Prinze and Raekstad, Genealogy and Political Philosophy

Prinz, Janosch, and Paul Raekstad. 2020. "The value of genealogies for political philosophy." Inquiry 67, no. 7, 2084-2103.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are the differences between genealogy and ideology critique?

2. What's the difference between Williams's "imaginary" genealogy and ideal theory?

3. How does Geuss's method differ from Foucault's? (Causality: many -> one).

4. Do genealogy's presuppositions reproduce colonial reasoning? Is genealogy only possible within a Western/colonial ontology?

5. Is Geuss conducting a paradigm study? If so, how is this genealogy?

6. Can explanations provide justifications? When and where is normativity?

How do we understand "ideology?" Well, people have critiqued the Marxian theory of ideology because it already has normative content. For Marxists, ideology is not just a system of coherent views that induce certain kinds of conduct, but conduct that works against interest of the agent holding said ideology and serving the interests of a ruling stratum/class. Classical ideology critique also makes a claim to reality, which is distorted by ideological beliefs. Genealogy makes no claim to a reality it attempts to disambiguate in the classic sense. 

In many ways, ideology becomes an artifice which must be subjected to analysis. 

Ideal theory as ideology? Idealizations not only abstract important factors, but adds too much unrealistic capabilities (O'Neill and Mills). Williams isn't doing ideal theory in his imaginary genealogy because he's committed to philosophical naturalism. Rawls and Cohen are offering a "structural model." For the latter, they rely on "noumenal selves" which are stripped down to have a strict sense of justice at the expense of other motivations. 

What's the point of Williams's imaginary genealogy as far as its practical value? Williams wants to consider how and why people would come to value truth and truthfulness, regardless of what that concept of truth looks like.

Geuss is more concerned with tracking the contingency of concepts, but is he actually doing "genealogy"? Geuss wants us to see how political concepts actually play out in the real world. Rawls formulates political concepts without power, where Geuss and Foucault are always attentive to the relationship between political concepts and power. 

Why do we need to show the historical development of concepts/practices? What does the "development" do in uprooting the necessity of such concepts/practices. Development could mean simply succession of events, or things "evolving" in a unitary trajectory. 

"Cartesian coordinate metaphor." Geuss seems to see how concepts (e.g., public/private) have appeared and been invoked throughout Western history.

Geuss seems to be an "idealist," because he's concerned with concepts, and not necessarily how they're tied to practices. Does Geuss begin from a problem or from a certainty? Geuss's method seems to be deflationary, because he's trying to displace the importance of established political concepts. Geuss doesn't have a methodologically specified "genealogy." He's more doing a history of ideas. 

Amy Allen's decolonial/postcolonial critique of critical theory. Does genealogy recapitulate colonial epistemologies? Doesn't that presuppose that concepts/ideas were motives for colonization?

Can we do genealogy critically? Particularly in the context of racial and gendered domination? 

Santiago Castro-Gómez at the Critical Genealogies Collaboratory

We were honored to be joined by Santiago Castro-Gómez, who was invited to give a Philosophy Colloquium address (where he discussed his account of "transmodern republicanism") and to have a public discussion with undergraduate students. This also took place in the context of the symposium Decolonial Perspectives on the Becoming of Our Present, organized in his honor by Cintia Martínez Velasco, Miguel Gualdrón Ramírez, and Alejandro Vallega at the University of Oregon.

The CGC read “Latin American Philosophy as Critical Ontology of the Present: Themes and Motifs for a 'Critique of Latin American Reason'” and the interview that was published as an appendix to Critique of Latin American Reason, where Castro-Gómez revises his philosophical journey.

QUESTIONS

1. If critique is not being governed in this way, by these people; does a critical ontology of the present involve/presuppose a normative commitment that is implicit in the non-normative ontology?

2. Technologies of social control to create the Latin American intellectual (p. 72). What is the relation between opacity and a critical ontology of the present?

3. Critical ontology of the present involves a detachment from the sovereign model of power. However, SCG uses it in relation to processes of nationalization. How do we understand the relation of subjectivation and the nation today?

4. How does the “nation” operate as a concept?

5. Peripheral modernity (p. 69) – what is its relation to  “imagined communities” and technologies of writing? How do we understand it?

6. Considering Castro-Gómez’s move from “history of ideas” to “genealogy of practices," how do we define “practice”? How do we conduct inquiry into practices? 

1. Exemplar for us? Or in SCG’s work?

2. Research strategies? – Building an archive?

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

Nation as a concept. In Latin America (19th century) building a nation was a task of the State (Spanish speakers; property-owners, who behaved like “civilized people”). Produce a community of people around language as a language of the nation and who could read and write in the proper was (“citizens”) who could obey the law and norms. 

Today: multinational/plurinational states – ex. Bolivia, Spain. Much more difficult task.

Arendt – nation vs State: in every location there are multiple identities (nations) vs legal regimes (State). Even in a multinational context, does the State overrule. Problem of the stateless: not part of the nation and not captured by the State.

There are other conceptions; for example, the State is expressing the values of the nation (volk) in Germany. 

Community of identity = expression of belonging, destiny? And in that sense, construction of modernity. Contrary to Asian culture where belonging is linked, eg, to dynasties. 

What about nations without States? For example, the Kurds.

Processes of nationalization

Processes of citizen-cifiation?

Both processes of inclusion and exclusion – Writing, and also administration. 

Oppressed people sometimes explain their commonality in terms of “nation” (and a reclaiming of that) but as a counter-conduct, resistance to the State.

Issue of translation: nations cannot be translated into another. This connects to the issue of opacity: what if we think of translation and the right to opacity (for example, the deaf community refusing technologies of legibility). Resistance to “full legibility” or “transparency”.

Do we see counter-conducts as sufficient for normativity? – Resisting power in this way is/is not a positive articulation or a new vision or a new practice. 

Counter-conduct presupposes some kind of normativity? – There has to be a positive notion of what you want to be (not only what you do not want). Counter-conducts presuppose normativity. Decolonial theory or Foucault do not give us a positive view of how to live without dispositifs. 

Can we think of a positive in terms of symmetry? – If genealogy of power = genealogy of practices, then do we need the same for normative: practices of a normative vision?

Ethical vs political normativity – ethical view is incapable for providing something beyond an ethical duty and participating in the political struggle and the building of power. Does there need to be, in some way, a grasp of power? How not to fall in the vices of previous forms of power?

Could we find minimal values shared by everyone? Values that do not depend on cultures or nations for the sake of fighting power. There is something that we all share (humans and non-humans) – vulnerability; not death. We can have a positive view of politics in this way by looking at the past and finding it. 

Maybe this could be thought of through the idea of ability/disability and how that is not ontological but produced and within political frameworks.

A possibility would be expanding the view of counter-conduct: what if practices of resistance (negative) are also simultaneously a practice that bring for a (positive) form of life. This could relate Foucault to a vision of “concrete utopianism” (Ernst Bloch, José Esteban Muñoz). 

How do we seek compliance with others that will not accept the new vision or the new form of life that is imagined? – How to seek compliance to the goals we have designed?

We fave forgotten to consider “universalizability” as a commitment we accept even if it is not exhaustible. We could, in this context, adopt different values like equality or vulnerability. There is this loss in Foucault: it is not the universal as such (Habermas, transcendental) but a commitment to it. 

We should remember that normativity has to do with the body (Foucault in volumes 2 and 3 of History of Sexuality) – for example, dietetics. But he still thinks of individual bodies with special characteristics. Could we think of this in more universal terms? The body itself without the particularity of the self; could we universalize something shared by any living thing and that is not anthropocentric? Maybe: care; is this an ethics of care? Could this be “love”? “Interdependence of the living”?

How to study practices? – Action that is governed by rules. Breathing vs yoga (in the latter you have norms and this may be unconscious). 

How to do a genealogy of practices? – Past practices: resources of a historian. However there is an opacity: you do not know if people actually behaved like the manuals enforced. Role of testimony?

To study practices of the present: resources of the anthropologists/ethnographer. It is necessary to build an archive from many sources (newspapers, magazines).

Foucault, "What is Critique?"

Discussion Questions:

(1) How do we reconcile Foucault’s “historico-philosophical” practice as fabrication/fiction vs. as empirical? (p. 36)

(2) Is critique productive or deconstructive?

(3) Could the critical attitude itself operate as a technique of power or domination?

(4) How do archaeology, genealogy, and strategy methodologically related? Are they simultaneous? Distinct? (p. 46)

(5) How does historico-philosophical practice treat causality? (p. 44)

(6) What happens to strategy? (p. 46)

(7) What is the shift between counter-government as “not like this, for this, by them” (specificity) and counter-government as “not quite so much” (extent)? (p. 24)

 

It makes sense to believe that historical accounts are, to various extents, constructed. But doesn’t Foucault’s use of the term “fabricating” and “fiction” undercut his genealogical project? Perhaps we’re too caught up with the negative connotations that accompany these terms? Perhaps we should understand fiction as a literary modality that says something about our world? Maybe this passage is sort of a claim to empirical nominalism? That is, we construct a conceptual product through observation of empirics. Does his concept of “fiction” have a criterion for realism? What is the standard we should hold genealogy between, on the one hand, brute positivism on the one hand, and radical constructionism on the other? Bringing in Sadiya Hartmann, what if there is an instance where there is no archive to relate to? Foucault seems to give equal weight to what’s not in the archive as much as he does to what’s in it -- positivity through absence if you will. Philosopher is one who produces concepts (a la Deleuze). A genealogy is supposed to capture some sense of the present in order to make some sort of political intervention in the future. Foucault wants to have a concept of effects that isn’t unilateral. What are the methodological benefits of genealogy’s concept of effects over “origin-based” histories? Well, the latter already has a set of answers worked out, whereas a genealogical method, as a form of inquiry, is seeking answers that can’t be countenanced by an originary method.

Fall 2024 Plan

In Fall Qtr 2024 we will discuss recent publications focused on themes of critique, power, and freedom:

 

• Week 1: [skip - Colin away at Memphis]
  
• Week 2: We will begin with Foucault's "What is Critique?" (new U Chicago critical edition)
• Week 3: Bernard Harcourt, "On Critical Genealogy," Contemporary Political Theory
• Week 4: Santiago Castro-Gomez, "TBD"
• Week 5: [TBD - Colin away at Irvine]
• Week 6-10: other readings TBD by Amy Allen, Daniele Lorenzini, Tuomo Tiisala, and others.