipline and Punish: Complete and Austere Institutions 232-233. 14 Foucault, "We Other Victorians." In The History of Sexuality,3.

intensive work imperative15 in fact, perhaps in the advent of capitalism, society is beginning to adjust to it. While the previously mentioned definition of morality in relation to sexual nuances is attune to the rest of this paper, a gap superstitiously exists between Foucault and Nietzsche with respect to the fact that Nietzsches morality is broader, more generalized and not the least bit

sexualized.
but argues that

As

for

Foucault, his assessment of morality does not religiously follow Nietzsches assertion of its death it goes

beyond the Church.

In the History of Sexuality Volume Two, he

concludes that modes of power instituting morality existed even before Christianity (and all other religions bound by laws of moral values) emerged.16 In fact, Foucault views these power

dynamics as an inherent social cause for the better, such that society itself id the architecture of its own aesthetics of existence.17 II. Foucault: A Genealogy of Institutional Power Dynamics of Morality While Foucaults earlier work, namely Discipline and Punish and the History of Sexuality Volume 1, focus on discourses on power and knowledge, there is also a vast discussion on subjectivity and truth. His earlier work illustrates the effect

of austere institutions, rules and norms that in a way, navigate the course of human action and interaction.
15 16

Foucault, "We Other Victorians." In The History of Sexuality, 6. Foucault, Michel. "Conclusion." In The Use of Pleasure(New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1986),249-254. Ibid

17

Discipline and Punish goes beyond the discussion of the prison and dissects society as a whole. Within this work we

could find parallelisms establishing certain establishments like the schools and hospitals as disciplinary institutions that enforce certain rules, certain measures of conduct, and forms of hierarchal organization that proliferate the creation of a particular subject18. This subdued imposition of particular

characteristics is even more apparent in his discussion of the military, or the training of soldiers to be exact. Foucault

introduces the idea of docile bodies which clearly maps out the idea of the creation of a subject by means of an institutional force that guides it toward particular behaviors.19 The notion of subjectivity and the idea of a persons dedication to the said institutional codes are put into question upon analyzing the concept of panopticism20 which Foucault used in describing an efficient prison system. In this arrangement,

the prisoners are well aware that they are being watched but are not certain with regard to the course of time when they are put under surveillance. The uncertainty forces them to assume a The

permanent act wherein they behave accordingly at all times.

problem with this arrangement, as opposed to other institutions is the fact that the subject under surveillance is not fully subjected in a certain behavior but is forced, out of fear perhaps, to maintain a specific behavior. Of course, the same

18

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977). 19 Foucault, Michel. "Docile Bodies." In Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977) 135-162. 20 Foucault, Michel. "Panopticism." In Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977) 231-293.

analysis can be extended to some degree in lighter and more subdued forms of disciplinary institutions. this is society. A simple example of

Everyone is put under the surveillance of

everyone else such that one is forced, in a way, to maintain a public appearance safe from criticism of others. The beauty of

this system however is the adaptability one can perform within it, such that it later follows the customs of the norm out of ones own initiative such that one no longer consciously thinks of the possibility of criticism but performs it out of habit. Lets say for example, the notion of dressing up when one leaves the house. If you think about it, a rational explanation as to

why a person might prefer to wear tight jeans over a comfortable pair of sweats is because one fears scrutiny. But at the same why wouldnt

time, its easy to say, in a matter-of-fact tone: you prefer wearing jeans over sweats?

An interactive imposition

as mundane as peoples clothing is then transformed into a natural habit. Put quite simply, Foucaults discussion

illustrates the power discourse in institutionalizing certain codes and normalized conditions which, in the context of most disciplinary systems, persist under the impunity of actors subjected within it. His later works, namely the volumes on the

History of Sexuality extends this particular distinction of power relations in so far as it is limited. Its limit lies in

the fact that despite a relatively effective institution of power, there are still forces that form deviations. The History of Sexuality Vol. 1 illustrates the production of peoples notions of sexuality and moreover, it puts forward an investigative look upon the intertwining of

morality within this realm of human interaction.

What must be

further questioned however is the effectiveness of these disciplinary devices (perhaps in the forms of norms or concrete laws) in instituting a particular behavior. An example of this

is the evidence Foucault presents of an underground society of sorts, which he termed as The Other Victorians a counterculture of sexual promiscuity that counteracts the repressive nature of that era21. With all the bounds of the

norms and the impositions of church teachings, how can such a culture develop? Or if society was treated as a human subject,

within a premised human individuality, is it safe to say that the propensity for sexual acts are intrinsic and are simply not repressed effectively? This genealogical investigation was

later extended by Foucaults second volume, The Use of Pleasure, which better examines the notion of subjectivity. He examines

precisely how people see themselves as subjects of sexuality, and as subjects of desire. In this case, if such is placed as a This is

dogma, what place can morality have but an imposition?

precisely the philosophy that can be seen extended within Nietzsches Thus Spoke Zarathustra the struggle for man to go beyond himself.

Himself being a creation of societal truths

such as status or physicality bound by social scrutiny or habitual beliefs (or impositions that have turned into beliefs through religion). What if the notion of the self is realized Would a person realize

to be outside of what society imposes?

21

Foucault, Michel. "We Other Victorians." In The History of Sexuality(New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1986),3-13.

it as their true self or would it become self-scrutiny as impiety? III. Nietzsche: Of Moral Conscience - Transcending to Selfconsciousness, Descending to Self-religion In understanding the deployment of power relations freed from institutionalized bounds, it is most helpful to look into Nietzsches analysis on the death of a God22 and godlessness23 relative to the conception of the bermensch or the superman. Nietzsches mention of a God is not necessarily a metaphysical power but more of the symbol a divine being represents an overseer of all things who is feared by its worshippers. This

is the power the idea of a God or any other celestial being entails. To put in more empirical terms, Catholics for instance Similarly,

fear the idea of judgment and hell these being negative incentives towards following dictated moralities.

Hindus fear karma and Daoists discipline themselves to achieve the balance of yin and yang. In sum, my basic assessment is

that firstly, morality is instilled in people through the use of fears. Second, these threats are no longer feared such that

notions of morality are rationalized and discerned by virtue of either the influence of a growing secular institution of power or judged through individual choices. Now the discourse maintained by Nietzsche, at least at the best of my understanding, is essentially maintaining a higher
22

Friedrich Nietzsche. Prologue. in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (England: Penguin Books, 1969), 41 23 Friedrich Nietzsche. Of the Virtue that Makes Small. in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (England: Penguin Books, 1969), 190

level of understanding within the genealogy of morality such that one goes beyond institutionalized standards of morality. Conversely, the superman embodies one that emerges out of secularism, one that in my perspective ultimately creates for himself and internalizes within himself codes of morality. In

other words, while one frees himself from artificial codes of morality, one proceeds to a form of secular thinking which to me is more of a rebellion, or a questioning of institutionalized values. Achieving the consciousness like that of a superman

however, goes beyond simply detaching itself through secularism. In fact, one descends back to his primitive, naked self one that is created within a new form of enlightenment that not only create his own standards of morality based on reason but an internal philosophy of the self, out of ones natural conscience (if such exists). While my assertions above are clearly the result of my own interpretation, I ask that it be read with a heavier spirit of inquiry and open-mindedness especially since the passages that would follow are made specifically to prove it with the use of the text as a primary source of contemplation of course. The

emergence of a superman must be realized within the context of a transition that perpetuates as a form of growth rather than mere change. Better phrased, as you may have already guessed,

Im speaking of Nietzsches parable on the Three Metamorphoses. A model of such a transition to the superman can be realized by means of re-conceptualizing the idea of a camel, a lion and a child in reference to a transition from religion, secularism and

going beyond oneself or attaining the consciousness of the

superman.

The camel was described as having to carry a lump Similarly, for people

in his back, or a burden, if you will.

who have begun questioning the codes of morals theyre subjected in, carry a form of lump characterized by a conflict between rationality and what has been taught to be right, or what has been taught to be a must. one perceives as right. The lion embodies one who seeks to overpower an enemy. Put Or better characterized, it may be an

internal conflict between what is taught to be right and what

in the same context as what was earlier described, one develops a spirit of antagonism, a form of rebellion such that one simply disavows all forms of religion and focus simply on the rationalities of things. At this point in time, one is not able

or has yet to encounter the necessity to create ones own values, as the lion was described by Nietzsche24. But it is also

more than that, becoming the lion is a bridge towards a greater understanding. Nietzsche describes the lion as one that is open

to new creation25, one that is perhaps more liberal in thought and open to non-conventional forms of thinking. The child embodies one who has truly gone beyond himself, one who has recreated himself through the creation of new values such that he only wills his own will and exists in his own world26. Furthermore, a child in the ripest young age is free

of all influence, free of institutional subjection (at least

24

Nietzsche. trans. R.J. 25 Nietzsche. trans. R.J. 26 Ibid.

Of the Three Metamorphoses. in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Hollingdale, 54 Of the Three Metamorphoses. in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Hollingdale, 54

until theyre parents and other elders start shaping him) and does what one feels like, moves the way he ought to move. A

child at a young age is, unlike what most perceive are ableminded. Though bouts of rationality may be questioned with

regard to experience, they are more capable of absorbing knowledge. Freeing oneself from all impositions of knowledge

and moralities frees one from unnecessary factualties and enables him to ask bigger questions that cannot be easily answered (like a child similarly does), world. We must however go back to the context by which Nietzsche argues and why the image of the superman was created. Nietzsche, through Zarathustra asserts that a/the God is dead and in all aspects it calls only for the idea that morality has lost all essence to exist since a higher being of authority can no longer suppress personal whims.27 standards of morality. This does not change the questions that are beyond the rationalities of most people, of the rest of the

fact however, that society has and always will, impose certain Does Nietzsche therefore really assert

that morality is dead or is he simply appeasing towards the idea that it has drastically changed or thinned down through the ages? That point is probably more Foucauldian. As for

Nietzsche, he talks of the God of Christians in a sense that laws that govern moralities no longer exist as objective laws. Morality has been subjected to opinions, exceptions and recapitulations within the Church. If they are not absolute, is

there really any bit of incentive or is there enough viable reason for it to be followed? With men free of religious
27

Ibid 22

dictations, what becomes of him then? as a man if he holds no virtues?

What would constitute him

Is going beyond oneself

precisely the opposite of a liberalization from religious dictates and more of a self-internalized, self-imposed religion such that one also regulates ones values based on conscience or deprives oneself of pleasures (so as to go beyond oneself)? The lack of faith in a form of divinity urges one to create boundaries for oneself. Embodying the superman requires a lot of sacrifice such that one is placed at the mercy of social scrutiny but moreover, at the watchful eyes of oneself pushing one to consistent bouts of internal conflicts, up until one reconciles with all these self dictations and be elevated to a realm where there is little to clamor for. It is the type of The only

enlightenment that puts one at peace with the self.

problem with Nietzsches image of this bermensch however is his lack of discernible characteristics. True, glimpses of the type

of virtue he entails is evident in Zarathusras parables but of the man that embodies this path of spirit, what metaphysical image does he embody such that people who have not reached this intellectual and moral prowess can ever fully conceptualize him? Going back to Foucault, one can proceed to argue that transition within time means transition in moralities. essence it is also created by society. is bound by it? We have

to remember that while moralities are dictations of society, in If moralities are simply

a reflection of society on itself, can one truly assert that he Is a collective notion of people as a society a Indeed morality has lost its violent power relation then? necessary tool for induction.

essence in an objective sense, but it still remains to be a Moreover, it is a necessary

vehicle in life such that it more or less directs and takes one to specific paths of fate. have instilled in us all. This brings us back to the

beginning, to the question that perhaps Foucault and Nietzche How is one to live? One may discern

between two: the path of oneself or the path with others, a beautiful, unchartered choice.