“The CIA reads Foucault” - Foucault’s first adventure

 July 11, 2022

Foucault says something like "have you ever noticed that everything, even social relations supposedly defined by love, such as family relations, are actually defined by power?"

Now, I think you can't even resolve this into "everything is love of power." That is the root of the evil that comes out in Machiavelli, etc. --including modern pedagogy of realpolitik, and "economics and Law", to be honest.

But the point is relevant to the character that Foucault is developing here - the transgressive character in the monastic system: perhaps the personality that would have joined the monastic system because they were estranged from reality in the secular feudalism, and yet still in the monastic system, they found themself still not fitting in. 

However, for reason of desiring to fit in or inherent skill, this person found himself more skillful than his brothers and, perhaps either doubly estranged from some, or re-estranged now by the fact of his demonstrable skill. 

The convening fact that leads to the possible modern relevance of *this* character (*and* social relation) is the social fact that social organization like the monastic system, reflect social demographics; they are like micro-cosms of society at large. 

"Power" in this paradigm is a person - this character.

Foucault's hypothesis is that this character - who joined the monastic system out of being estranged from larger society but became estranged again by the monastic system for the same reasons; leaving him with nothing gained socially but social skill, would find the role of the interface between the monastic system and the society at large. 

In short, this character would be the quartermaster or the supply master of the monastery. 

It's not out of the question that this person would be good at the job of being a monk, including the study involved, because the system would be more likely to turn them out or put them out to pasture because of discrimination against them if they couldn't perform well at their duties. 

It's also much more fun, maybe inspiring, to talk about a character who succeeds despite discrimination rather than someone who's beaten down by it. 

But the obsession with identity politics in this character misses the point. If he is successful, the fact that he comes from a background that is discriminated against will as a matter of course be a factor in their success. The suggestion that they're parlaying their victim status into social status cannot hold, especially when they're in a role where their ability to succeed is imperative. In a high-stakes operation it's their effectiveness that matters to the whole. Liberal identity politics of the other reflects uncomfort with the other that they're trying to theorize away rather than leaning on moral values of humanism and respect. Conservative identity politics is racism, classism, sexism, and other kinds of discrimination. It goes without saying that discrimination is a handicap on anyone and human potential considered holistically.

Likewise identity politics independent from analysis of the work done by minorities and their success at that work, would be nothing but at the best, reifying their oppression, at worst, outright discrimination and abuse. 

Therefore, the operative liberation ethic with this understanding is the appreciation for the ("objective") work done by people from oppressed minorities, and not appreciation for them just for being them, necessarily. 

Foucault says he is not setting out to do history, sociology nor economics. This means he is not setting out to do a wide survey of the field of any of those studies. What he *is* doing is speaking from the perspective of the historical personage of this figure in the monastic system. Again, this is an expose of the problematics of this historically oppressive system so that we never fall for the same tricks again; never acquiesce to the resurgence of the same oppression. It is also a defense of the social fact of human nature, that this kind of person always exists, who by trying to escape/overcome discrimination gains skills and objective value to civilization; that he is a product of his time and the structure of society, and the structuring of social society *is* his defense. And Foucault actually says he can't speak on "what he is cut out to do", and this explains this. He might not be setting out to do history, sociology or economics, but he is going to do them, in a pantomime of how those processes originally evolved in practice: addressing how those academic disciplines had their origins in actual human needs. 

The philosophical aspect of this illustration is the inherent philosophical gaze of someone who by virtue of his in-betweenness, betwixt the assured safety of the cloister and the open field of human events can have a disinterested or an impartial view of society at large, and can write about it. 

Of course at the time the monastic system had a functional monopoly on much of writing. This is the problem, and the reality in historical times.

How does this pantomimed historical figure actually fit into a monastery? Although he has severe critiques of the discrimination everywhere, in the monastic system too, he simply likes the ceremony involved in it. Perhaps too much. Perhaps so much, that he's gotta get out sometimes for a while.

So how does that work? To a certain extent this part of Foucault's work is tongue-in-cheek. He postulates that his character would be all-too-aware of the problems with the monastic system and its discipline and be able to laud how the repression of people in the monastic disciplinary system prepared him for leaving the system on a journey outside, where the repression by the authorities is only exemplary and discontinuous, rather than continuous repression. The exasperation in response would be real: and what choice would the monastic authorities have but to let him go?

Of course, upon return, he would be presented with the command "you can't take everything back in with you." But he can insist on taking some back in with him. And the most important thing he can take back in with him is knowledge of the world outside: if he can persuade through his retelling of those facts that he can take that knowledge back in with him. Why does he need to persuade those inside to let him have that knowledge? Because the ceremony and lifestyle of the monastery can do the erasure of the world outside. But what interests people in this situation, once he gets back in and takes his lumps for leaving (and so on)? History interests them (and in a modern sense this provides the justification through actual human needs, for history as a subject) but furthermore, what makes history "sink in" to the consciousness of the monks? It's the connection between the built environment of the town and the built environment of the monastery: which was built by the same people - the medieval stonemasons - and furthermore, built with approximately the same effort and constant skill. The ignorant are puzzled, and the ambitious are spurred on to greater heights. 

Foucault's pantomimed monastic brother sees, even right away that this gives him some authority to speak to the brothers inside...he has given them "food for thought"...

(He has developed a sanitized version of what he has learned from the outside, but his real "power" has been augmented by his justification for learning knowledge from "the outside".)