Michel Foucault and John Locke

The private land, with family life as its foundation, has a significant place in western sandwich culture, which has its roots in the notion of pater familias or family head that formulates the family life as a unique ground in Roman law. The private celestial champaign that includes the family life and means a realm go forthside the common sphere began to be used only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This concept initially referred to the realm outside the dynamic or active social life.This idea of the private sphere outside of the distinguish-supported life and of the center of the private activities have forced some governmental thinkers to take part in theoretical discussions regarding the separation of the popular and private spheres. According to Locke, as the foundation of semipolitical authority, the social squeeze emerges outside the family life. Accordingly, the private realm can be defined as the realm of women, symbolized by sentimentality, compass ion, love, munificence and generosity. blow to this, the globe sphere is the realm of men, dominated by rationality, mutual exchange and observation in every aspect of social life.Despite inspiring the emergence of a state, Lockes intelligence of the public sphere continues to live on with different social elements that have their stimulate dynamism. For Locke, in that respectfore, the public sphere has two dimensions political and social. The objective of the defined political sphere is to protect the freedom of the public along with its life and right(a)ty rights. This is demonstrated in the Second Treaties of Government, in which Locke offers three different realms the private sphere of women, the public sphere of men in general and the political sphere of state servants such as members of the police, military and judiciary.Contrary to Locke, Foucault focuses primarily on the notion of the public sphere merged with political authority. In this regard, General impart domi nates public life as the product of men who have g champion beyond family life. Such an understanding sharply differentiates Rousseau from Locke. In any(prenominal) case, it was Foucault who laid the foundation for a notion of a abstruse state that overshadows the public life dominated by free men. In Foucaults view, men who make up the differentiating public life outside of family life become the objects of civil order of magnitude in a transcendental state.This transcendental state, he further argues, first combines all unique aspects and elements of different societal groups within its metaphysical container and accordingly enforces its own ideology in order to claim control over them. In sum, as distant to Locke, for Hegel and Rousseau there are two opposing spheres a private realm belonging to women, children and the disabled, and a public life belonging to men who are united to the state structure with compassion and affection. It is thus perspicuous that their conceptio n of the public sphere is intimately connected to the political authority.In his Rum des cours, those summaries produce for all the prestigious Collge de France lectures, the chapter entitled Il faut dfendre la socit (Society essentialiness be defended) makes passing reference to race. Foucault was implicated with how war came to be an analytic tool of historic noesis and of social relations at large. Moreover, the issue of racialism in the lectures seems ancillary and oddly displaced.This is not a prelude to an argument that we have all missed the real Foucault, and that the key to a genealogy of racism is waiting for us in his taped lectures rather than in published form. Both texts are concerned with the emergence of an alternative confabulation to that of sovereign right, to a discourse of the war of races that Foucault will identify as the first contre-histoire (counter-history) to a unitary conception of power represented in a historical discourse that served the soverei gn state. Racism emerges as one of several realistic domains in which technologies of sexuality are worked out and displayed. In the lectures, state racism is not an effect but a tactic in the natural fission of society into binary oppositions, a means of creating biologized internal enemies, against whom society must defend it self.On the issues of race and compoundism, we can notice several contradictory impulses in Foucaults work a focus on racism and an elision of it, a historiography so locked in Europe and its straggling formations that colonial genocide and narratives to the highest degree it could only be derivative of the internal dynamics of European states. The studied absence of the impact of colonial culture on Foucaults bourgeois order did more than constrain his mapping of the discourses of sexuality. In the end, Foucault confined his raft to a specific range of racisms, a range that students of colonial history who might choose to conserve his genealogical meth ods would be prompted to reject.English political and social thought in the seventeenth century is characterized by the idea of possessive individualisticism. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it became an underlying and unifying assurance. Its possessive quality is found in the condition of the individual as all important(p)ly the proprietor of his (or presumably her) own person or capacities, owe nothing to society for them. Thus for theorists such as John Locke, the individual pre-figures society, and society will be happy and secure to the extent that individuals are happy and secure.Not only does the individual own his or her own capacities, but, more crucially, each is morally and legally responsible for himself or herself. Freedom from dependence on others means freedom from relations with others except those relations entered into voluntarily out of self-interest. Human society is plain a series of market relations between self-interested subjects. For Fouca ult it is guided by an invisible hand. For John Locke society is a joint stock company of which individuals are shareholders.Paradoxically, while the impact of individualism was dominant in relation to the social, political, educational, and scientific ideas of the late nineteenth, early twentieth century, this period actually marked a major extension of the States authority over every aspect of the individuals life and to every corner of society. The problems of urbanization, population increases, immigration, war, and a major concern with eugenics gave rise to more regulation and control, leading to the States encouragement of various forms of social research.Locke argues that since infinite crowned heads claim the right to be Judges in their own Cases, because unattackable monarchy is based on the assumption that no individual on earth has a right to challenge the legitimacy of the will of an absolute monarch, it is irrational because of the rational prohibition against any ma n being a judge in his own case.Moreover, since an absolute monarch claims the right to absolute power and control over all his subjects, it is irrational because any attempt to exert absolute power and control by one person over some other violates the rational precepts of the law of nature and establishes a state of war between individuals. As such, an absolute monarch is held by Locke to be in a state of war with his subjects, and since civil government is established to sustain a state of war, absolute monarchy provides no remedy for the Inconveniences of the state of nature, for it is but a continuation of a state of war.In this manner, Locke presents us with his criticism of the rational and moral legitimacy of absolute monarchy, and thereby establishes the dogma that a necessary condition of legitimate government is that it be limited in the permissible model of political power and authority.Limited government, that is, becomes the legitimate alternative to any form of ab solute government. Furthermore, it is also possible to understand that, for Locke, the law of nature establishes the legitimate limitation on government, in the sense that the exercise of political power and authority is only legitimate if it protects the natural rights of individuals to Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.At this point, Locke introduces the idea of consent, by claiming that since individuals are, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate and subjected to the policy-making Power of another, without his own Consent. Accordingly, it logically follows that the transformation from a nonpolitical existence to a political one can only legitimately be accomplished by the individual consent of each individual in the state of nature. Does this particular use of the idea of consent constitute anything more than formal conformism to the methodological requirements of contractarian thought, or does it have a more of the essence(p) sta tus within the context of Lockes political thought?In relation to the issue of subjectivity, Foucault rejects identity-based politics rooted in the notion of an historical, pre-discursive I. For Foucault identities are self representations or fixations that are neither fixed nor stable. The subject is not a thing outside of culture, and there is no pure state of nature to ground history either. The subject is not a substantive entity at all but rather a process of signification with an open system of discursive possibilities. The self is a regulated but not determined set of practices and possibilities.ConclusionAsserts Foucault, If the genealogist refuses to extend his doctrine in metaphysics, if he listens to history, he finds that there is something altogether different behind things not a timeless and essential secret, but the secret that they have no essence or that their essence was fabricated in a piecemeal fashion from alien forms. Contrary to what John Locke would contend about power, unity (whether of consciousness proper or the continuity of personal experience) is not the essence of subjectivity.Unity is a cover for an interplay of anonymous forces and historical accidents that permits us to identify subjects, to identify ourselves, as specific human beings. Unity-identity-is imposed on subjects as the mask of their fabrication. Subjectivity is the carceral and incarcerating expression of this imposition, of the limitations drawn around us by discourses of truth and practices of individualization but seen finished the differential knowledge of genealogy, the identity of subjectivity collapses.RESOURCESJohn Locke Second Treaties of Government, Two Treaties of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (New York Cambridge University Press, 1988), chapter VII.Foucault M. (1997k). Society must be defended. In M. Foucault, Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth The Essential Works (Ed. P. Rabinow, trans. R. Hurley) (pp. 5966). Allen Lane, London Penguin Press.