Freie Universität Berlin

By Copy of Lysippus – Jastrow (2006), Public Domain

One of the key questions to answer when doing political theory is the question of what or who these humans are whose political world shall be described. And that is not an easy feat. In Classical Aristotelian philosophy, humans – like the other objects of nature – are defined by an innate purpose, a telos. Political life, hence, is essentially about realizing that purpose in living together with others – being social animals. Conceptions of the self drawing on this idea can be found, for example in Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Hannah Arendt as well as some communitarian positions. One could further argue, that political theories of human progress towards as specific goal, such as for example Karl Marx‘s philosophy of history, pick up that idea of a human purpose to be realized.
A lot of modern political thought, however, has rejected the presumption that humans are social by nature. In contrast to pure classical ideas much of modern political thought focused on negative aspects of human nature. Niccolo Machiavelli describes human beings as unreliable, untrustworthy and prone to fail to do the right thing. Thomas Hobbes goes so far as to call man man’s wolf – its own worst enemy. Consequently, political institutions are designed around the idea that this dangerous nature must be controlled. Human nature as purpose makes way for human nature as somewhat of a natural force too be reckoned with. Later modern philosophers, such as for example John Locke, diversify this idea by complementing human nature with natural rights. Liberal positions acknowledge human nature as not necessarily good, but build their political theories based on the idea that innate rights must be realized by any system.
The twentieth century has brought about another, quite distinct idea. Thereby human nature is not something natural that must simply be known, brought about or realized. Instead, who we are is socially constructed and not fixed. This is not at all unrelated to the previous strands of modern thought, on the contrary. Machiavelli is the first famous proponent of the idea that the individual does not in fact live in a natural order, but that order itself is man-made and can be changed and re-arranged to suit man’s purposes. If our social order is not natural and we are influenced by this order that we ourselves created, it is not so far out there that the way this order is arranged makes us who we are. Michel Foucault’s big feat was to trace the ways in which modern systems of government shaped individuals themselves and how, in fact, the individual was unthinkable without the discursive order that presupposed it. Foucault focuses on some very specific institutions to show the pattern – hospitals and prisons in particular. In his studies on govermentality he exemplifies the modern system of government as one producing a particular kind of self – the liberal self.

Michel Focault Mural, photo by thierry ehrmann [CC BY 2.0 ]

At work are mechanisms of subjectivation, mechanisms of making subjects. I myself have never quite understood how this works until I became a mother. As a pregnant woman in Germany you are inserted into an elaborate machine which monitors any aspect of your pregnancy. At your first doctor’s visit you receive a “Mutterpass” (Mother-Passport). This document essentially transforms you into a mother. Your medical data is inserted and always marked in relation to the normal (i.e. averaged) development of mother and child. You progress along this expected “normal progression” of the pregnancy is measured and any deviance raises flags. Surely, no-one forces any exams and a wide variety of deviations may be perfectly normal. But the “mother” is created in a permanent struggle between the woman, the child, the data, the law, the doctor, the midwife and the statistic – as well as any other persons or institutions voicing an interest such as employers, insurances or social welfare actors. Between natural events, rules, discourses and normalization pressures one is turned into a mother. No two mothers are alike, but they all share that struggle for who they are. This, to me, illustrates vividly how subjects emerge.
Michel Foucault calls these relations power relations. He is known as the theorist of power who lays out the horizontal workings of power and proposes to think of power as something dispersed in the capillaries of society rather than centralized in few places. He insists, however, that his main interest has always been the subject, or rather the way we are made into subjects. “The subject and power” was written to illuminate what this means. It talks about the subject, the relationship between power and freedom and the struggles of the subjects. It is one of the texts that merit re-reading every once in a while, even as they fail to tell the whole story. It adresses many of Foucault’s propositions in passing only so we will have a lot to talk about. I look forward to it!

If you have further readings on any of these authors or ideas to suggest, use the comment section!

In order to know a little more about you I asked that you complete this short (4 questions) and anonymous questionnaire. It is still open, so please fill it out if you haven’t already. THANK YOU!

You can find the result so far here.

Welcome to this blog!

This is the place where you will find all the information regarding our seminar “From subjects to cyborgs” during the course of the semester. You are invited to look around. There is a course schedule  available as well as information on the course requirements and on how to contact me. However, this is not the main purpose of this blog. The main purpose is to accompany the intellectual journey of our course by raising questions, documenting our insights and allowing us to continue our debates beyond the class sessions. You are all invited to participate through comments and – if you so wish – your own texts. I will begin by saying a little more about the contents and methods of the course and why I chose them.

The flashy (and therefore somewhat inaccurate) title “From subjects to cyborgs – contemporary conceptions of the self” outlines a broad and much to large set of questions to treat them all in one semester. The title is, however, a good indication of the kind of intellectual journey that I would like us to take this summer.

We will start by looking at some (almost) canonical texts of postmodern thought on the subject by Foucault and Butler. On the one hand these are a good basis for understanding that particular strand of theory. On the other, they resonate with the other texts we will read. In other words, we will return to these basic ideas throughout the semester.

In the second phase of the course we will consider three texts addressing the relationship between the subject and the global. Clearly, this is a choice I made rather than a necessary focus. However, these texts will allow us to consider postmodern conceptions of the subject in light of contemporary perspectives on the global. This is one way of critically examining their relevance.

The third phase again is a choice of mine. I would like us to focus on the relationship between technology and the subject. This choice is partly based on my own interests and partly on the fact that there is some very relevant and theoretically important texts treating the issue. As, by the time we get to this stage, you yourselves will have some expert knowledge, I will give you the choice, which of the relevant texts you would like to discuss in detail.

Writing, your writing will be of great importance in this class. Throughout the term, you will be required to complete three relatively short assignments in order to receive a grade. We will discuss these texts in class and you will receive feedback. You will then have until September to make improvements, before handing in all three manuscripts to me for grading.

Writing is a process and texts get better as they are rewritten. This course aims to integrate this process into the class and give everyone the opportunity to profit from feedback and debate. I will ask that every participant contributes to this process by reviewing the student texts and commenting on them. I have facilitated similar processes many times before, and even if it seems improbable to you now – there is much to be learned from working together in this way. Therefore, every participant must attend the three writing workshops.

Now, on a more personal note: I am looking forward to this term. The texts we will be discussing offer ample room for an intense discussion of the theme. Ideally, everyone will get more versed and confident in commenting on other’s ideas as well as developing their own throughout the semester. This blog will be the anchor point between classes and the place where you find all information and documentation. Also, in preparation of each class I will post a short text raising a question or highlighting some aspect of the text or the issue. These brief inputs will be the starting point for our discussion. You are heartily invited to use the comment function on the blog to begin and continue the class discussion. Please make sure you have read the blog each week before class.

The most important thing you can do to make this class worth our while is to read the set texts and attend the classes.  I know, it sounds basic. And what could a couple of missed classes make you miss out? A lot, actually. Understanding complex ideas is not just about reading comprehension – so you cannot do it alone at home. In engaging with others, their understanding and interpretation you gain new perspectives and a deeper understanding. And by reading and debating more texts on the subject (pun intended), the subject matter becomes clearer over time and our class discussions will gain in quality. It is simply a better class if you all work. Oh, and research has shown that grades improve as well.