Michel Foucault and [[Niklas Luhmann]] offer distinct but complementary frameworks for understanding [[Society]], power, and the role of [[Media]]. Both thinkers challenge traditional ideas of [[Control]] and structure, with Foucault focusing on the dynamics of power and Luhmann on the complexities of systemic communication. Luhmann’s quote, highlighting the radical implications of a conceptual theory of society, resonates with Foucault’s insistence on examining the fundamental systems that govern social relations. Here’s how their ideas relate, along with examples of their works to explore further: ### Foucault and Luhmann on Society and Media #### Foucault: Power and Social Structures Foucault views society as governed by diffuse, decentralised power, embedded in institutions, knowledge, and discourse. His focus is on how systems of knowledge and norms shape behaviour and control populations, often invisibly. Media plays a role as a disseminator of norms and a tool for the exercise of disciplinary power. • Example of Foucault’s Work: Discipline and Punish explores how surveillance and the internalisation of norms govern behaviour, exemplified by the panopticon. Media, in this framework, acts as a modern surveillance mechanism, reinforcing norms by showcasing acceptable behaviour and shaming deviations. #### Luhmann: Media as a System within Society Luhmann’s [[Systems Theory]] sees society as made up of self-organising, autonomous systems (e.g., [[Politics]], [[Economics|Economy]], [[Media]]) that communicate using distinct codes and logics. Media functions as a subsystem, creating a reality for society by selecting and amplifying certain information while excluding other possibilities. For Luhmann, power is not about control but the management of complexity through communication. • Example of Luhmann’s Work: The Reality of the Mass Media argues that media doesn’t reflect reality but constructs it by simplifying complex societal processes into digestible narratives. This aligns with his broader theory that societal systems reduce complexity to maintain coherence. ### Theoretical Intersection ##### 1. Power and Systems • Foucault: Power operates invisibly within institutions and discourses, shaping norms and identities. • Luhmann: Media is a power-neutral system that filters and organises societal complexity, indirectly shaping norms by controlling what is communicated. Example: The media’s role in shaping public perception during a crisis (e.g., [[Climate Change]]) can be viewed through both lenses. Foucault would analyse how discourses of “environmental responsibility” serve to discipline individuals, while Luhmann would explore how the media system selects narratives (e.g., focusing on individual actions like recycling rather than systemic change). ##### 2. Critique of Grand Narratives • Foucault: Rejects universal explanations of power (e.g., Marxist critiques of [[Capitalism]]) in favour of examining localised power relations. • Luhmann: Critiques focused theories (e.g., critiques of capitalism) as too narrow to address the systemic complexity of society, advocating for a broader, more radical systems-based approach. Example: Foucault’s critique of psychiatry in [[Madness]] and Civilization and Luhmann’s analysis of media’s role in shaping the perception of mental health both highlight how systems (medical, media) construct and reinforce norms. ### Further Research in Critical Areas Foucault • The Archaeology of Knowledge: Explores how systems of knowledge are constructed and perpetuated, particularly relevant to understanding media narratives. • Society Must Be Defended: Investigates how biopower and security mechanisms control populations, applicable to media’s role in constructing “threats” and responses. Luhmann • Social Systems: A foundational work that lays out his theory of society as a network of self-organising systems. • The Reality of the Mass Media: Focuses specifically on how the media system functions to construct societal reality, crucial for understanding its influence on modern society. Conclusion Both Foucault and Luhmann offer powerful critiques of how society is structured and manipulated. While Foucault emphasizes the decentralised nature of power and the role of discourse, Luhmann focuses on how systems like media construct and sustain society. Together, their insights encourage a deeper exploration of how seemingly neutral systems and structures—whether institutions or communication networks—shape our perception of reality in radical and discomforting ways. ### **Sanctity/Degradation and Disciplinary Norms**: • The _sanctity/degradation_ foundation in Haidt’s theory could align with Foucault’s analysis of how bodies and behaviours are regulated to conform to ideas of purity or normality. For instance, Foucault examines how institutions (e.g., the Church or medicine) enforce ideas of sanctity to control individuals, whereas Haidt views sanctity as a psychological tendency. ### **The Role of Liberty**: • While Haidt includes _liberty/oppression_ as a foundation, reflecting its psychological salience, Foucault’s work examines how the concept of liberty is shaped and constrained by historical systems of governance and power. ### Foucault & Chomsky Michel Foucault’s relationship with Maoism and postmodernism is complex, and Noam Chomsky has critiqued aspects of Foucault’s intellectual trajectory, particularly in relation to his political engagements and philosophical stances. Here’s an overview of the relevant points: ##### Foucault’s Relationship with Maoism • Engagement with Maoism: In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Foucault expressed sympathy for certain aspects of Maoism, especially its revolutionary critique of traditional hierarchies and power structures. During this period, Maoism was influential among leftist intellectuals in France, particularly after the events of May 1968, when student and worker uprisings brought attention to radical political theories. • Foucault admired the cultural and theoretical challenge that Maoist ideas posed to established norms in Western society. • He briefly aligned himself with Maoist-inspired groups, such as supporting radical activism and initiatives opposing state oppression. • Shift in Perspective: Over time, Foucault became disillusioned with Maoism, particularly as reports of the Cultural Revolution’s brutalities, authoritarianism, and human rights abuses became harder to ignore. • Foucault moved away from ideological commitments to grand revolutionary projects, turning instead to a more sceptical and nuanced analysis of power and its micro-level operations, a hallmark of his later works such as Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality. ##### Chomsky’s Critique of Foucault • The Debate: Chomsky and Foucault famously debated in 1971 on the topic of human nature and justice. Their differences were stark: • Chomsky defended the existence of universal human values and the potential for rational, science-based progress. • Foucault rejected such universals, arguing that concepts like “justice” and “truth” are historically contingent and embedded in power relations. • Chomsky on Foucault’s Politics: Chomsky has criticised Foucault’s political journey, suggesting that Foucault’s postmodernism provided a convenient framework for avoiding accountability for his earlier support of Maoism. Chomsky insinuates that Foucault’s embrace of the fragmented, anti-universalist worldview allowed him to sidestep the moral and empirical critique of Maoism’s failures. • For Chomsky, this shift reflects a broader problem with postmodernism: its relativism and scepticism can obscure the real consequences of oppressive ideologies like Maoism, rather than confronting them directly. Did Postmodernism Serve as a “Cover”? • Foucault’s Perspective: Foucault’s later work wasn’t explicitly a defence or denial of his earlier Maoist sympathies but represented a deeper philosophical turn. He abandoned large-scale ideological systems like Marxism or Maoism, instead focusing on the dispersed and relational nature of power. • Rather than serving as a “cover,” Foucault’s postmodernism could be seen as a response to the disillusionment with revolutionary politics, reflecting a shift in how he understood power and resistance. • Chomsky’s Perspective: Chomsky likely interprets this shift less charitably, seeing it as a retreat from the responsibility to address the real-world harm of ideologies Foucault had once sympathised with. Chomsky, as a universalist, views the rejection of objective truth and moral universals as a dangerous abdication of intellectual and moral responsibility. ##### Key Difference Between Chomsky and Foucault | Aspect | Chomsky | Foucault | | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Human Nature | Believes in universal human nature and values. | Views concepts like human nature as socially constructed. | | Truth & Morality | Truth is objective and universal. | Truth and morality are contingent on historical and social contexts. | | View on Maoism/Postmodernism | Sees Foucault’s postmodern turn as evasive. | Shifted focus from ideology to power and its localised expressions. | Conclusion Foucault’s postmodernism emerged as a response to his disillusionment with grand ideologies like Maoism, rather than a deliberate attempt to obscure his earlier sympathies. However, for Chomsky, Foucault’s turn to [[Relativism]] and scepticism exemplifies the dangers of abandoning universal principles, particularly in the face of historical and political injustices. Their disagreements highlight enduring tensions between universalism and relativism in modern intellectual thought. Michel Foucault’s concept of **biopower** is a cornerstone of his later work, particularly in understanding how modern forms of power operate. Biopower refers to the ways in which power is exercised over life—both at the level of individual bodies and at the level of populations. It marks a shift from the older, more overt forms of sovereign power, which focused on the right to take life or let live, to a subtler, pervasive form of power focused on fostering life or disallowing it to the point of death. ## Foucault’s concept of Biopwer: #### **The Emergence of Biopower** Foucault situates biopower as a distinctly modern phenomenon that arises alongside the development of the state, [[Capitalism]], and scientific disciplines in the 17th and 18th centuries. This new form of power is tied to: 1. **The Rise of Modern Medicine and Science** Advances in biology, statistics, and demography enabled states to conceptualise populations as objects of study and intervention. 2. **Economic Rationalisation** The focus on life and [[Productivity]] aligns with the needs of capitalist systems to optimise the workforce and manage resources efficiently. 3. **Shift from Sovereign Power** Sovereign power, exemplified by the [[Monarchy]], was characterised by the dramatic display of authority (e.g., public executions). Biopower, by contrast, works more subtly, shaping life and regulating behaviour to produce docile, productive bodies. #### **Two Poles of Biopower** Foucault identifies two primary dimensions of biopower: 1. **Anatomo-Politics of the Human Body** This aspect focuses on disciplining individual bodies. Institutions such as schools, prisons, military organisations, and hospitals impose techniques to train, regulate, and optimise the body for [[20-80 Rule and slowing down|productivity]]. Examples include: • Timetables and routines in schools and factories. • Medical practices that regulate health and hygiene. • Military drills that enforce discipline and efficiency. 2. **Biopolitics of the Population** This dimension operates on a broader scale, managing the health, reproduction, and longevity of populations. Tools of biopolitics include: • Public health campaigns. • Urban planning and sanitation. • Policies around birth rates, [[Mortality]], and migration. • Statistical tracking of populations (e.g., censuses). Together, these poles form a comprehensive system of control that normalises and regulates life. #### **Techniques of Biopower** Foucault outlines various techniques through which biopower operates, including: 1. **Surveillance** Inspired by Jeremy Bentham’s _panopticon_, Foucault describes how institutions monitor and control behaviour without overt coercion. Surveillance internalises discipline, making individuals regulate themselves. 2. **Normalisation** Biopower establishes norms—standards of health, behaviour, or [[Productivity]]—against which individuals and populations are measured and judged. 3. **Regulation** Biopower involves managing risk and promoting security, using statistical analysis to anticipate and control threats to the population (e.g., epidemics, crime, or food shortages). #### **Examples of Biopower in Action** 1. **Public Health Campaigns** Vaccination drives or anti-smoking campaigns are classic biopolitical measures aimed at improving the [[Health]] of the population while reinforcing norms of “responsible” behaviour. 2. **Prison and Rehabilitation** Foucault’s _Discipline and Punish_ elaborates on how institutions like prisons reconfigure punishment from overt [[violence]] to techniques aimed at reforming behaviour. 3. **Eugenics and Population Control** Practices like forced sterilisation or immigration quotas demonstrate how states regulate populations to align with ideological or economic goals. #### **Biopower and Sovereignty** Although biopower represents a shift from sovereign power, it does not entirely replace it. Foucault suggests that biopower can still intersect with sovereign power, particularly in instances where states decide which lives are worth protecting and which can be sacrificed. This is evident in: • Genocide and ethnic cleansing. • Wars justified by the “protection” of populations. • Unequal distribution of resources, leading to structural neglect of marginalised groups. Foucault uses the term **“thanatopolitics”** (the [[Politics]] of death) to describe how biopower can lead to the destruction of life under the guise of protecting it. #### **Implications of Biopower** 1. **Governmentality** Biopower underpins Foucault’s broader concept of governmentality—the art of governing populations through calculated regulation of their lives and behaviours, rather than coercive force alone. 2. **Resistance** Foucault’s analysis of biopower opens space for resistance by identifying how power operates. Recognising the techniques of normalisation and control allows individuals and groups to challenge and subvert them. 3. **Critique of Modernity** Biopower critiques the ostensibly benevolent institutions of modernity (healthcare, [[Education]], welfare) as instruments of control, showing how they perpetuate inequalities and reinforce dominant ideologies. #### **Relevance Today** Foucault’s concept of biopower remains crucial for understanding contemporary issues such as: • The COVID-19 pandemic and public health measures. • Surveillance technologies and data governance. • Climate change policies affecting populations unequally. • Debates over reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. By illuminating the ways in which life itself becomes a site of power, Foucault provides a framework for analysing the pervasive, often hidden mechanisms of [[Control]] in modern society. `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`