You are on page 1of 6

The Technologies of the self

Although the studies about the self and its practices on its own through ethics – knowledge and power and how constituting itself through these vary fields of practices considered the latest interestes of foucault philosophical life,( late 70’s till his death in 84 ,but the proble!ati"ation of the sub#ect and its different for! of sub#ectivation in western history was present in all his works since the history of madness as distinction between nor!al and !entally ill type of sub#ects $$$also in all for! of spoken sub#ectivity through the discourses of language $$ work and wealth in the order of things and its relation to power ,and the techni%ues of the disciplinary society discipline and punish ending with history of sexuality and its three volu!es where he studied the sub#ect as confessor of his own truth and the relation with the power –knowledge a&is of the discourse of the se&uality $$'o we can say that foucault pro#ect was focused on all for!s of sub#ectivation of the hu!an being through his history as$$(ad $$$sick$$$labour$$)ri!inal$$$and with desire$$$

* want to clarify first what was !y purpose through !y work for the last +wenty years, it wasn’t about analysing the power pheno!enons neither setting the regulations for such analysis, in fact !y intention was to create a history of all types of sub#ectivation of the hu!an being in our culture$,

if the sub#ect not the power what constitute foucault general ob#ect in all his works during all these years as he said but this sub#ect always took a neagative side inside a co!ple& of power- knowladge relations, and take its identity as part of political technologies $$$and considered scattered inside the discourses of knowledge e&pressed itself inside it’s own internal rationality and it’s own fro! of regulations$ after publishing the first voul!e of history of sexuality foucault re!ained silence for a long ti!e 8 years before he published the second the use of pleasures and the third volu!e of the history of the se&uality the care of self inthe sa!e year he died in 84, in this period foucault had to review !any of his thoughts and to give !ore space to the sub#ect as free practices of itself ,or the technologies of the self , and thats what !akes foucault say that he have concentrated too !uch on the tecchnology of do!ination and power , this shift in the concept of power as disciplining techni%ues e&ercised on the bodies to the notion of the .govern!entality/ which is plays a !a#or role in his latest work $the new understanding of foucault to the sub#ect does not si!ply abandon the

($ 0oucault, .the sub#ect and power/ in 1$ 2reyfus 3 4$ 5abinow foucault beyond structuralis! and 1er!eneutics p $ ,86$


!icrophysical/ level of practices and strategies with the . we govern others and ourselves according to what we take to be true about who we are. through the history of gover!entality foucault endeavors to show how the !odern sovereign state and the !odern autono!ous individual co-deter!ined each other’s e!ergence$through this concept of .govern!entality/ is contact points between the . the ways in which we govern and conduct ourselves give rise to different ways of producing truth<$ in a word we can say the . how.conduct in conduct/ . rather the state is one of the possible techni%ues of .all these technologies of self can not be seperated fro! the wider bigger stucture of politics and econo!y and the state .govern!entality/ foucault transfor! fro! the/bio power/ of organi"ing peoples lifes and controling it to a .the constitution of the sub#ect and the for!ation of the state .technologies of do!ination rather he investigate its relation with the technologies of the self $ * think that if one wants to analy"e the genealogy of the sub#ect in western )ivili"ation he has to take into consideration not only techni%ues of do!ination but Also techni%ues of the self let’s say 7he has to take into account the interaction 8etween tow types of techni%ues –techni%ues of do!ination and techni%ues of the self$he has to take into the account the points where the technologies of do!ination of individuales over one another have recourse to processes by which the individual acts upon hi!self $and conversely .govern/ of . what aspects of our e&istence should be worked upon. the her!eneutic of the sub#ect ($ 2ean (. and to what ends$ . !ode of sub#ectivation and as truth telling. defining his ontology by the type technologies he is using. repression hypothesis/ in the will of knowledge how this hypothesis was able to create and conceiving the individuales as historically repressed fro! society and power.!acrophysical/ level of the institutions. with what !eans. preventing the! fro! fulfilling there se&ual desire . and his relation to the truth of hi!self .!entalities/ (M Dean and .=== Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society$ >ondon7 'age 9 .he has to take into account the points where the techni%ues of the self are integrated into 'tructures of coercion and do!ination9$ :hat foucault suggesting here is a very broad and wide web of power relation dont e&ist si!ply on a hierarchal order where the power e&ercised fro! top to botto! and its function on the use of violence .it’s . fro! this point of view foucault de!onstrated how this hypothesis was functioning as a cover 9 < ($ 0oucault .govern!entality/ one should use this ter! as foucault suggest as a strategical field of power relations not in the political way of !eaning . rather its reversible goes in both directions and the use of violence is one of its techni%ue but not its essence. .where the sub#ect can govern hi!self in order to govern the others using !any technologies labouring on hi!self constituting hi!self as a self –ethical.n the other!entality/ foucault does’t refer to the current use of gover!ent or the state . so for foucault the %uestion is the relation between the genealogy of the state and the genealogy of the sub#ect .decentral/ type of power knowledge -relation disse!inated and internali"ed in the individuals$ as foucault analy"ed in .n the one hand.

taking it up fro! hideggarian his criti%ue of the sub#ectivation as transcendental one .what desire is . Bssential works7 ethics 9000 p$ 969 6 ($ 0oucault . but to liberate us both fro! the state and fro! type of individualisation which is linked to the state $we have to pro!ote new for!s of sub#ectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality that has been i!posed on us for several centuries4$ 0ro! this stance foucault re#ected the discourse of the liberation !ove!ents in the 90th century . and lifestyle. revealed by historical conditions of its e&istence. 8erekley lectue .gover!entality/ works in very si!ilar way if we applied it to the neo-liberal power and !arket econo!y syste! where the individuales practice the! selves as free individuales in de!ocratic regi!s or free consu!ers.6 $ ($ 0oucault . souls. confession and truth telling$ 0oucault defined technologies of the self as techni%ues that allow individuals to effect by their own !eans a certain nu!ber of operations on their own bodies. care of self .and its essence defined genealogically.through the differents practices and techni%ues of the self .what the unconscious *s and so on? $instead he e!phasised on practices of freedo! as for!s of constituting the sub#ect autono!ously not outside the power relations but within this power relations by finding its !argin of space working on its own lives . but by practices of self and freedo!$ *t’s aesthetics of e&istence.!aking its own truth ga!es and its own ethics. so as to transfor! the!selves in order to attain a certain state of happiness. while this freedo! is what !akes the! !ore governed by power by adapting all the technologies of self that will deter!ine their identity and type of rationality and kind of responsibility and all their possible choices which can only be possible of practicing the! selves as free individuales$ +he proble! of our day is not to try to liberate the individual fro! the state and its institutions.because as he said7 they cannot find any other ethics than an ethics founded on so-called 'cientific knowledge of what the self is . A +he sub#ect and power/ $ 9.and not by atte!pting to reveal it’s own truth . !inds. and %uality of life$ as foucault approached the notion of the self.he saw the sub#ect as being withing historical cultural conte&t. knowledge of self. as 2reyfus pointed out that both hiddegar and foucault thinks that the the practices of the the !odern world and !odern technology that 4 ? ($ 0oucault . or laws to give us ethics$we have an e&a!ple in @reco-5o!an society where a great ethics without these three references6$ The practices of the self project: After foucault shifted his pro#ect fro! analy"ing the practices of do!ination and the for!s of sub#ectivation to the practices of the self in his later works. this notion which is goes back to the @reeks era which 0oucault found it interesting since7 we need ethics and we cannot ask religion.=84 < .hiding the progress of the discourses of se&uality !aking the truth of ourselves to be identical with confessing and disclosing our desires $the . science.he beca!e !ore interested in writting a history of how the individuales constituted the! selves-@reeks till !odern age.

is it a code of god in so!e te& the @reeks$ therefore All these aspects of the practices of self connected to the wide relations with others .essence/ of the ethical act is different as it the econo!y of using the pleasure and the desire for the christians which it should e&cluded $ 9nd aspect of the relation with self is .ethical issue/ and through different technologies. therefore they apply different ascetic techni%ues of self concerned with the econo!ical balanced use of pleasure $ foucault puts four aspects of the relation with the self .produce a different kind of sub#ects-a sub#ect who does not si!ply ob#ectify and do!inate the world through technology. citing fro! te&ts of (plato. or the interpretation of the self (christians =$ +herefore the type of techni%ues used of the self .related by the purpose of the ethics. he ad!itted in interview with 2reyfus.and techni%ues of confession by disclosing the true self of the sub#ect by !aking the! talk about their hidden desires. represents all the acts that is related to the pleasures.or is it a universal natural law for kinds of living beingsC . &enophone . while for the christians the .desire/ constitute their .!ode of 'ub#ectivation/ which is represent the way people sub!it to the their ethical duties . which allow the control of the pleasures and desires8$foucault proble!ati"e the ethics by analy"ing genealogically how the pleasure disappeared fro! the ethical discourse to !ore e!phasis on the desire in the christian ethical discourse in the 4-? 2) . in the second volu!e of the history of se&uality the use of pleasure .as foucault called it. foucault describe the ethical practices of the @reeks as relatively easy. but who is constituted by this technology$ the difference between the tow though. aristotle. each of these ethical sub#ects re%uire different types of self practicing . 5abino that he tried to rebalance his pro#ect by shifting fro! studying the historty of se&uality to the practices of self through a si!ple %uestion 7 why the se&ual activity considered as ethical proble! and an i!portant one7C 1e wanted to study how the se&ual activities an a . so the se&ual act wasn’t an ethical proble! by itself . is that the dasein of hideggar who is always co!ing to reveal his own truth (aletheia or his inner essence of hi!slef. the @reeks did’t even had a !oral sub#ect called se&. in the book in 1$ 2reyfus 3 4$ 5abinow foucault *bide! *bid p$ 90= beyond structuralis! and 1er!eneutics p$ 909 8 = 4 .ethical essense.ethical essence/ .st the .ethical essense. university of berekley. but for foucault the ontology is historical and the essence of the sub#ect deter!ined outside itself with the outside relations of power . which for the @reeks their . and they called it the (aphrodisia . no banning and prohibition rules were applied in the sa!e way that will take in the christian era. ($0oucault. rather it goes under the proble! of e&cessive or !oderate use of se&ual activity and the conditions of using the pleasures and the risks of the !isusing the! . till the !odern scientific discourse of psychoanalysis . in this way foucault use both niet"che concept of power in history (genealogy of !orals and hiddegar concept of sub#ect (dasein $ 1is pro#ect about the history of the practices and technologies of self start with @reeks.for e&a!ple if the purpose was the purification of the self in the christcians need different techni%ues than if it were the purpose the !astery of self . therefore the . for the 7 *nterview with.r is it rational lawCor aesthetics principal$ <rd the ascetic techni%ues of the self that is used $ 4th the purpose whether is it the control of the self (@reeks .

being.know your self/. these ethics were practiced by the free citi"en . individuality. but as sub#ects to a pastoral authority of the church where there was no place for free self practicing based on an aesthetic view of life $ foucault !akes another kind of interrelation between care of the of self . in order for the sub#ect to reach the truth he has to prepare hi!self for that. three practices under the sa!e categories . our freedo! as free practice of the self. in the western philosophy with 2escart.but its also the source of the danger because it can easily fell in the trap of looking for it’s own truth. or science .($foucault p$ 88 ? . so we can can #u!p and !akes endless relations with our self and the outside world. the cogtio is the ability of the self to know not necessary to do an ascetic practices.&enephone/ assure that there’s a connection between these three arts . with kant the self takes the for! of a co!prehensible sub#ect for understanding the relation between !oral and knowledge as co!prehensible ob#ect $ Conclusion: +echnologies of self are very wide and co!plicated field of practices ai!ed toward ourselves.wives and child pleasures has not been taking in consideration$ as for the christians the practices of self negation and deciphering their desires. etc$$$it also deter!ine in the sa!e ti!e our relation to others as sub#ects in power field . since they are free citi"ens in the city and as husband in the house need to govern his fa!ily and wife. the cristicans did not live as the @reeks as free citi"ens in the city. by practicing different type of ascetic practices . +he %uestion for the @reeks was how you can govern the others if you are not capable to govern your selfC$ :hat is great about @reeks for foucault is that they create an independent relation to the self not been taken fro! religious or !oral code but they created as an aesthetic of e&istence. in religion . but these frontiers are very fragile and easy to cross .0 +he use of pleasue . foucault indicate how this principle since plato beca!e seperated fro! the care about self and take its place . and thats the essence of our freedo! and as foucault said our aesthetic of e&istence . identified with . conscious self inspecting . he describe the special connection +he @reeks had between care of the self and telling the truth. identity. in the written principal of 2elphi te!ple . but we have to re!e!ber as foucault tells us .its enough to understand what is a self evident. and . and truth telling .@reeks governing the self and controlling of the pleasures is foundation for governing the others . it’s a way to create our interiority as fold fro! the e&terior where the relations between the tow is always historical and te!poral.where the slaves .while for the @reeks they were concerned about how they can transfor! the!selves with the help of a !aster .as for the christians knowing the self re%uire the renounce!ent of the self. our knowledge as self directness to the outside world.foucault showed how this for! of ethics and sub#ectivity re%uired different practices of the self . and participating in the governing of the city . so they had to confess the! selves to a higher authority to have self purification. and governing the house buisness. !orals.since they are created with the original sin. (the good governing of self . not only deter!ining our for!s of.(in writting the diaries .0. as long as we have a self we always have to stay on a certain li!its and frontiers of its own.

forgets/ in the hiddegarian sense or .itself as co!fortable place .foregetting the forget/ in the deleu"eian sense $ 6 . and .