Fearless Speech -Michel Foucault

7/29/2019 Fearless Speech -Michel Foucault

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fearless-speech-michel-foucault 1/107

Fearless Speech6 lectures given by Michel Foucault

in the Fall of 1983

Contemporary Philosophy: Douglas Olena



Outline

The Word Parrhesia

The meaning of the word

The evolution of the word



Outline

Parrhesia in Euripides

The Phoenician Woman

Hippolytus

The Bacchae

Electra

Ion

Orestes

Problematizing Parrhesia



Outline

Parrhesia in the care of the self

Socratic parrhesia

The practice of parrhesia

in human relationships

in techniques of examination



11 “The word parrhesia appears for the first time in

Greek literature in Euripides [c.484-407 B.C.], andoccurs throughout the ancient Greek world of letters

from the end of the Fifth Century B.C.”

It is also found in the patristic texts in the 4th and 5th

centuries A.D. That is not all. Kittel’s TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament records a long

tradition in the Hellenized Hebrew world, in Philo

and Josephus, in the Septuagint and New Testament.



11 “Parrhesia is ordinarily translated into English as

‘free speech.’” The “parrhesiastes is the one who uses

parrhesia, i.e., the one who speaks the truth.”



The Meaning

of the Word

Frankness p. 12

Truth p. 13

Danger p. 15

Criticism p. 17

Duty p. 19



12 Frankness

“the parrhesiastes, is someone who says everythinghe has in mind: he does not hide anything, but

opens his heart and mind completely to otherpeople through his discourse.

The word parrhesia, then, refers to a type of

relationship between the speaker and what hesays.”



13, 14 Truth

There are two uses of the word parrhesia. “First,there is a pejorative sense of the word not very farfrom ‘chattering,’ and which consists in saying any-

and everything one has in mind without

qualification.”Second, “To my mind, the parrhesiastes says what is

true because he knows it is true; and he knows thatit is true because it really is true.”



14 Truth

Contrast the Cartesian view of evidence with Greek

parrhesia and with a modern scientific view of truth.



15 Truth

In the Greek way of thinking having the truth has todo with the moral qualities of the speaker. “Truth-having is guaranteed by the possession of certain

moral qualities.”

15 Foucault talks about the ‘parrhesiastic game’throughout the lectures where the parrhesiastes has

the moral qualities required to convey truth toothers.



What is a game on Foucault’s account?

A game is a rule governed activity like the use of language. There is a play of representations and

forces, proofs and excuses and words and peopleare the game pieces.



15 Truth

Foucault wants to know how we can tell whethersomeone has the requisite qualities to be a

parrhesiastes and how can he “be certain that whathe believes is, in fact, the truth.”



15-16 Danger

“Someone is said to use parrhesia and meritsconsideration as a parrhesiastes only if there is risk or danger for him in telling the truth.”

“Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of

danger: it demands courage to speak the truth inspite of some danger. And in its extreme form,

telling the truth takes place in the ‘game’ of life ordeath.”



16 Danger

The game is not necessarily life and death. It mayhave to do with a friend warning another not to dosomething dangerous. The risk is loss of

relationship.

17 “But the parrhesiastes primarily chooses aspecific relationship to himself: he prefers himself as

a truth-teller rather than as a living being who isfalse to himself.”



17 Criticism

The function of parrhesia is “criticism: criticism of the interlocutor or of the speaker himself.”

18 “The parrhesiastes is always less powerful than

the one with whom he speaks.” The parrhesiastes isin an inferior position politically, socially etc., so has

some risk in saying the truth.



19 Duty

“in parrhesia, telling the truth is regarded as a

duty.”



19 Duty

“To summarize the foregoing, parrhesia is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a specific

relation to truth through frankness, a certainrelationship to his own life through danger, a

certain type of relation to himself or other peoplethrough criticism (self-criticism or criticism of other

people), and a specific relation to moral law through

freedom and duty.”



19 Duty“More precisely, parrhesia is a verbal activity in

which a speaker expresses his personal relationshipto truth, and risks his life because he recognizes

truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other

people (as well as himself).”



Evolution

of the Word

Rhetoric p. 20

Politics p. 22

Philosophy p. 23



Evolution

of the Word

Why does Foucault talk about evolution of

words?



20 Rhetoric

Rhetoric stands in opposition to parrhesia in Greek thinking. Why?

Flattery, the great enemy, is, as well, in opposition to

parrhesia.

“The dialogue through questions and answers is

typical for parrhesia; i.e., dialogue is a majortechnique for playing the parrhesiastic game.”



21 Rhetoric

In the Phaedrus in Plato, the problem is thedifference between “logos which speaks the truth

and the logos which is not capable of such truth-

telling.”The logos which does not tell the truth corresponds

with argument meant to distract from the issue.



21 RhetoricIn the Roman Empire, parrhesia is equated to freespeech in some forms of rhetoric.

It is “a sort of ‘figure’ among rhetorical figures” that

is a completely natural expression, without pretenseor device.



22 PoliticsIn Athenian democracy parrhesia plays a central role.

“We can say quite generally that parrhesia was aguideline for democracy as well as an ethical and

personal attitude characteristic of the good citizen.”

Its field is the agora or marketplace.



22 PoliticsIn the Hellenistic period, parrhesia has to do morewith advisors speaking to the king, to prevent the

abuse of power. This is no longer in the agora.

23 A good ruler is able to play the parrhesiasticgame well.



23 Politics

“A sovereign shows himself to be a tyrant if hedisregards his honest advisors, or punishes them for

what they have said.”

The parrhesiastic game has three players here, theadvisors, the king and the silent majority the

advisors speak for.



23 PhilosophyPhilosophy can be thought of as an art of life, astherapeutic.

Socrates plays the part of a parrhesiastes when he

speaks to the citizens of Athens, urging them to carefor themselves by pointing out the truth to them.



23-24 PhilosophyIn the Apology , he bids “them to care for wisdom,truth, and the perfection of their souls.”

In the Alcibiades , Socrates urges the young man, to

care for himself, unlike others who flatter him.Socrates risks Alcibiades’ anger.



24 Philosophy

“Philosophical parrhesia is thus associated with thetheme of the care of oneself (epimeleia heautou).

By the time of the Epicureans, parrhesia’s affinity

with the care of oneself developed to the pointwhere parrhesia itself was primarily regarded as the

techne [art] of spiritual guidance…”



Outline

Parrhesia in Euripides

The Phoenician Woman

Hippolytus

The Bacchae

Electra

Ion

Orestes

Problematizing Parrhesia



29 The Phoenician Woman

“Parrhesia is linked […] to Polyneices’ social status.”

“If you are not a regular citizen in the city, […] then

you cannot use parrhesia.”

no free speech –> no power –> slave

women, blacks, Japanese, children

no parrhesia –> can’t oppose ruler’s power

without right of criticism –> tyranny



29 The Phoenician Woman

“The man who exercises power is wise only insofaras there exists someone who can use parrhesia to

criticize him, thereby putting some limit to hispower, to his command.”



30-31 Hippolytus

“Citizenship by itself does not appear to besufficient to obtain and guarantee the exercise of

free speech.

Honor, a good reputation for oneself and one’sfamily, is also needed before one can freely address

the people of the city.”



30-31 Hippolytus

“Parrhesia thus requires both moral and social

qualifications which come from a noble birth and a

respectful reputation.”Cultural capital.



31-33 The Bacchae

Bearers of bad news were punished.

The herdsman has bad news for the king.

The herdsman asks King Pentheus if he may use

parrhesia because he fears the king’s wrath. The kingagrees on the condition that the herdsman speak thetruth. No harm will come to the herdsman.



31-33 The Bacchae

Parrhesiastic contract

The sovereign who lacks truth agrees with thepowerless who has it that the powerless will not

come to harm.

32 This contract was “granted to the best and mosthonest citizens.”

“The ‘contract’ is intended to limit the risk he takes

in speaking.”



33-36 Electra

Electra makes a parrhesiastic contract withClytemnestra to avoid being punished.

Electra is, asymmetrically, in the position of a slave

in relation to Clytemnestra.But Orestes and Electra kill Clytemnestra for herconfession



33-36 Electra“The one who was granted the privilege of parrhesia is not harmed, but the one who granted the right of

parrhesia is.”

“The parrhesiastic contract becomes a subversivetrap for Clytemnestra.”



36-57 Ion, a parrhesiastic play

38 As part of the shift of oracular truth from Delphito Athens, “truth is no longer disclosed by the gods

to human beings (as at Delphi), but is disclosed to

human beings by human beings through Athenian parrhesia.”

The Story…




The right of political parrhesia is reserved only forthose born free and male in Athens.

44 “The main motif of Ion concerns the fight for

truth against god’s silence: human beings mustmanage, by themselves to discover and to tell the

truth.”




44 Ion and Creusa play parrhesiastes while Apolloplays an anti-parrhesiastes.

Apollo keeps silent, lies, and uses his power to

cover up the truth.The roles of Ion and Creusa as parrhesiastes aredifferent.



36-57 Ion, a parrhesiastic play44 Ion’s Role

48 Even though Ion would be the son (of a foreignerand a bastard) of king Xuthus husband of the

legitimate heir Creusa, he would be powerless andshunned by all classes of Athenian citizens.




50 If Ion is the son of Xuthus by an unknown non-native mother, then he would not be a native son of

Athens and thence not be able to practice parrhesia.

He would be as a slave.51 If however his mother were Athenian, he would

have the right of free speech.




Creusa’s role

52 Being a woman, Creusa cannot be a parrhesiastes to the king, but will “publicly accuse Apollo for his

misdeeds.”“Truth thus comes to light as an emotional reactionto the god’s injustice and his lies.”




55 “Creusa’s accusation is a public maledictionagainst Apollo.”

But in the parrhesiastic discourse with her servant,

the roles are reversed. It becomes a confession of sorts with her servant as parrhesiastes extracting

painful details of the events.



36-57 Ion, a parrhesiastic play56 “Ion’s parrhesia takes the form of truthful politicalcriticism.”

“Creusa’s parrhesia takes the form of a truthful

accusation against another more powerful than she,and as a confession of the truth about herself.”



57-71 Orestes

One witness at Orestes trial is called an

Athuroglossos.

62 “It literally refers to someone who has a tongue

but not a door. Hence it implies someone who

cannot shut his mouth.”63 “You cannot distinguish those occasions when

you should speak from those when you shouldremain silent.”



57-71 Orestes

64 “Athuroglossos is thus almost synonymous with

parrhesia taken in its pejorative sense, and exactly

the opposite of parrhesia’s positive sense.”



57-71 Orestes

67 The first characteristic of the 4th speaker is thathe is a man (not a woman) who is courageous.

The second characteristic is that he doesn’t spend

his days in constant discussion in the agora.

68 Thirdly he is one who works his own land, an

autourgos , what we would call a self reliant person.

69 Last, he “is a man of moral integrity,” blameless.



71 “Around 418 B.C., [during the life of Socrates] parrhesia was presented as having only a positive

sense or value.”

“freedom to speak one’s mind”

“a privilege conferred on the first citizens of Athens” (those born of Athenian parents)



In the Orestes parrhesia is seen in both its positive and

negative aspects.The first problem arises when one asks whether

being born a citizen or whether one is a moralcitizen gives the right to parrhesia.

The second problem relates to “the relation between

parrhesia and mathesis , to knowledge andeducation.”



73 “The crisis regarding parrhesia is a problem of truth:for the problem is one of recognizing who is capable

of speaking the truth within the limits of an

institutional system where everyone is equallyentitled to give his own opinion.”



74 In conclusion: “I am trying to analyze the wayinstitutions, practices, habits, and behavior become aproblem for people who behave in specific sorts of

ways, who have certain types of habits, who engage in

certain kinds of practices, and who put to work specific kinds of institutions.”



74 “The history of thought […] is the history of theway people begin to take care of something, of the

way they become anxious about this or that—for

example, about madness, about crime, about sex,about themselves, or about truth.”





Parrhesia in a democracy becomes a competition for an

audience.

All citizen voices have equal weight so the important

voices are drowned out.

Only when an oligarchy reemerges does the positiveform of parrhesia find a place again between the rulers

and their advisors.



87 “For Aristotle, parrhesia is either a moral-ethical

quality, or pertains to free speech as addressed to a

monarch.”





Socratic parrhesia is a new kind of speech.

How is it new?



Parrhesia in Socrates is linked to the care of oneself.

Socrates tests (like a basanos , touchstone) people to see

if they are taking proper care of themselves

97 This is done in a truth game which is concernedwith the discovery of one’s character, a “rational

accounting of a person’s life.”



First, Socratic parrhesia is a philosophical activity.



“Insofar as the philosopher had to discover and toteach certain truths about the world, nature, etc., he

assumed an epistemic role.

Taking a stand towards the city, the laws, political

institutions, and so on, required, in addition, apolitical role.

And parrhesiastic activity also endeavored to

elaborate the nature of the relationships between truth

and one’s style of life, or truth and an ethics and

aesthetics of the self.”



“Secondly, the target of this new parrhesia is not topersuade the Assembly, but to convince someone thathe must take care of himself and of others; this means

that he must change his life.” One must change “one’s

style of life, one’s relation to others, and one’s relationoneself.”



Conversion to oneself is important from the fourth

century BC on into the Christian era.



107 “Thirdly, these new parrhesiastic practices imply a

complex set of connections between the self and truth.

The circle implied in knowing the truth about oneself

in order to know the truth is characteristic of

parrhesiastic practice since the Fourth Century, andhas been one of the problematic enigmas of Western

Thought.”



Finally, this new parrhesia is not linked to any

particular venue, the agora, the palace, or the schools.It can be practiced anywhere.





Practice of Parrhesia

In Human Relationships

Community Life

Public Life

Personal Relationships

In Techniques of Examination: Preliminary

Remarks

Solitary Self-examination

Self-diagnosis

Self-testing



In Community Life

108 “Although the Epicureans, with the importancethey gave to friendship, emphasized community life

more than other philosophers at this time,nonetheless one can also find some Stoic groups as

well as Stoic or Stoico-Cynic philosophers, whoacted as moral and political advisors to variouscircles and aristocratic clubs.”



In Community Life

Philodemus 110-~40,35 BC110 “Philodemus regards parrhesia not only as a

quality, virtue, or personal attitude, but also as atechne comparable both to the art of medicine and

to the art of piloting a boat.”

111 “…we can say that navigation, medicine, and

the practice of parrhesia are all ‘clinical techniques.’”



In Community Life

114 “In one’s own salvation, [with no reference to an

afterlife or judgment] other members of theEpicurean community […] have a decisive role to

play as necessary agents enabling one to discoverthe truth about oneself, and in helping one to gain

access to a happy life.

Hence the very important emphasis on friendship

in the Epicurean groups.”



In Public Life

Diogenes of Sinope ~404,412 - 323 BC

There are parallels between Christianity and Cynicpractice.

Cynic practice took place from the late 1st centuryBC to 4th century AD and took Diogenes as theirmodel.



In Public Life

117 “The Cynics thus taught by way of examples

and the explanations associated with them. Theywanted their own lives to be a blazon of essentialtruths which would then serve as a guideline, or as

an example for others to follow.”

“The Cynic idea that a person is nothing else but hisrelation to truth, and that this relation to truth takes

shape or is given form in his own life—that is

completely Greek.”



In Public Life

118 “But now in the Cynic tradition, the main

references for the philosophy are not to the texts of doctrines, but to exemplary lives.”

“The idea that a philosopher’s life should be

exemplary and heroic is important inunderstanding the relationship of Cynicism to

Christianity, as well as for understanding Cynic

parrhesia as a public activity.”



In Public Life

119 “The three main types of parrhesiastic practice

utilized by the Cynics were:

1. critical preaching;

2. scandalous behavior; and

3. what I shall call the ‘provocative dialogue.’”



In Public Life

Critical preaching: “Cynic preaching about

freedom, the renunciation of luxury, Cynic

criticisms of political institutions and existing moralcodes, and so on, also opened the way for some

Christian themes. But Christian proselytes not onlyspoke about themes which were often similar to the

Cynics; they also took over the practice of

preaching.”



In Public Life

120 “In short, their preaching was against all socialinstitutions insofar as such institutions hindered

one’s freedom and independence.”



In Public Life

(2) Scandalous behavior: (p 120-122)

Dio Chrysostom 40-120 CE



In Public Life

(3) Provocative dialogue: (p 122-133) Most of this

is a dialogue between Diogenes and Alexanderwhere Diogenes displays 132 “three faulty modes

of royal life.”

“The first one is devoted to wealth, the second tophysical pleasure, and the third to glory and

political power.” Diogenes continually prods the

king, endangering himself.



In Public Life

133 In the discourse between Diogenes and

Alexander “…the main effect… is not to bring theinterlocutor to a new truth, or to a new level of

self-awareness;

it is to lead the interlocutor to internalize thisparrhesiastic struggle to fight within himself

against his own faults, and to be with himself in

the same way that Diogenes was with him.”




133-4 “Plutarch tries to answer the question: How is

it possible to recognize a true parrhesiastes or truth-teller? And similarly: How is it possible to

distinguish a parrhesiastes from a flatterer?”

135 “We are our own flatterers, and it is in order todisconnect this spontaneous relation we have to

ourselves, to rid ourselves of our philautia , that weneed a parrhesiastes.”




136 How does one recognize a parrhesiastes?1. There is a connection between his logos and bios.

2. “There is a second criterion, which is: the

permanence, the continuity, the stability andsteadiness of the true parrhesiastes, the true

friend, regarding his choices, his opinions, and his

thoughts:”



In Techniques of Examination

143 Foucault moves from the necessity for avoiding

self-delusion and requiring permanence of spirit tothe disciplines necessary for capturing these statesof being.

In Epicurean, Stoic and Cynic thinking, the need for

a method of ensuring parrhesiastic legitimacydrives the establishment of disciplines. This is also

the case because philosophy is seen as a therapeutic

discipline on par with medical practice.




143 First, there is a shift in the use of the word

parrhesia meaning courage “to tell the truth to other

people.”




144 “Secondly, this new kind of parrhesiastic game—where

the problem is to confront the truth about yourself—requires

what the Greeks called askesis”, where askesis “has a very

broad sense denoting any kind of practical training or

exercise” unlike “Christian asceticism” which “has as its

ultimate aim or target the renunciation of the self, whereasthe moral askesis of the Greco-Roman philosophies has as its

goal the establishment of a specific relationship to oneself—a

relationship of self-possession and self-sovereignty.”




144 “Thirdly… most of these texts written in lateantiquity about ethics are not at all concerned with

advancing a theory about the foundations of ethics, but are practical books containing specific recipes

and exercises one had to read, reread, to meditateupon, to learn, in order to construct a lasting matrixfor one’s own behavior.”




145 Foucault will look at these exercises (roughly

“examination of conscience”), in terms of

1. how they differ from one another; “

2. what aspects of the mind, feelings, behavior, etc.,

were considered in these different exercises;

3. that these exercises, despite their differences,implied a relation between truth and the self.”



Solitary self-examination

Seneca 4 BC - 65 AD

149 About Seneca: “These mistakes are only

inefficient actions requiring adjustment betweenends and means.” They are not sins.




149 “The point of the fault concerns a practical error

in his behavior since he was unable to establish aneffective rational relation between the principles of

conduct he knows and the behavior he actuallyengaged in.”




149-150 “Seneca does not analyze his responsibilityor feelings of guilt; it is not, for him, a question of

purifying himself of these faults.

Rather, he engages in a kind of administrative

scrutiny which enables him to reactivate variousrules and maxims in order to make them morevivid, permanent, and effective for future behavior.”



Self-diagnosis

150 Foucault examines the text by Seneca De

tranquillitate animi [“On the Tranquillity of Mind”]which has to do with the “constancy or steadiness

of mind.”

“It denotes stability, self sovereignty, and

independence.But tranquillitas also refers to a certain feeling of pleasurable calm which has its source, its principle,

in this self-sovereignty or self-possession.”



Self-diagnosis

157 Serenus talks to Seneca about this disturbance of soul in

terms of sea-sickness, as if he is coming to a doctor who cancure him:

“I beg you, therefore, if you have any remedy by which you

could stop this fluctuation of mine, to deem me worthy of

being indebted to you for tranquillity.

I know that these mental disturbances of mine are not

dangerous and give no promise of a storm; to express what I

complain of in apt metaphor, I am distressed, not by a

tempest, but by sea-sickness.”



Self-diagnosis

160 “Serenus’s instability does not derive from his ‘sins,’ or

from the fact that he exists as a temporal being—as inAugustine, for example. It stems from the fact that he has not

yet succeeded in harmonizing his actions and thoughts with

the ethical structure he has chosen for himself.

Because he does not possess the tranquillitas, the firmitas,which comes from complete self-sovereignty. And Seneca’s

reply to this self-examination and moral request is an

exploration of the nature of this stability of mind.”



Self-testing

160 These remarks are about one form of self-testing

recommended by Epictetus (55-135 AD).“Epictetus’ problem consists in knowing how to distinguish

those representations that he can control from those that he

cannot control, that incite involuntary emotions, feelings,

behavior, etc., and that must therefore be excluded from his

mind.

Epictetus’ solution is that we must adopt an attitude of

permanent surveillance with regard to all our

representations.”



Self-testing

161 He suggest the use of two metaphors, that of anight watchman and that of a “money-changer.”

The night watchman is to prevent the entrance of any representation “without first checking his

identity,” andthe money-changer is one who “verifies theauthenticity of the currency” the representation.



Self-testing163 Epictetus gives another exercise.

One should ask whether what one sees lies “within

the province of moral purpose and will.”If it does, then keep it, if not, then get rid of it.



Self-testing

164 “Epictetus wants us to constitute a world of

representations where nothing can intrude which isnot subject to the sovereignty of our will. So, again,

self-sovereignty is the organizing principle of thisform of self-examination.”



Self-testing

1) 164 The use of parrhesia as frankness of speech,

moves from the master/disciple relationship wherethe master used parrhesia on the disciple, to the

disciple being trained to use parrhesia on himself,as a duty of self examination.



Self-testing

2) 165 These exercises are not strictly designed to

teach one to “know thyself” though that is the resultof some of these exercises.

“For the various relationships which one has to

oneself are embedded in very precise techniqueswhich take the form of spiritual exercises… dealing

with deeds… states of equilibrium of the soul… theflow of representations, and so on.”



Self-testing

3) 165 “What is at stake is the relation of the self to

truth or to some rational principles.”



Self-testing

165-166 “The truth of the self involves, on the onehand, a set of rational principles which are

grounded in general statements about the world,

human life, necessity, happiness, freedom and soon, and, on the other hand, practical rules for

behavior.”



Self-testing

166 “One can comport oneself towards oneself inthe role of a technician, of a craftsman, of an artist,

who from time to time stops working, examines

what he is doing, reminds himself of the rules of hisart, and compares these rules with what he has

achieved thus far.”





169 “My intention was not to deal with the problem

of truth, but with the problem of the truth-teller,and of truth-telling as an activity.”



170 There are two sides to the problematization of

truth in the West.

The first side “is concerned with determining howto ensure that a statement is true […] which I would

like to call the ‘analytics of truth.’

And on the other side, concerned with the question

of the importance of telling the truth, knowing whois able to tell the truth, and knowing why we shouldtell the truth, we have the toots of what we could

call the ‘critical’ tradition in the West.”



170-171 “And here you will recognize one of my

targets in this seminar, namely, to construct agenealogy of the critical attitude in Western

philosophy.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	john-yagos
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Fearless Speech -Michel Foucault

Documents