Search Results for Foucault

Thomas Hobbes

Dec 8

Posted by

English: Thomas Hobbes Македонски: Томас Хобс

Thomas Hobbes via Wikipedia

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher whose work emphasized society and politics. He’s often described as the founder of modern political philosophy, although some attribute that honor to Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527).

Hobbes makes a distinction between knowing that God is and knowing what God is. From this, the Catholic scholar Fr. Frederic Coppleston says it’s misleading to say that Hobbes is an atheist, even though many still do.

Hobbes was, in fact, embroiled in controversy from ongoing accusations of being an atheist and, by implication, a heretic. His fear of being found guilty of the latter charge compelled him to burn some of his writings and study, very carefully, the existing laws of his day.

Fortunately, King Charles II liked Hobbes. Hobbes had taught the future King, and the monarch Charles played a role in keeping Hobbes safe.

The king was important in protecting Hobbes when, in 1666, the House of Commons introduced a bill against atheism and profaneness. That same year, on 17 October 1666, it was ordered that the committee to which the bill was referred “should be empowered to receive information touching such books as tend to atheism, blasphemy and profaneness… in particular… the book of Mr. Hobbes called the Leviathan“¹

The debate continues to this day, nobody really knowing how Hobbes stood on the point of God’s existence.

The frontispiece of the book Leviathan by Thom...

The frontispiece of the book Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes via Wikipedia

In his seminal work, Leviathan (1651), Hobbes study of the commonwealth deals mostly with civil philosophy. And civil philosophy itself has two forms: ethics (relating to the individual) and politics (relating to society).

Hobbes also imagines what society would be like without a governing body. In so doing he distinguishes two types of bodies, the natural body and the commonwealth.

The natural body is, so Hobbes envisions, what life would be like without a political system.

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.²

In Leviathan Hobbes spells out his belief that human beings are rational and, above all, seeking self-preservation. If left to our natural devices, however, we would become ruthless power seekers, each seeking to gratify his or her own interests, culminating in countless wars. Because this kind of existence would be intolerable, human beings agree to submit their individual wills to a Sovereign.

Not a few writers say that Hobbes claims that life is “nasty, brutish, and short,” but they obviously haven’t done their homework. As noted, Hobbes describes life this way when estimating what things would be like without any government. Left to its natural state, mankind would be beastly. But politics apparently saves us.

Retrato del filósofo francés Michel Foucault

Retrato del filósofo francés Michel Foucault via Wikipedia

Hobbes also maintains that the knowledge gained from philosophizing brings personal power. This could be seen as foreshadowing the 2oth century thinker Michel Foucault’s idea that “knowledge is power.” Both Hobbes and Foucault believe that power should be expressed through social action.

But unlike Hobbes, Foucault also says that “power is knowledge,” meaning that those with more social power have a greater ability to impose their particular norms and values on the rest of society; and society is composed of people who, in many instances, would rather abide by a different set of norms and values.

By way of contrast, Hobbes says that power gained from knowledge should be applied to the common good, a perspective which, in the 20th century, Foucault might have regarded as simplistic or, at least, idealistic.

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Later_life

² Leviathan XIII “Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.”  http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=585&layout=html#chapter_89842

Related articles

Posted in H

1 Comment

Tags: , , , , ,

History

Dec 6

Posted by

Encounter Magazine

Encounter Magazine uploaded by World of Good via Flickr

History is the study of past (and arguably present) ideas, objects, people and events. Scholars usually credit the Greek Heroditus (c. 484 BCE – c. 425 BCE) as the founder of historical writing.

History often involves a particular narrative style that categorizes and describes according to certain time periods and geographical limits. For instance, Lord Kenneth Clark‘s groundbreaking Civilization series for BBC TV pretty much ignored the achievements of ancient China and several other cultures. This is because history must be selective.

Clark was well aware of these shortcomings and, in his view, overcame them by insisting that the series be entitled: Civilization: A Personal View.

More recently, the presentation of history has been popularized by time-charts, point form outlines, multimedia and other innovative techniques which have expanded our definition of the “narrative.”

Feminists often say that history is biased by patriarchy. It’s written mostly by men about men or by men interpreting women’s experiences from a male perspective. Feminists also suggest that female writers of history often adopt a stereotypical male attitude (i.e. sexist).

One strategy that feminists have used to further their agenda is to call history “herstory.” This is an effective contemporary word play, but has been criticized for ignoring the etymology of the word history. The Greek word historia translates to “inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation.”¹

Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault via Wikipedia (follow link for fair use rationale)

The French postodern thinker Michel Foucault argues that history is about the interpretation of not only discovered but often selected forms of knowledge. For Foucault, past events and items are often selected and interpreted to make them seem significant for the benefit of those with social power, while other events and items that would challenge their power are routinely ignored.

According to this view, history is a kind of collective myth. Or more correctly, it’s an ongoing struggle for legitimacy among several competing discourses (a popular term among postmoderns) of power. So in a nutshell, the cleverest myth-makers benefit most.

On the other hand, the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung says that myth is history because it depicts mankind’s collective psychological past.

Two important points to consider with regard to the postmodern view are:

  1. Are the best mythmakers conscious of being such, or do they, perhaps, simply create and perpetuate relative “truths” out of ignorance.
  2. Not entirely unlike Karl Marx‘s  notion of false consciousness, postmoderns believe that prevailing social myths spread throughout a culture so that even those who don’t benefit will believe in and espouse those social “fictions,” as Foucault once put it. And some may believe in a culturally relative discourse which is actually harmful to them.

A good example for #2 would be gays and lesbians before the American Psychiatric Association voted in 1974 that homosexuality wasn’t a mental disorder.² Prior to that time, many gays and lesbians would no doubt have questioned why they were apparently “wrong,” blindly believing in the psychiatric biases of the day.

Related Posts » Archaeology, Counter-discourse, Dialectical Materialism, Forces of Production, Hegel (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich), Intercession, Jewish Mysticism, Joachim of Fiore, Language, Lévi-Strauss (Claude),  Moses and Monotheism, Myth, Nietzsche (Friedrich), Occam’s razor, Relations of Production, Scholarship, Sign

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

² Chuck Stewart, Homosexuality and the law: a dictionary, p. 41.

Related articles

Posted in H

Leave a Comment

Tags: , , , , , ,

Hegemony

Nov 8

Posted by

Philip II of King of Macedon, Ny Carlsberg Gly...

Philip II of King of Macedon, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek via Wikipedia

Hegemony is a political science term with ancient roots.

In the Greco–Roman world of 5th century European Classical antiquity, the city-state of Sparta was the hegemon of the Peloponnesian League (6th – 4th centuries BC); King Philip II of Macedon was the hegemon of the League of Corinth, in 337 BC, (a kingship he willed to his son, Alexander the Great).¹

In the 19th century historians used the term to describe one nation’s power over another, and by implication, the whole notion of Imperialism.

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937) was the first to use hegemony to describe the idea of a ruling class socially and economically dominating others within a given society.

The contemporary sociological meaning of the term hegemony points to an entire system of cultural values and practices existing within interconnected and (apparently) legitimate social institutions (e.g. markets, legal system, government, education, religion and media) which the powerful allegedly use to oppress the powerless.

Occupy DC

Image by AFSC Photos via Flickr

Along these lines, the French social thinker Bourdieu, Pierre (1930-2002) introduced the idea of “cultural capital” to try to explain the complex relations contributing to societal inequity, discrimination and domination.

For all its flaws, the recent “Occupy movement” (where protestors are sweeping the globe in protest of being “have-nots” apparently marginalized by a few wealthy “haves”)² raises the question of institutional legitimacy, which just a few decades ago, was certainly not a mainstream issue and hardly questioned by most people in the G8.

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

Related Posts » Discourse, Foucault (Michel)


Related articles

Posted in H

Leave a Comment

Tags: , , , , , ,

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

Nov 6

Posted by

Hegel

G.W.F. Hegel portrait by Jakob Schlesinger 1831 via Wikipedia

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher often associated with idealism.

Hegel is arguably misunderstood by many, especially by those who suggest that he advances an elaborate metaphysical system without providing any real empirical support for it.

This kind of critique of Hegel’s “grand theory” isn’t necessarily fair. If one takes the time to go to his actual works, we find that Hegel takes great pains to support his theories with actual historical examples.

His influential theory of history, for example, could be taken as a scientific attempt to develop theory from observation. Here Hegel sees pure Spirit manifesting itself within a teleological human history.

Any given moment in history is a necessary but imperfect manifestation of Infinite Spirit. Historical events observed in the material world are progressively transformed through an ongoing dynamic known as the dialectic.

Although Hegel never used the words “thesis,” “antithesis” and “synthesis” to describe his own theory, they’re often used by academics and writers when trying to explain his idea of dialectical becoming. This kind of usage has been roundly criticized. Walter Kaufman, for example, argues that Hegel’s system is far more complicated than a simple triad moving towards perfection.¹

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.²

Because the city of Jena was occupied by Frenc...

Because the city of Jena was occupied by French troops under Napoleon in 1806, G.W.F. Hegel was forced to leave the city. But he did witness Napoleon's entry into the city and, as an admirer of the French Revolution, was delighted to witness first-hand this "world spirit on horseback" passing by. Image from Harper's Magazine, 1895 via Wikipedia

Hegel himself spoke of “overcoming” (Aufhebung) the negative in the march of human history. This overcoming of resistance to the good has also been translated as “sublation,” both terms trying to express the idea that the essential, positive core of something is retained while its limiting factors are left behind.³

While critical of generalizing triadic thinking to all of Hegel’s thought, Kaufman does, however, concede that Hegel shows a marked tendency toward it.4

So a Christian theological application of the Hegelian dialectic could go as follows: Jesus Christ enters the world as the perfect Son but meets opposition from less than perfect people living during the Roman occupation of Israel under the Emperor Tiberius.

The “thesis” of the perfect, human Christ is physically destroyed by the “antithesis” of the evil actions of the people around him. But Christ’s bodily resurrection and ascension signifies an overcoming, and the conflict between thesis and antithesis is surpassed.

This example is not too far fetched. Hegel was a baptized Christian and has been roundly critiqued as a theologian posing as a philosopher, a critique that arguably exhibits the narrow and reductive thinking of some but certainly not all philosophers.

Hegel’s thoughts on the person of Jesus Christ stood out from the theologies of the Enlightenment. In his posthumous book, The Christian Religion: Lectures on Philosophy of Religion Part 3, he espouses that, “God is not an abstraction but a concrete God…God, considered in terms of his eternal Idea, has to generate the Son, has to distinguish himself from himself; he is the process of differentiating, namely, love and Spirit”. This means that Jesus as the Son of God is posited by God over against himself as other. Hegel sees both a relational unity and a metaphysical unity between Jesus and God the Father. To Hegel, Jesus is both divine and Human. Hegel further attests that God (as Jesus) not only died, but “…rather, a reversal takes place: God, that is to say, maintains himself in the process, and the latter is only the death of death. God rises again to life, and thus things are reversed.” Hegel therefore maintains not only the deity of Jesus, but the resurrection as a reality.5

Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) mit Studenten. Lit...

Hegel lecturing, sketch by Franz Kugler, ca. 1830 via Wikipedia

Many commentators today say that the triadic dynamic in Hegel’s work had a profound influence on Karl Marx, who adapted it to his own, entirely materialistic theory of history.

Also, Hegel’s dialectic arguably had an indirect effect on Michel Foucault. For Foucault, the idea of dialectical tension could be improved upon by explaining history through a more open-ended, discontinuous outlook, one characterized by struggle.

—

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis#cite_note-0

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

3 “Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea, thing, society, etc., while moving beyond its limitations.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis#cite_note-0

5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

Related Posts » Counter-discourse, Panentheism, Pantheism

Related articles

Posted in H

1 Comment

Tags: , , , ,

Illness

Sep 6

Posted by

Theater Square of Susan Sontag

Theater Square of Susan Sontag by Anosmia via Flickr

In her book Illness as Metaphor (1978), Susan Sontag argued, not unlike Michel Foucault, that contemporary ways of approaching and understanding illness are intricately linked to societal norms. Huston Smith, in Beyond the Postmodern Mind (1982), also contends that current views about illness are culture-bound.

Other cultures, particularly those located in different historical periods, would probably regard as abnormal some contemporary beliefs, ideas and practices which many today see as normal.

This kind of argument is often used in relation to mental illness (and an inverse argument is often used with regard to homosexuality and polygamy¹), but Sontag (and Foucault) point out that it also applies to physical illness.

As with mental illness, bias with physical illness is evident in the way the issue is construed—i.e. the apparent causes, the best course of treatment, and what an illness supposedly signifies about a sick person’s moral character.

Related Posts » Aesculapius, Athleticism, Castanada (Carlos), Demons, DSM-IV-TR, Evil, Francis of Assisi (St.), Homeopathy, Jung (Carl Gustav), Koestler (Arthur), Laing (R. D.), Madness, Medicine Wheel, Occam’s razor, Shaman, Soul Loss, Spiritual Attack, Suicide, Szasz (Thomas), Venial Sin

—

¹ That is, other cultures, particularly those located in different historical periods, would probably regard as normal some contemporary beliefs, ideas and practices which many today see as abnormal. For instance, many in the ancient world believed that illness was caused by spiritual attack. Today, this belief would probably be uncritically dismissed by medical science.

Related articles

Venial Sin

Posted in I

Leave a Comment

Tags: , , , , , ,

Ideology

Sep 2

Posted by

A segment of a social network

A segment of a social network via Wikipedia

The word ideology is fairly well known today but not too long ago its mention, except among sociologists and historians, would probably have been met with a blank stare.

Ideology refers to a body of social, economic or political ideas and beliefs informing a person, a group or a nation. At least, this is the standard dictionary view. Social thinkers – who tend to question dictionary definitions – argue that ideology is an often deceptive set of beliefs willingly or possibly unwittingly advanced by those with the social power to do so.

According to Karl Marx, Roland Barthes and, to some extent, Michel Foucault, the unwitting masses tend to reproduce ideologies until the point where they become aware of the shallow and deceptive character of a given ideology.

At this time the so-called ordinary person, and not just the so-called intellectuals, may try to change or even revolutionize ideologies.

It’s been argued that all religions contain an ideological component. And this may be true. But to reduce the spiritual aspect of religious experience to mere ideology is probably a mistake or, at least, incomplete.

Academic treatments of the idea of ideology are often complicated and extensive. And, one could say, that although they may appear radical and progressive to naive young students, in reality the academic treatment of ideology is still, for the most part “safe,” and thus ironically reproduces the very social structures and attendant issues which are outlined in class (along with those issues that are overlooked).

That’s a cynical view, of course. And like any opinion, it’s biased and incomplete. Another view is that it’s better to talk about some things than entirely ignore or deny their existence. And social change need not be revolutionary but can, in fact, be gradual or subtle. So, university is not necessarily just “finishing school” but can help to spark young minds into positive action.

Another thing to consider about ideology – or, more properly, academic views about ideology – is that it need not be an evil or sinister process. Ideologies can be good or, at least, better than competing ones. This point is often overlooked by derisive professors who seem to be lopsidedly critical and unfairly trash the very system that gives them their bread and butter.

In the arts, Canadian musician Bruce Cockburn had this to say in the 1980′s song, “Call it Democracy.” I’m not sure what his stance would be today.

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament –
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called “developed” nations’
Idolatry of ideology.¹

¹ Full lyrics and subsequent author comments (up to 2005) here: http://cockburnproject.net/songs&music/atcid.html

Related Posts » Advertising, Corruption, Discourse, False Consciousness, Hegemony, Symbol

Related articles

Posted in I

4 Comments

Tags: , , , , ,

Linguistics

Jan 13

Posted by

The Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857...

The Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) via Wikipedia

Linguistics is the study of language, including its elements, character, structure and modifications.

While much has been said in academic circles about recent structural and poststructural analyses of language, critical thinking about language is not a new phenomenon.

In ancient Greece, for instance, several major philosophers discussed some of the many issues arising around logos (speech, account, reason, definition, rational faculty, proportion) and onoma (name).¹

—

¹ Definitions of Greek terms are from F. E. Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon (New York: New York University Press, 1967, pp. 110, 144), where further discussion of this topic is available.

Related Posts

Related Articles

Posted in L

Leave a Comment

Tags: , , ,

Language

Dec 6

Posted by

kerouac On the Road scroll

Kerouac On the Road scroll by emdot via Flickr

In the academic world it’s often assumed that the acquisition of different languages makes for a better, more valuable scholar. While this often may be the case, it’s not always.

Pierre Bourdieu notes that language, itself, has become a worldwide commodity. And in keeping with Foucault’s idea of discourse, Bourdieu says certain languages have more clout than others.

For Bourdieu and other sociologists like Max Weber, social institutions – like universities – tend to legitimize themselves. Western universities, for example, are compelled to justify high tuition fees coupled with boring, run of the mill professors exhibiting mediocre analytical skills and a limited ability to think creatively.

As socially recognized and highly competitive organs of knowledge dissemination, universities strive to produce a certain quota of publications. Meanwhile, many scholars and the reading public tend to uncritically associate the knowledge of original languages with rational, coherent thought and scholarly legitimacy.

Wendy O’Flaherty, although an exceptional researcher and writer, in part falls into this legitimacy trap. In the Introduction to her translation of the Rig Veda O’Flaherty writes:

This is a book for people, not for scholars. Real scholars will read the Sanskrit; would-be scholars, or scholars from other fields, will fight their way through the translations of Geldner (German), Renou (French), Elizarenkova (Russian) and others; they will search the journals for articles on each verse, and on each word; they will pore over the dictionaries and concordances (Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Rig Veda, London: Penguin, 1981, p. 11).

And in footnote:

See appendix 3 for a bibliography of translations into European languages (Ibid).

While O’Flaherty lists noteworthy Asian commentators and Asian translators who render the Veda into European languages, interestingly enough, no mention is made of translations into contemporary Asian languages like Japanese, Korean or Mandarin.

She says the European translations are intended to encourage the “would-be scholar to make a better guess” than her own “educated guess on several problematic points” arrived at “by using the available scholarship” (Ibid., p. 12).

Does O’Flaherty contradict herself by elevating the ability of so-called “real scholars” while conceding that knowledge of an original language does not guarantee “correct” understanding?

If knowledge of original languages did guarantee correct understanding, the meanings of specific words and phrases in most ancient texts would not be continually debated and re-translated. By way of example, there’s no need to try to figure out what Sir Isaac Newton was trying to say with his three laws of motion, because we all get it. Ancient words and phrases, however, are continually being reinterpreted by self-proclaimed experts on the basis of new archeological findings, shifting academic approaches and societal changes.

With the exception of O’Flaherty and a handful of others, most translators go to great lengths to try to justify their particular rendering of problematic terms. They attempt to convince the reader that their ability to discern original meanings is as strong or stronger than all the other ‘specialists.’

And not only that. Many scholars push narrow-minded or far-fetched claims to make their translation of certain terms conform to their own point of view. In short, linguists and translators can disagree quite dramatically. These conflicted meanings arguably arise partly from incompetence, ignorance, ambition, and opinionated or wishful thinking.

Translation is clearly subject to human bias. Even with concerted and informed attempts to offer accurate translations, it’s doubtful that these biases may be eradicated. And even if translators could go through a time machine and be present when the ancient texts were actually written, the central obstacle to a precise and exact understanding of certain terms would persist: The translators themselves did not write the original text.

It seems safe to say that one can, in most instances, never fully understand another person’s mode of thinking and intent. To complicate things, consider contemporary English literature about which English-speaking scholars produce seemingly endless commentaries about the actual or “intended” meanings of certain English words and symbols. These intense debates occur within the very same language as that of the original texts.

Here, the student of religion may argue that religious texts differ from fiction because the former refer to fixed, unalterable truths. But this claim is complicated by the fact that the meaning of some religious terms change over time-such as angel and asura.

Moreover, the religious believer could say they have an advantage over regimented scholars because they possess higher forms of perception-that is, the alleged true meaning of a term is revealed or infused by God, even when reading that term in translation.

The scholar of religion cannot really prove or disprove such a claim. But scholars do point out that many apparently ‘revealed truths’ among believers often seem to contradict one another.

Meanwhile, several postmodern writers intentionally write texts with open-ended, ambiguous meanings. This creates, they say, a living dialogue between writer and reader instead of a dead monologue from writer to reader. The result, they seem to believe, is a ‘literary novel’ of higher value than say, ‘trashy pulp fiction.’ But arbitrary distinctions like this can become ingrained among literary circles, and are often loaded with unsavory, elitist connotations.

Another point to consider is that some believe that writers, themselves, may not be fully aware of their own intended meanings. And this is the underlying basis to a psychoanalytic approach to literature.

Clearly, scholars can and do produce insightful works without much knowledge of original languages. A good example would be John Kerr’s A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein (1993). Kerr openly admits to drawing upon the work of several translators. And perhaps this is a stronger method than merely relying on one’s own particular and possibly idiosyncratic translation of original texts.

Related Posts » Advertising, Anthropology, Aramaic, Burrows (William S.), Derrida (Jacques), Hebrew, Latin, Lévi-Strauss (Claude), Linguistics, McLuhan (Marshall), Mead (George Herbert), Nietzsche (Friedrich), Pali, Representation, Rosetta Stone, Ryle (Gilbert), Sanskrit, Saussure (Ferdinand de), Scholarship, Universalism, Wittgenstein (Ludwig), Zeno

Related Articles

Posted in L

1 Comment

Tags: , , , , , ,

Laing, R. D.

Nov 30

Posted by

Neil A. Armstrong, Eagle Scout and first perso...

Neil Armstrong in an Gemini G-2C training suit via Wikipedia (NASA)

R. D. Laing (1927-1989) was a Scottish existential psychiatrist whose views about the psychiatric classification and treatment of mental illnesses like schizophrenia remain influential within anti-psychiatry groups and among some humanities students.

In the The Politics of Experience and the Bird of Paradise (1967), Laing makes a case for the ‘inner adventurer,’ saying that Western culture tends to exalt outer-worldly adventurers (such as Christopher Columbus and Neil Armstrong) while denigrating inner-worldly ones.

Outer adventurers are usually high risk takers and may die from their dangerous pursuits (e.g. Apollo I, Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttles). But as a culture we don’t say the deceased were ‘crazy’ for taking such high risks. Rather, we regard them as heroes.

Laing says this is not the case with most inner adventurers (Vincent Van Gogh comes to mind as a possible exception to Laing’s claim, although his genius was not fully recognized until years after his death). When most inner adventurers fail to achieve worldly recognition we tend to categorize them with unpleasant sounding labels that effectively rob them of their intrinsic human dignity.

While Laing says this is a cultural process, it gets it start in the family dynamic. Not unlike the sociologist Erving Goffman, Laing believes there’s often a tacit, largely subconscious dynamic within families to characterize a certain family member as “ill,” thus marginalizing them. According to this perspective, much undealt with complexes, tensions and dysfunctional family dynamics are thrust upon the individual seen as “sick,” who unfortunately bears the brunt of the whole family mess.

From a religious or spiritual perspective, this view possibly relates to the Hindu idea of karma transfer, along with the Catholic ideas of ‘victim souls’ and ‘taking sins.’ Historically speaking, the dynamic is also reminiscent of the ancient practice of community scapegoating.

In his years of work as a psychiatrist, Laing tried to discern and reassemble allegedly encrypted patterns of meaning within the seemingly ‘nonsense’ utterances of schizophrenic speech.

In short, Laing suggests that ideas about madness rest on biased interpretations of largely misunderstood experiences and behaviors. By the same token, as a doctor he tries to cure patients, as if to imply that his own way of seeing things is more authentic than theirs.

Like him or lump him, on the whole, Laing’s work raises worthwhile questions about social power, conformity, the status quo, deviance and the idea of mental illness. Laing’s opponents tend to accept the idea of mental illness, saying that it’s a serious, difficult and potentially life-threatening issue. They also say that Laing and other anti-psychiatry groups advance a romantic, one-sided scenario and make untenable claims that don’t fit with the vast majority of cases.

Related Posts » DSM-IV-TR, Foucault (Michel), Madness, Psychosis, Saints, Shamanism, Soul loss

Related Articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neil_Armstrong_in_Gemini_G-2C_training_suit.jpg

Posted in L

Leave a Comment

Tags: , , , , , ,

Myth

Nov 24

Posted by

Pombero. Mitología Guaraní

Image via Wikipedia

The word myth is derived from the Greek mythos, meaning anything passed on orally.

Homer used mythos to signify stories and conversation based on fact instead of fiction. Later, Plato used mythos to refer to discourses containing shades of truth but which, for the most part, are fiction.

Among its contemporary meanings, myth often points back to a quasi-historical epoch or heroic character.

The term mythology may be used synonymously with myth or, more commonly, with a body of myths. ‘Mythology’ also involves a somewhat analytical (as in scholarly or philosophical) view of myths. A mythologist is someone who studies myths in this way, whereas a mythographer is more a compiler of myths.

Some mythologists trace historical conditions and archeological findings under the assumption that myths are just stories loosely based on historical events (as with the Hindu Ramayana).

In The Greek Myths Robert Graves says this about all myths—i.e. myth is something like a political cartoon.

Some rationalists contend that myth is an early protoscience that attempts to explain natural mysteries, not unlike contemporary science.

The functionalist theory sees myth as serving a positive social purpose. Emile Durkheim, for instance, argued that so-called primitive religion bonded community members and defined precise social classes and roles. The notion that social roles are defined and legitimized by mythology and sacred scripture seems to be partially supported by the Hindu caste system, by Greek and Nordic social stratification and by the Bible and the Koran.

Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory views myth as a folk tale that reveals more about psychological than historical truths. Freud sees myth mostly in terms of wish-fulfillment, denial and sublimation.

Despite Robert Graves’ attack on C. G. Jung for being too metaphysical, Jung himself says myths are “psychological truths” that are historical because they reveal the attitudes of a group at a particular juncture in history. Interestingly, Jung admits to creating his own modern myth through his psychological theories. He also admits to using scientific language to convince otherwise skeptical readers as to the relevance of his ideas.

In a sense, then, Jung’s approach to myth-making could be seen as somewhat postmodern in that he knows full well he’s creating a social truth, if not a permanent truth. While some third-rate thinkers may see this as some kind of moral threat, it’s not that at all. Jung’s goal in myth-making is to create a sense of meaning and purpose appropriate to his times.

Joseph Campbell notes that myth, in combination with rites and ceremonies, serves a pedagogical function. Campbell says myth provides a thread of sensibility running through various stages of life, teaching us how to belong and contribute to society, from birth to childhood, adolescence, adulthood, middle age and eventually to the grave.

In the Tibetan Book of The Dead, the importance of myth extends beyond the grave.

The structuralist theory of Claude Levi-Strauss looks at myth as something arising out of pre-set, universal linguistic structures. For Levi-Strauss, meaning is not separate but explicit to the structure of myths, which apparently pose a series of binary oppositions (e.g. good-evil, male-female, hot-cold, helpful-harmful) that demonstrate how the human mind thinks.

Levi-Strauss’ views have been challenged by Sir Evans Pritchard who says not all mythic systems are constructed in simple binary oppositions. Other opponents say that meaning may exist on top of structure. The statement “the yellow laugh looked wet” for example, is grammatically correct but most would see it as meaningless.

The poststructuralist Michel Foucault sees practically all statements and related practices in terms of myth or ‘fictions.’ For Foucault, societal morals, scientific truths as well as economic, ideological and political imperatives are myths which, when invested with social power, exhibit tangible effects. Sometimes these very real effects of myth are pleasurable and other times not.

Related Posts » Barthes (Roland),  McLuhan (Marshal)

Related Articles

Share

Posted in M

1 Comment

Tags: , , ,

← Older Posts
Newer Posts →
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers

%d bloggers like this: