• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Žižek on Foucault, Descartes and Madness

February 2, 2012 by Seth Paskin 10 Comments

MadnessOK, so this isn't the easiest thing to read (after seeing numerous Žižek videos, it looks to me that he writes like he talks like he thinks, which is pretty fluid, making connections between things and not necessarily driving through focused theses...) but a little time spent on it yields some interesting points.  For some context, Katie noted in the episode that Discipline & Punish was one of a series of works by Foucault examining Power that included Madness and Civilization and The History of Sexuality. We only talked about Discipline and Punish, but you can take the general theme on Power found in it and imagine how Foucault uses it in the other two works even if you haven't read them.

Žižek summarizes Foucault's characterization (in Madness and Civilization) of the status of madness from the Renaissance to the Classical Age of Reason thusly:

In the Renaissance (Cervantes, Shakespeare, Erasmus, etc.), madness was a specific phenomenon of human spirit which belonged to the series of prophets, possessed visionaries, those obsessed by demons, saints, comediants, etc. It was a meaningful phenomenon with a truth of its own. Even if madmen were vilified, they were treated with awe, like messengers of sacred horror. - With Descartes, however, madness is excluded: madness, in all its varieties, comes to occupy a position that was the former location of leprosy.

As has been a theme in both the podcast on Foucault and the discussions of him here and on our FB page, I'll put aside a judgment about the historical accuracy of Foucault's claim.  What I'd like to do is unpack Žižek's reading of Foucault's reading of Descartes.

Žižek notes that Foucault addresses the Cogito in Madness and Civilization.  We are all familiar with the idea that Descartes founds the certainty of the Cogito by hypothesis that everything we perceive is illusion.  Madness, insofar as it creates false perceptions or illusions, is treated by Descartes in the same way as dreams or waking sense delusions - I can doubt that I am perceiving correctly (I am being deceived) but I can't doubt that I think.  The Cogito is gotten to via reason and not perception - it rejects perception and by extension, madness.  So on Žižek's reading:

Foucault’s reproach is that Descartes does not really confront madness, but avoids to think it. He EXCLUDES madness from the domain of reason: "Dreams or illusions are surmounted within the structure of truth; but madness is inadmissible for the doubting subject" In the Classical Age, Reason is thus based on the exclusion of madness: the very existence of the category 'madness' is historically determined, along with its opposite 'reason'; that is, it is determined, through power relations.

This is intended to illuminate the previous comment about the exclusion of madness.  Madness, instead of being constitutive of (a certain type) of self is excluded from self altogether when Descartes positions the rationally founded I think against the content of perception.  Žižek highlights Foucault's criticism of Descartes:

When I suffer sensory illusions of perception or when I dream, I still REMAIN NORMAL AND RATIONAL, I only deceive myself with regard to what I see. In madness, on the contrary, I myself am no longer normal, I lose my reason. So madness has to be excluded if I am to be a rational subject.

So the thesis here is that the Cartesian rational subject requires the rejection of madness.  This is problematic in that people who experience madness (we could probably more charitably refer to this as 'psychologically irrational states' but that's too long) are either not subjects or somehow lose their subjectivity.  Given that the rational subject is intended to be the basis for an account of the human Self and Knowledge, it can't apply partially or be something people can drop into and out of arbitrarily. Foucault's criticism is then that by excluding the non-rational, Descartes marginalizes it and as Cartesian subjectivity takes hold in theory, thought and social structures the non-rational becomes something antithetical to the Self and must be treated with (at first) hostility and then clinically.

Žižek in the essay wants to contrast how Foucault, Derrida and Lacan treat Madness if you want to explore it further.  Somehow he manages to name drop, in addition to Descartes, Adorno, Kant, Rousseau, Daniel Dennett, Hegel, Schelling, Pippin, Chesterton, Nietzsche, Husserl, Brecht, Freud, David Lynch, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Erasmus, Malebranche, the Wachowski brothers and Berkeley.  I'm not kidding.  Bringing thinkers into conversation indeed...

--seth

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings, Web Detritus Tagged With: Michel Foucault, philosophy blog, Rene Descartes, Slavoj Žižek Zizek

Comments

  1. Daniel Horne says

    February 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Žižek is the nutsiest sound around!

    Reply
  2. dmf says

    February 2, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    this line of thought suits Zizek’s Lacan/Hegel hybrid theory and is a fair enough reading of Foucault’s position at that point but the question of whether or not Foucault stays with this kind of analysis (and his relationship to Lacan and co) is a whole other conversation.
    the name dropping question is a daunting one as to how much context does one need to have to get a grip on what’s going on these texts/exchanges, for example Kojeve and Hyppolite now come to mind but this could be endless…

    Reply
  3. dmf says

    February 2, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    http://fora.tv/2011/04/04/Slavoj_Zizek_Catastrophic_But_Not_Serious#fullpro

    Reply
  4. Nick James says

    February 2, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    I want to be like Zizek when I grow up!

    Reply
  5. David Buchanan says

    February 3, 2012 at 11:48 am

    I’m thinking that Nietzsche’s criticism of “Socratism” is a subtler version of Foucault’s complaint. Socratism doesn’t exclude madness, exactly, but rather asserts rationality at the expense of instinct, ecstatic revelry and wild drunkenness. The Socratic demand for intelligibility had a way of denigrating and marginalizing the artists and poets. If Nietzsche is right, the Apollonian spirit has dominated the West since the days of Socrates and so, it seems to me, Descartes’ exclusion of madness and his emphasis on rationality are just prominent, Modern examples of a very long trend.

    Reply
    • dmf says

      February 3, 2012 at 1:15 pm

      or one could read Socrates along the lines of Kierkegaard as taking us beyond the limits (ungrounded/un-homeyness if you prefer Heidegger) of reason giving, interesting to see Nietzsche as being portrayed as “subtle” here (for me Foucault is generally more subtle by often showing rather than saying tho apparently some people take this as his not being interested in some topics) but more importantly what does this say about the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy in our times?
      http://www.threepennyreview.com/samples/williamsbernard_sp01.html

      Reply
  6. dmf says

    February 12, 2012 at 7:55 am

    Zizek on Hegel vs Heidegger:
    http://worker01.e-flux.com/pdf/article_8948848.pdf

    Reply
  7. mark says

    February 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Zizek is nutty. Simon Critchley would be awesome to cover.
    Check out…

    http://bam150years.blogspot.com/2012/02/simon-critchley-on-faith-of-faithless.html

    Regards,

    Mark

    Reply
  8. C.-Derick-Varn says

    March 5, 2012 at 7:58 am

    I took a negative dialectical approach to Zizek and Critchley: No and no. But there is a manic quality to Zizek’s rhetoric that almost is a mirror of the neurotic in classical psychoanalysis. Given Zizek’s relationship to Lacan, I have always wondered if this itself was an over-elaborate joke.

    Reply
  9. Leon says

    June 7, 2021 at 4:21 pm

    I think it is not the most elegant way, using the term “elegant” in a political sense, to post here amazon links. Sorry guys, it´s a bit to… you can choose a term for it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Theo on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two)
  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in