Michel Foucault did not extensively comment on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the Cultural Revolution, or Mao Zedong in his major works. However, he did touch upon China in a few instances, particularly in relation to broader discussions of power, revolution, and political thought. His comments, though brief, offer insight into his complex and evolving views on revolutionary movements and political regimes.
Foucault on Maoism and the Cultural Revolution
1. Early Interest in Maoism and Revolutionary Movements:
• Like many French intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s, Foucault was initially intrigued by Maoism, particularly as it represented a radical alternative to both Western capitalism and Soviet-style communism.
• Maoism, with its emphasis on continuous revolution and the reorganization of social hierarchies, resonated with intellectuals seeking to challenge traditional structures of power and authority.
2. Criticism of the Cultural Revolution:
• Foucault expressed skepticism and criticism of the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), particularly its violent and authoritarian aspects. He viewed it as an example of how revolutionary ideals could devolve into oppressive practices.
• In an interview with Il Corriere della Sera in 1977, Foucault commented on the Cultural Revolution, describing it as an event that brought to light the dangers of revolutionary zeal turning into violent purges and authoritarianism.
• He criticized the Cultural Revolution for its excesses, including the violent suppression of intellectuals and the destruction of cultural heritage, but he refrained from offering a full analysis.
3. China and the Politics of Truth:
• Foucault saw the Cultural Revolution as a radical experiment in reconfiguring the “politics of truth,” where traditional sources of knowledge and authority were overturned. However, he also recognized that this experiment led to new forms of domination and control.
• He might have interpreted the Cultural Revolution as an example of how power operates through ideology and mass mobilization, reinforcing his view that revolutions often reproduce forms of domination even as they seek to dismantle them.
Foucault and the Chinese Communist Party
1. CCP as a Biopolitical Regime:
• Although Foucault did not directly analyze the CCP, his concepts of biopolitics and governmentality are relevant to understanding its governance. The CCP’s focus on controlling populations—through education, propaganda, surveillance, and economic planning—aligns with Foucault’s ideas about the management of life and the organization of power in modern states.
2. Critique of Marxist Orthodoxy:
• Foucault was critical of Marxist orthodoxy, which he saw as overly deterministic and insufficiently attentive to the microphysics of power. This critique extended to the CCP’s interpretation of Marxism, which relied heavily on centralized authority and top-down control.
3. Silence on Mao’s Legacy:
• Foucault did not offer a detailed critique of Mao Zedong’s leadership or legacy. His focus remained on broader theoretical questions about power and revolution, rather than on specific political figures or regimes.
Context of Foucault’s Silence or Ambiguity
• Cautious Positioning: Foucault was careful about aligning himself with or directly condemning specific revolutionary movements. His focus was on how power functions in all systems, whether revolutionary or reactionary.
• Disillusionment with Revolution: By the late 1970s, Foucault had become increasingly disillusioned with revolutionary politics, including Maoism. He recognized that revolutions often lead to the reconstitution of oppressive power structures.
Summary
Foucault’s engagement with the CCP, Mao, and the Cultural Revolution was limited and indirect. While he acknowledged the significance of these events, he was critical of the authoritarian and violent aspects of the Cultural Revolution and skeptical of centralized, ideological regimes like the CCP. His analysis likely would have focused on the ways these movements and regimes exemplify the operations of power, domination, and the complexities of revolutionary change.
