Michel Foucault : historian or philosopher? : the debate in French and English

Abstract

In the last few years, the ideas of the French thinker Michel Foucault have become the subject of much discussion in both French and English. Foucault's first book appeared in 1954 and his last in 1984, and during this time his writings covered a broad range of subjects and disciplines. When examining and comparing writings in French and English on Foucault, two things become immediately apparent: first of all, the marked differences between the two bodies of writings, and secondly, the recurrence of certain questions, which using Foucault's work as a central point of reference, can be summed up generally in the opposition between a world view based on the belief that we are discontinuous historical beings, and a world view which posits certain eternal essences and general principles true for all time and every society. These questions emerge in the discussions over whether Foucault can be labelled a historian or a philosopher, and whether Foucault is creating his own philosophical system or working for the downfall of philosophical systems in general. The difference between the French and English language discussions can be seen in the interest of the latter for empirical classifications: which label describes Foucault best? Philosopher, historian, structuralist? His attacks on "totality" have also, in some cases, been used to support the validity of the empirical approach. French discussions, however, very quickly turn to broad philosophical, epistemoligical and indeed metaphysical issues, with each author being ultimately less concerned with finding a category for Foucault than with stating the originality (however slight) of his own position and views. Foucault's own work can be seen as a "thought of the limits'', the attempt to analyse that philosophical and social edge between the Same and the Other, between history and that which is beyond or outside its order. His approach to this project changed, and during the 1960s, he proposed a number of different limits which each time he thought finally explained the relation of the Same and the Other. During the 1970s, perhaps disappointed with his failure to find the final limit, he proposed a system in which the Same and the Other were mutually coextensive, locked in an endless power struggle. This vision changed again in 1982, when power disappeared from his analysis to be replaced by the idea that as "free beings" living in history, we must continue to work on the limits and ourselves. Is Foucault a historian or a philosopher, a creator or a destroyer of systems? These questions continue to be asked and generate many useful ideas in a number of disciplines besides history and philosophy. The conclusion here, is that Foucault became a historian in order to remain a philosopher, and that his works represent a coherent philosophical attitude towards the world. Rather than positing any essential explanation, he suggests that people should constantly search for the limits of existing systems and ideas and seek to go beyond them. Show more