Enlightenment Today

Author(s): John Rajchman

Source: Log, No. 11 (Winter 2008), pp. 131-142
Published by: Anyone Corporation
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41765189 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 15:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Anyone Corporation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Log.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JohnRajchman

Enlightenment

Today

"Whatis enlightenment?" ImmanuelKantaskedin a short

essayin a Berlinnewspaperin 1784,a fewyearsbeforethe
revolutionin Francethatwould sweepEuropeand inspire
hisRepublicanenthusiasm. Two centurieslater,from1978to
his deathin 1984,MichelFoucault,in a seriesof lectures,
interviews, and prefaces, would constantly referbackto this
apparently minor text in the Kantian corpus,findingin it a
new questionthatwould be takenup in different waysin
German,French,and Englishlanguagetraditions, leadingto
his own styleof "historico-philosophical critique."In the
the
process, very idea of enlightenment would appearin a
new light,confronted withsomeof thegreatquestionsof
the20thcenturyconcerning politicalrationality,colonial-
ism, and the fateof revolution in Russia,and hence withthe
problem of a new and "despotic"kindof lumiere .
An immediateimpetusforFoucaulťs focuson the
enlightenment questionwas a grandintra-Continental philo-
sophicaldebate,pittingFoucaultagainstJürgenHabermas,
whichwas dreamtup at UC Berkeleybuteventuallyassumed
a largerscope.Habermaswouldpublishhis own viewsin a
polemicalseriesof lecturescalled"The PhilosophicalDis-
courseof Modernity," in whichhe declaresthatthereis in
factnothingnew in postwarFrenchphilosophy or whathe
calls "neo-structuralism." in
For, effect, postwarFrench
the
had
philosophers simply become bad,irrationalGermans
(followingNietzscheand Heidegger),whiletheGermans
had becomegoodAmericans(social-democratic, consensu-
al), thus shifting the roles in a largerdiscourse of modernity,
which,accordingto Habermas,descendsfromthedivisionof
1.1developed
this inmy
view detailed Kant'sthreeCritiques.1 PlayingwithHabermas,Foucault
critical toJürgen
response Habermas's
The Discourse offered another picture.He wantedto showhow thelinein
Philosophical ofModernity,
titled
"Habermas's First
Complaint." modernFrenchphilosophy thatdescendsfromJean
inNew
published German 45
Critique
163-91.
(Fall1988): Cavaillès, Gaston Bachelard,and GeorgesCanguilhemcould
be seenas havingtakenup thequestionof enlightenment in
a new way,leading,afterthewar,to theinventionof a criti-
cal attitudedifferent fromHabermas'sown pictureofpublic
rationalargumentation transpiring in thelofty"quasi-tran-
scendental"air of "ideal speech,"and eventuallyleadingto
consensus.Foucaulttriedto isolateand definea moreago-
131

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 nisticstyleof criticalthinking in postwarFrenchthought,
one lesssureofprior,unchangingnormsor deductiveargu-
mentation, one morecloselytiedto materialconditions;crit-
ical thinking thatis uncertainand questioning, "dissensual"
or "problematizing," associatedas muchwithfictionand
aesthetics as withsociologicalexpertiseor academicposi-
tions;thatwould stillretainthehonorablepoliticalback-
2.Jean
Cavaillès (1903-1944) wasa groundsymbolizedbyCavaillèsin theFrenchResistance.2 It
Frenchlogician andphilosopher of was as if the whole idea of "Continental" that
mathematics who, citing
Spinoza, joined philosophy
theResistance.After being captured and had grownup in academiaafterthewar aroundthefateof
tortured,then recaptured afterescaping, in France(itselfrootedin a subject-cen-
hewasfinally shot todeath bythe phenomenology
on 17
Gestapo February 194-4.A fictionalteredversionof Kantiancritique)werebecomingunraveled
version
istobefound inJean-Pierre
Melville's Resistancefilm Army of and dismantled, and new lineswerebeingdrawnup in
great
Shadows. whichtheFrenchneo-structuralist
1.FrançoisFuret, Penserlarevolution sequencehad becomethe
(Paris:
française Gallimard,1978, 1983); zone of debate and transformation. Foucaulťs lectureson
Lyotardincludes a revised
version of his in this"post-
L'Enthousiasme: lacritique
Kantienne de enlightenment maybe readas hisattempt,
l'histoire
(Paris: Editions Galilée,1986)in Continental" situation, to redraw the of
map post-Kantian
"KantNotice 4"inThe Dijferend:Phrases and to sketcha new kindof critique.
inDispute,trans. GeorgesYan Den thought
Abbeele(Minneapolis: Minnesota Joinedbyothervoicesand playerson bothsidesof the
UniversityPress, 1988),followed byhis Rhineand theAtlantic, thelargerbicentennial debateabout
attempttorethink theMarxist ideaof
revolution.Retrospectively,itisinstruc- enlightenment to which this sometimes acrimonious ex-
tive
tolook aswell attheimpact in
Franceoftwo "revolutions" outsideof change would at a
giverise,emerged particular juncturenot
- the culturalone in butalso in politics.It goes
Europe
tothe French Maoism
China,
from simplyin Continental philosophy
leading back to a moment after the events of 1968butbeforethefall
whichFoucault triedtoextricate him-
andthe
self; Islamic one,about which of theBerlinWallin 1989thatwould
Foucaultwrote a much-criticized series helphastentheunrav-
ofnewspaper reports. elingof thegreatCold Warideologicaldivide,which,partic-
ularlyon politicalquestions,had tendedto overdetermine
theContinental and Anglo-Saxonphilosophicaldivisionsat
issue.No doubtFoucaulťs tripsto Polandduringthisperiod
and,moregenerally, hisphilosophicalsympathies with
EasternEuropeandissidence(with itsown complicated rela-
tionswithEnlightenedGermanyor France),together with
his ongoingdiscussionswiththeAutonomist movements in
Italy(and theissueof "redterrorism"), anticipatethisevent
he did liveto see and itsrolein thelargerpost-Marxist char-
acterof thedebateoverenlightenment. In Franceat the
time,thehistorianFrançoisFurethad beenarguingthatthe
revolutionin Europe,aboutwhichKanthad beenso enthu-
siastic,and whichwas latertakenup and transformed in
had
1917, finally come to a close,undoing, in the process,the
old dividebetween leftand right; at thesame time,forhis
part,Jean-François Lyotardwas writinghisown commen-
tarieson theaesthetics of Kant's"enthusiasm," tiedtowhat
he called"theevent,"and to hisidea ofpost-modernism.* In
hisenlightenment lectures, Foucault tookup this questionof
politicsaftertherevolution:how,he would askin 1978,
132

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 mightwe continuecriticalthoughtand reinventthepoliti-
cal, afterthehopesof a revolutionthathad "goneastrayin a
4."Introduction
par MichelFoucault," despoticrationality"?4
inDits III(Paris:
etEcrits Gallimard,
From
4-3$.
1994-), anessayfirst as
printed Today,however,20-oddyearson, thislargergeophilo-
theintroduction
toGeorgesCanguilhem'ssophicalor geopoliticalsettingof Foucaulťs lecturesno
OntheNormaland thePathological
D.Reidel,
(Boston: 1978), Thefull longerseemsquitethesame,as if thestratain thecontinent
ix-xx.
introduction
isreprinted
as"Introduction
of Europe(and henceof itsEnlightenment, itsrevolution)
byMichelFoucault,"inCanguilhem,
The
Normalandthe ,trans. had shiftedin turn.The greatinternalriftof thedaybet-
Pathological
R.Fawcett,(New York:
Zone ween Frenchand Germancritical
Carolyn
1989).
Books, theoryseemsa gooddeal
lessburning;evenHabermascameto admitthelimitations
in hisposition,ifnottheoutright misreadings of thetexts.
New forcesat onceinsideand outsidethebordersof Europe
haveemergedto recastthequestionof criticalenlightement,
at oncephilosophicaland political,withwhichhe and
Foucaultwereconcerned.Indeed,ifone wereto ask "What
is enlightenment?" (and so, at thesametime,whatwas en-
lightenment and what mightityetbe) todayin Europe,one
would no doubtratherquicklybe confronted withtwolarg-
er globalschemesand relatedproblems.One would be faced
withthequestionof theso-calledclashof civilizationsor of
religiouscollectivities, bothinsideand outsideof Europe,
and henceof theroleof religionand politicsso centralin
Kant'sidea of enlightenment at theend of the18thcentury.
Thus one would also be facedwiththeapparentfailureof
EuropeanRepublicanidealsand institutions, especially
schoolsthemselves (or thesocial-scientific knowledgethey
at onceproduceand suppose),to deal withthisclashin
Europeor to institutionalize thiskeyRepublicanlumiere.
The wholetheologico-political dimensionof thequestionof
enlightenment has thus been cast in a new light.Atthesame
time, one would no doubt be confronted withtheroleof
Americain thisquestionof religion,and withit,a second
division,pittinga morecivilizedbutlessmilitarizedEurope
againstan Americanimperial(or hegemonic)militaryforce
and itscrasspostindustrial commercialcivilization,spread-
ing out in the globalcitiesof theworld,and opposedby
antiglobalization meetings. The cosmopolitan implicationsof
Kant'sview of enlightenment acquire new sense and urg-
encyin thissituation;indeed,thereis thewholequestionof
thefateof Europeanor Continental critical-philosophical
traditions as "minorlanguages"within,and withrespectto,
an increasingly globalEnglish.Today,in short,muchmore
thanin 1978-1984, thegreatpost-Kantiancriticalphiloso-
in
phies France, in Germany,
as seemto be confronted witha
complex situation, at once within and without theirborders,
in whichtheyconstitute a keyzone and are calleduponto
m

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 intervene, butare no longercompletely able to controlfrom
theirculturalcenters.
Foucaulťs lectureson enlightenment seempeculiarly
suitedto thisnew situation.WhatrolemighttheFrench
historico-philosophical attitudehe was tryingto sketchstill
play in this situation and in analyzingit?How mighthis
picture of an agonisticcollectivityin criticalthought, irre-
ducibleto anyalreadyconstituted public,emerging in differ-
entplacesthroughthenew questionsitposesto politics(and
to politicalpolicy),and so to theformsof knowledgeon
whichit rests,be adaptedand usedin thelargertrans-
nationalor globalarenathathas takenshapein theyears
afterhisdeath?Whatnew formsof sensibility, whataesthet-
ics,do these or
questionssuppose encourage, themselves
elaboratedin an increasingly globalpracticein contempo-
rary art and artinstitutions? On whatsortsof new lineages
or genealogiesin criticalEuropeanphilosophy mightthey
draw?What(and where),in otherwords,is enlightenment,
or theenlightened public"use of reason,"today?
Two generalfeaturesof theviewof enlightenment
Foucaultworksoutin theselecturesstandoutin regardto
thesequestions;at thesametimetheyallow us to lookback
on his own criticalitinerary. In thefirstplace,thereis his
stresson theact,thepractice,thetechniqueor technique-of-
selfof enlightenment. The kindof intellectual emancipation
KantassociatedwiththewordAufklärung is something that
existsonlywhenwe activelyengagein it; it has no other
guarantee.It is something we mustdo to ourselvesand to
one another,forwhichwe mustconstantly inventor re-
inventthemeans,thetechniques,thestrategies, and the
For - and thisis thesecond - thosemeansare
spaces. point
notalreadygivenbyanyexistingformofgovernment,
nation,or religion.Enlightenment is something we do (and
do together or as a public) alwaysin relationto historically
determined formsofpower- as withthevariousgovern-
mentalities whosehistoryFoucaulttriesto sketchin thecase
of thekindsof self-incurred tutelagefromwhichKant,in
his day,triedto freethepublicuse of reason.Indeed,thereis
a sensein whichit is onlythroughthisact or activitythatwe
are able to see thosehistoricalformsofpowerin a new light
- in a
lightthatbringsus to say,"Wedon'twantto be gov-
ernedlikethatanymore."Thereare thusmanylumieres - as
manyas suchcriticalattitudesarisetowardhistorically spe-
cificsituationsthroughwhichpeoplecometo governthem-
selvesand one another.Butthereis no final,overarching, or
unifiedenlightened stateforeveryone,forwho is or will
134

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 becomeenlightened cannotbe determined outsideof theacts
through which a particular form of powerappearsto the
criticalattitudethatat oncequestionsand triesto freeitself
fromit.An important consequencefollows:foranygivenact
of enlightenment (hence fortheparticularnatureand role
of theenlightened publicto whichit givesrise),no already-
constituted group classor polityexists.The "we" always
or
comesafter,emergingonlywhenan ongoingenlightenment
shedslighton thehabitsand practicesthroughwhichpeople
cometo governthemselves - and so see themselves and one
another.Indeed,preciselyin thisliestheoriginality of the
criticalattitude,itssingularsortof universality, itsdistinc-
tiverelationto "today"- to thenow,thepresent,l'actuel.
For Foucaultthatis perhapsthecrucialpoint.The en-
lightenedpublic,and thepublicspacesof activelyand criti-
callythinking together, belongto no givencivilizationor
already constituted religionor culture,to no one country, to
no establishedexpertisein managingmodernity, and to no
centralizedrevolutionary party. It is,rather, a problematizing
potential withinthehistorical constitution of suchgroupsor
nationsor theformation of relatedformsof knowledgethat,
whenactualizedin thepresent,givesriseto theinventionof
new formsof interrelation and new formsand spacesof
And
struggle. yet, while it thus belongsto no priorgroup
and is containedin no priorformof knowledge,thecritical
attitudeis essentialfortheveryexistenceand practiceof
politics,indeedfortheveryidea of thepolitical.For it sup-
- mobilizes- a peculiarele-
poses and throughitsactivities,
mentin thepolitical(la politique)irreducible to "policy"or
thethinking of "politicians"(lepolitique ), whichsubsists
onlybecauseno knowledgeof itpreexists, becauseitposes
for
questions whichno decisionprocedures, no norms,pre-
exist.Suchis preciselythemetapolitical paradoxat theheart
of Foucaulťs phrase,"thepoliticsof truth."Thereis - and
has been- a politicsof enlightenment, butin thesenseof
both"politics"and of "truth"of a peculiarsort,which
Foucaultwas preciselytryingto rethinkphilosophically, his-
and
torically, politically. What of
conception politics itselfis
supposedby the existence of an active critical intelligence
thatcan be containedin no givenformof government, no
establishedformof knowledge,no constituted of
type politi-
cal rationality?How,where,throughwhatsortsof space,
doesit arise?Whatdoesit supposeaboutthehistoricalcon-
stitution of theformsof expertiseon whichgovernments
rely? In what waysis itrelatedto new forcesthatcomefrom
outsideofprevious-ly circumscribed situations and introduce
135

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 new arrangements?
It is easyto see how suchquestionsderivefrom
Foucaulťs own pathintopoliticsand politicaldebate.For
sucha "we" had unexpectedly emergedin severalplacesand
countriesin tandemwiththeparticulardetailedhistorical
studiesFoucaulthad madein Franceof madness,illness,and
criminality; and thenthis"we" had cometogether withthe
new sortsof questionsand struggles dramatizedby'68,the
transnational characterofwhichFoucaultunderscored -
thattheyhad arisenat aroundthesametimenotsimplyin
manydifferent places,butalso in manydifferent political
regimes, economic systems, and intellectual traditions, in
Prague as well as in Parisor Berkeley or Mexico City cities
or
in Asia.Foucaultwantedto betterformulate whatthismeant
forthelinkbetweenhisarchivalworkin historyand hisrole
as publicintellectual. Thus he would takeup theenlighten-
mentquestionagainin an interview- debatewitha distin-
guishedgroupof Frenchsocialhistoriansin 1978,in which
he triesto opposetheirsearchforlargeror totalsocialexpla-
nationswithhis own attempt, throughdetailedarchival
to
research, singularize and "event-alize" our relationto the
historically determined formsin whichwe liveand think.
"Is notthemostgeneralpoliticalproblem,"he pointedlysays
5."TableRonde du20mai1978," inDits to thesehistorians, "thatof truth?"5 Withthesewords,he
etEcrits
JV Gallimard,
(Paris: 1994),10. was in termsof historical method a viewhe had in
6."TruthandPower," inPower,Essential restating
Works 19S4-1984
ofFoucault, ,Volume ]. factformulated earlierin interviews aboutthestatusof the
trans.
R.Hurley,ed.P.Rabinow (New in which he to the "universal"literary
York:TheNewPress, 2000),1«. intellectual, opposed
7."Lavie:l'experience in
etlascience," intellectual, descending from Zola, and,as withSartre,
etEcrits
Dits IV,761). into
[Translated the
Englishas"Life:
Experience and debatingin cafes,a more"specificsort,"exemplified by
inAesthetics,
Science," Methodand Oppenheimer and concerned with the kinds of powerwith
Essential
Epistemologa, Works
ofFoucault,which
1954-1984,Volume R.Hurley,
2.trans. is
knowledge implicated. "The politicalproblem,to
ed.P.Rabinow (New York:TheNew sumup, is noterror,illusion,alienatedconsciousness, or ide-
1998),
Press, 466.]Itwould seem, start-
ingalreadyduringthe veryperiodin ology;it is truthitself,"he had declaredthen.6It was this
which Foucaultwaswriting, thatthe morespecificrolethathe himselfhad assumedin forming
"Cavaillés-Canguilhem" itself
lineage
wasundergoing a new seen theGroupforInformation
bifurcation, on Prisons;and withthisgroup,
todayinthe views
different ofAlain
Badiou,JacquesRancière,andEtienne we see his relations with others descendingfromtheepiste-
Balibar.
Onemight linkthisnew "fork" mologica!Cavaillés-Canguilhem linein Frenchthoughtin
tothedifferent
ways inwhich eachtook theirreactionto *68as a "crisisthatwas not
upthe basicproblem of
ofa "politics onlythatof the
truth." university but also of the statusand role of knowledge."7
Moregenerally, Foucaulťs enlightenment lectures
belongin a last,restless,experimental phasein hisown
work,markedbymanytravels,filledwithmanyunfinished
projects,explorations, conjectures, developedat theCollege
de France, but also throughmany discussions withothers
outsideof France,whichwould be publishedin an ordered
manneronlyafterhisdeath.Theyfollowa crisisin hisown
136

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 workthatled himto abandonor drastically modifytheproj-
ectof a greathistoryof sexualitythathe had startedin 1976;
theyalso coincidewiththeemergence, starting in 1979,of
thenotionofpostmodernism again,which, in his travels,he
was constantly obligedto debate.The lecturesweredevel-
oped in tandem withthenew hypotheses and linesof inquiry
he exploredin a brief,remarkable, ifinconclusivesequence
of courseson governmentality, biopolitics, liberalism,
racism,security, population,war, and civil war - courses
which,now published,retaintheirclippeddidacticbrilliance
and vivacitystilltodaywhenwe realizeto whatdegreethese
issueshavenotat all goneaway.
A noteworthy writingamongthetextson enlighten-
mentis a longinterviewFoucaultgaveto GerardRaulet
aboutthe"post-"categories(post-modernism, post-struc-
turalism).It containssomesuggestive in
passages which
Foucaultopposesto Habermas'sview of thetripartite
"bifurcation of reason"characteristic of modernity a picture
of a basicallydis-unifiedsortof reason,endlesslybifurcating
as new lumieres arise.Alsosignificantis a lecturecalled
"Whatis Critique?"whichFoucaultgaveto theFrench
Societyof Philosophyon May 27,1978,followinghisreturn
froman extendedstayinJapan.It is thelecturein whichhe
usesthestriking expression"thepoliticsof truth."In the
seriesof Foucaulťs enlightenment writings, it is notablein
at leasttwoways.First,in addressingthisSociety(rather
than,forexample,laterdebatingwiththesocialhistorians),
Foucaulthas theratherdramaticnotionthatFrench
philosophers ofvariouskindsmightassumeresponsibility
fora new lumiere "breakingthroughtheacademicwindow,"
whichwould allow themto playa distinctive rolein a larger
European and international at
debate;second, thesametime,
in puttingtheaccenton thepoliticalstakesin thislarger
debate,Foucaultintroducesthenotionof governmentality
throughwhichKanťs own idea of "man'sreleasefromhis
self-incurred tutelage"would be linkedto therefusal"to be
governedlikethat"- theprecisepassagesin whichFoucault
talksof a "politicsof truth."
Whiletherewould be nothinglikea unifiedFrench
responseor "responsibility" fora new criticalphilosophy, in
contrast(but notnecessarily in opposition)to Germanor
Anglo-Saxonones,Foucaulťs sensethattherecouldbe one
involvesa questionto whichhe returnsin all theenlighten-
mentlectures:Where,in thecomplexofpost-warFrench
philosophy, can we alreadydiscernan attemptto inventa
new styleof critique,a new kindof criticalphilosophy? And
157

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 what,specifically, was Foucaulťs own rolein thisattempt, as
seen,forexample,in thewholequestionof "man" in Kant's
definition of enlightenment as "man'sreleasefromhis self-
incurredtutelage"?For thiswas notthefirsttimeFoucault
had usedan apparently minortextin thecorpusof Kant's
to
writings retrospectively questionand transform thelarger
philosophicalenterprise Kant invented. The firstinstance
was thetranslation he did of Kant'sAnthropology froma
Pragmatic Point of View as part of his own thesis in philoso-
phy.In theintroduction to histranslation, he formulated a
particularproblemthat,whenlaterelaboratedand incorpo-
ratedintoTheOrderofThings , would becomethesourceof a
largercontroversy, just France,butalso in relationto
not in
theotherphilosophers and philosophicaltraditions across
theAtlanticand theRhineconcerning thefigureof "man"
8.Seeinparticular Canguilhem's review or the of
problem philosophical"anthropology."8 Foucault
"Mort del'homme ouepuisement du that the of view" with which Kant
cogito" 242(1967):
[Critique 599- 618]in thought "pragmaticpoint
which heargues thatitwasKant, and was concernedin hisown publiclectures,laterpublishedas
notDescartes, who invented theidea of
"thesubject." Balibar would later devel- thebookFoucaultelectedto translate, raiseda particulardif-
opthis idea. that would come to the fore in
9.Seethe chapter "Man andHisDoubles"ficulty post-Kantianthought:
inThe Order ofThings. theproblemof the"transcendental-empirical doublet,"that
10.This ledhim toNietzsche: what is, themannerin whichKant'ssupposedly a prioritranscen-
would itmean toinvent a new kind of
critiquebased neither in thesupposition dental conditions of knowledge would in fact themselves be
ofGod's infiniteunderstanding (orits "doubled"in theempiricalsocialand humansciencesof the
"hermeneutic" equivalents), nor inthe
sortofthe finitudeofMan(oritsphe- nextcentury.9 Habermaswould lateracceptFoucaulťs diag-
nomenological derivatives)central to nosis of this it as theproblemof
Heidegger's reading ofKant (posed in problem,reformulating
opposition toCassirer inhis influential how to free critique from subject-centered reason.Butin his
Davos lectures).Deleuze develops this earlier
viewofFoucaulťs notion ofa "death of writings Foucault posed the questionin a slightly dif-
man" inthe Appendix tohisbook, ferentformand witha different outcome.10 Foucaulťs own
Foucault, trans.
Sean Hand (Minneapolis:
Minnesota University Press,1988), 124ff. solution to this problem in the '60s was to imaginea formof
Asa key influencefor thisproblem in which he elaborated in his talk of a "historicala pri-
Foucault, Deleuze citesJules Vuillemin'scritique 11
L'heritage kantienetlarevolutioncoperni- ori" in the Archaeology ofKnowledge, Could we notperhaps
cienne
(Paris: PUF, 1954) which hadelab- see theconditionsofwhatwe
orated ideaofa constitutive sayand see as a matterof
Heidegger's
finitudefor Foucaulťs of
generation changing,materially rooted "regimes,"withno basisin a
French philosophers. (or relatedhumansci-
11.This derived inlarge part precisely largerphilosophicalanthropology
from the Cavaillès-Canguilhem traditionences), in relation to which there could arisea new,archaeo-
ofhistoricalstudyof"forms ofrationality." basedin thesupposition
logicalstyleof criticalinvestigation
of criticalmomentsin whichwe startto departfromthose
conditionsor "regimes"and inventnewwaysof talkingand
seeing?
In effect, in hislectureson enlightenment Foucaulttakes
up this strategy again, but in a new way,resonating more
closely with the problem of the "public use of reason" or the
intellectual vocation or role of philosophy. The focus againis
on an apparently minortextin Kant("An Answerto the
Question:Whatis Enlightenment?"), usedretrospectively to
1J8

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 rethinktheveryidea of critiquein philosophy, inflecting it
towarda new form,centeredin neithera humannora
divineconsciousness, and rootedinsteadin a materially
mindedhistorico-philosophical attitude.Wecan distinguish
severalelementsin thisnew strategy and approachto the
reinvention of critique.First,thefocusis notsimplyon
humansciences,butalso on post-KantianGermancritical
-
thought morespecifically, itssociologicaland dialectical
preoccupation with modernity as theepochin thehistoryof
philosophy that would accompanythe"maturational" pic-
tureof theeducationof man,on whichKanťs notionof
enlightenment seemsto rely.Foucaultwantedto freecrit-
ique from the kind of monolithicinternalizing narrative
adumbratedin Kanťs essay,accordingto which(in
Foucaulťs words) "philosophy would findthepossibility of
constituting itselfas the determinate figure of an epoch and
in whichthisepochwould becometheformof completion of
12."Lavie:l'experience
etlascience,"
in thisphilosophy."12 In itsplacehe offered anotherpicture,
DitsetEcrits
IV,766. wherenew questionslike"Whatis enlightenment?" would
arise,and would then be taken up and reformulated in new
circumstances or in relationto new forces.The notionof
"today"thusacquiresa new sense,formedbythosecritical
eventsthatintroducenew questions,tiedup withnewways
of seeing,speaking,and doingthings.Such questionsare
actuelor "of today"onlywhen,as withtheenlightenment
questionitself,theydepartfroma particularhistoricaldeter-
mination.In thiscase,it is one of a larger"governmental"
practice,and thequestionsaskedarewhetherpeopleare still
willingto tolerate,or to participate in, thevariousrolesthat
theyplay in that practice. Even thoughsuchquestions,in
turn, tend to fallback into a particulardetermination, they
are,in themomentin whichtheyare raised,notyet"of" a
determination; rather,theyintroducea processof question-
ing and experimentation throughwhicha new publicarises,
and in whichnew roomor spaceforitsquestionsare intro-
ducedintoexistingpractices.Wedon'thave(and perhapsno
longerneedto have) an overarching or intrinsic narrativein
Western philosophy into which to insert in advance such
criticalquestionsor thecriticalattitudestheysuppose.There
is onlya seriesof different "todays,"superimposed on one
anotherin theentangledhistoryofphilosophies, in which,
in givenconditions, new questionsarise,or olderonesare
to
recast, displace and startup theproblemsofphilosophy
froma new angleor in relationto a new lumiere. Wethus
needto distinguish betweenenlightenment as a criticalatti-
tudein thepresentand theEnlightenment (or evenles
139

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lumières)as a philosophical period-concept characteristicof
theview of modernity as a fixed,maturesociologicalstate
(like,forexample,Habermas'stripartite criterionfora
modernsociety).It followsthattheact of enlightenment
itselfis notbestbasedon themodelofMündigkeit , or the
idea of mankindattaininga maturity thatwould matchwith
a particularformofgovernment, as in Kant's"enlightened
public" in relation to the rule of Frederick theGreat.The
criticalattitudeis lesslikemankindlearningto become
adult,and morelikea perpetual"minority"in thevarious
"mature"formsourpracticesassume- a restless, unfinished
to
thing,responding historically particular kindsof tutelage
or formsof submissionto a master,thusrequiringa peda-
gogythatmobilizesa publicoutsideof institutional norms.
Butif,then,we giveup theidea of a modernepochin
whichmankindfinallyattainsmaturity in favorof sucha
mobile, unfinished activity in the present,we needto recast
therelationsbetweentheactivityof intellectual emancipa-
tionand thephilosophicalenterprise also called"critique."
Weneedto inventa new styleof critiquein whichthe
attemptto freeourselvesfroma particularhistoricalformof
tutelageleadsto a criticalanalysisof the"formsofgovern-
mentality" at issue,and askhow theyhavecometo be con-
stituted and unquestionably accepted;and conversely, where
thecriticalanalysisof suchhistoricalformsopensontoa
larger"criticalpublic."Foucaulťs lectureson enlightenment
(1978-84) maybe readas his searchforthisnew formof
critique,thisnewversionof the"4thcritique"he had earlier
soughtin hisarchaeological writings.The focusis no longer
simply on the problem of a foundinganthropology. The
accentis ratheron therelationsof thisformof critique
towardtheruleof law and politicalsovereignty. The prob-
lemis notsimplyhow to freetheidea of critiquefromsub-
ject-centered reason,butalso how to extractit fromthe
picture of the courtor tribunalof Reasonin whichKanthad
enclosedit.
Thus,in thisperiod,oneareainwhichFoucaultbecame
particularly keento applyhis "historico-philosophical" crit-
ique was the area of or
law, jurisprudence, where he advanced
a numberofparticularhypotheses (forexample,linkingthe
riseof accidentinsuranceto theemergenceof thelegalques-
tionof socialrightsin theformation of thewelfarestate).
Buttheformof thiskindof criticalstudywould notitselfbe
juridical;rather,itwould be a matterof new forces,new
"problematizations" thatopenedjuridicaldiscourse(and
jurisprudential reasoning)to criticalpublicdebateof all
140

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 thoseinvolvedin or affected byit.Moregenerally, Foucault
wantedto freesuchpublicdebatefromtraditional juridical
modelsbasedin thesovereignty of a state,and focusit
insteadon thewaysin whichwe actuallyparticipate in the
particularpractices on which the functioning legalinsti-
of
tutionsrest.He wantedto freetheverynotionofpolitical
subjectivity or political"processesof subjectivization" from
theformsof thesubjector thecitizenof a State,within
whichKant'sinvention ofcriticalphilosophy was also
1$.Etienne "Citizen
Balibar, Subject" rooted.1* In itsplace he triedto work out a more agonisticor
inWho Comes the
After ì eds.
Subject modelof a criticalpolity.Thus,on theone hand,
E.Cadava,P.Connor,
J.L.
Nancy strategic
(London: lìff.
1991),
Routledge, Foucaultwantedto followthroughtheconsequencesof the
"vitalrationalism"of Canguilhem'sattemptto putliving
beingsin theplace of theclassicalidea of thesubject(hence
le vivantin theplaceof le vécuof thesubject-centered phe-
nomenological life-world).Atthesametime,he wantedto
linkthequestionsof lifeand deathto politicalformsand
theirpeculiarrolein theformation of our biopoliticaltypes
of government and governmental rationality,apparently on
ratherdifferent linesthanthesacrificial themesof "bare
life"to whichGiorgioAgamben,in takingup thistestament,
would laterbe drawn.
Whatformsmighttheactivityof criticalenlightenment
assumewhenit is thusitselffreedfromthejuridicalmodel
of thesubjectand associatedinsteadwitha practicalques-
tioningof historicalforms?Whatwould a philosophicalcri-
tiquelooklikewhenfreedfromthetribunalmodelof setting
rationallimitson whatwe can legitimately know,and thus
freedfromthepowerof governments or states?Foucault
would offerseveralformulations. In a lecturegivenat
Dartmouthin 1980he says:"In sumit is a questionof
searchingforanotherkindof criticalphilosophy. Not a criti-
cal philosophy thatseeksto determine theconditionsand the
limitsof ourpossibleknowledgeof an object,buta critical
philosophy thatseekstheconditionsand indefinite possibili-
14."About
the of
Beginning the ties of transforming thesubject,oftransforming ourselves."14
HermeneuticsoftheSelf,"
ed.Thomas In his
KeenanandMark Political
Blasius, Theory essayon enlightenment, he speaksof a kindof critique
21.2 179.
(1993): thatwould no longerbe "a searchforformalstructures with
15.Ibid.,
125.
universalvalue,"butrathera "historicalinvestigation into
theeventsthathaveled us to constitute ourselvesand recog-
nize ourselvesas subjectsofwhatwe are doing,thinking,
saying. . . thepoint,in brief,is to transform thecritique
conductedin theformof necessarylimitations intoa practi-
cal critiquethattakestheformof a possibletransgression."15
In thesepassages,we see thenewpictureof criticalphiloso-
phyitselfthatFoucaultstrategically triedto elaborate
141

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 throughout hislectureson enlightenment.
How thenmightthepictureof enlightenment Foucault
drewup in thoseyearsbe used bya new criticalpublic
emerging in responseto thetransnationalquestionsofwar-
ring civilizationsor of globalgovernancetoday?It is perhaps
in partthroughthelightof thispicture,and hiswritingsret-
rospectively caston suchquestions(and thehistoricalanaly-
sisofparticularpracticesand strugglesrelatedto them),that
Foucaultremainsnotsimplya foreignbutalso a secretagent
forus today.

JohnRajchman isa philosopher

WHO TEACHESARTHISTORYAT
ColumbiaUniversityandarchi-
tectureat PrincetonUniversity.
Heiscurrently completingan
ANTHOLOGY WITHETIENNE BALIBAR
ONTHEHISTORY OFFRENCH PHILO-
SOPHYSINCE AVERSION
1945. OFTHIS
WAS
ESSAY PUBLISHEDINMICHEL
Foucault,ThePoliticsofTruth,
ed.SylvereLotringer(Los
Angeles: 2007).
SemiotextCe),
142

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:07:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions