Michel Foucault’s “ethical turn” in his later years, particularly in works like The Use of Pleasure and The Care of the Self, has been both celebrated and criticized. This phase of his thought shifted from analyzing systems of power and knowledge to exploring ethics, subjectivity, and practices of the self. While many found this focus on ethics a profound extension of his earlier work, others raised concerns about its implications, coherence, and potential shortcomings.
Key Critiques of Foucault’s Ethical Turn
1. Departure from Structural and Political Critique
• Criticism:
• Some critics argue that Foucault’s ethical turn represents a retreat from his earlier political and structural analyses of power, institutions, and social domination.
• His late focus on the individual’s self-care and self-transformation can appear to shift attention away from collective action and systemic change.
• Example:
• Critics like Nancy Fraser suggest that Foucault’s focus on ethics risks losing sight of the structural forces that shape subjectivity and constrain individual freedom, such as economic inequalities or institutional oppression.
• Counterargument:
• Defenders of Foucault argue that the ethical turn complements his earlier work by addressing how individuals can resist and reconfigure power at the micro level.
2. Lack of Normative Framework
• Criticism:
• Foucault’s ethical turn emphasizes practices of self-formation (technologies of the self), but he does not provide a clear normative or universal ethical framework to guide these practices.
• Critics argue that this leaves his ethics vulnerable to relativism or moral ambiguity, as it avoids prescribing what constitutes “good” or “ethical” behavior.
• Example:
• Jürgen Habermas critiques Foucault for failing to ground his ethics in a universal standard, making it difficult to evaluate or critique different ethical practices.
• Counterargument:
• Foucault deliberately avoids universal prescriptions, as he views them as oppressive and historically contingent. Instead, he emphasizes the need for individuals to critically engage with their historical and cultural contexts.
3. Individualism and Elitism
• Criticism:
• Some scholars see Foucault’s emphasis on self-care as overly individualistic, focusing on personal transformation rather than collective social change.
• Additionally, the ethical practices he discusses—rooted in ancient Greek and Roman traditions—may seem elitist or inaccessible to marginalized groups.
• Example:
• Feminist critics like Nancy Fraser and others argue that Foucault’s ethics fails to address systemic injustices or offer strategies for marginalized communities to resist domination.
• Counterargument:
• Foucault’s emphasis on individual practices is not meant to replace collective action but to explore how individuals can resist domination and shape their own subjectivity within broader systems of power.
4. Ambiguity About Freedom
• Criticism:
• Foucault’s late work champions freedom through self-transformation, but critics question how this freedom operates within pervasive systems of power.
• If power is everywhere and individuals are always shaped by discourses, how much genuine autonomy or freedom can self-care practices achieve?
• Example:
• Critics like Slavoj Žižek suggest that Foucault’s ethical turn risks becoming a neoliberal project, where individuals bear full responsibility for their freedom and well-being, neglecting the structural constraints that limit their choices.
• Counterargument:
• Foucault acknowledges that freedom is never absolute; it is always constrained by historical and social conditions. His ethics aims to foster resistance and creativity within these constraints.
5. Historical Nostalgia
• Criticism:
• Foucault’s turn to ancient Greek and Roman ethics has been criticized as a form of nostalgia for premodern systems of thought, which may not be applicable to contemporary challenges.
• Critics argue that by focusing on practices from antiquity, Foucault risks sidelining modern ethical and political issues, such as social justice, feminism, and environmental crises.
• Example:
• Scholars like Charles Taylor suggest that Foucault’s focus on antiquity overlooks the ways modernity has reshaped ethics and subjectivity in ways that ancient models cannot fully address.
• Counterargument:
• Foucault does not propose a return to ancient ethics but uses these traditions as a resource for rethinking contemporary ethical practices and resisting modern forms of domination.
6. Ambiguity About Resistance
• Criticism:
• Critics question how Foucault’s ethics addresses the broader question of resistance. If practices of self-care are shaped by historical discourses, how can they effectively resist those same discourses?
• Example:
• Some argue that Foucault’s ethical turn risks becoming a self-referential loop, where individuals create freedom within systems of power but cannot fundamentally challenge those systems.
• Counterargument:
• Foucault’s concept of resistance is not about overthrowing systems entirely but creating spaces of freedom and alternative ways of being within existing power structures.
Broader Context of the Critique
Philosophical Landscape
• Habermasian Critique:
• Jürgen Habermas critiques Foucault’s ethical turn for lacking normative grounding and abandoning the project of universal reason. For Habermas, Foucault’s emphasis on power and self-formation risks undermining the possibility of shared moral dialogue.
• Feminist Critiques:
• Feminist scholars like Fraser appreciate Foucault’s deconstruction of universal truths but critique his lack of engagement with gender and systemic inequalities in his late ethical writings.
Defenses of Foucault’s Ethical Turn
1. Complements Earlier Work:
• Foucault’s ethical turn does not abandon power analysis but extends it, focusing on how individuals can creatively resist power through ethical practices.
2. Anti-Authoritarian Ethics:
• By avoiding universal prescriptions, Foucault prevents his ethics from becoming another form of domination, keeping it open to diverse interpretations and applications.
3. Practical and Relational:
• Foucault’s ethics emphasizes practical, lived engagements with freedom and subjectivity, offering tools for navigating power in everyday life.
Conclusion
Foucault’s ethical turn has been criticized for its perceived individualism, relativism, and lack of systemic critique, as well as its reliance on ancient models that may seem detached from modern concerns. However, these critiques often stem from a misunderstanding of Foucault’s aims. His ethical turn is not a retreat but an exploration of how individuals can resist domination and practice freedom within power systems. While it may lack a normative framework or universal applicability, its strength lies in its openness, humility, and insistence on the creative potential of ethical self-transformation.
