Your Freedom of Thought is Just an Illusion

Throughout the hour and fifteen minute class period on Tuesday, we struggled to come to terms with the concept that we are all constantly coerced. However, is this idea so hard to believe? 

If we at first ignore Foucault’s theories of epistemes and power/knowledge, solely observing this phenomenon from a psychological approach, it is at least evident that we are influenced by our respective environments. The primary example of this is that of a child. It learns its behavioral patterns from whom and what it experiences, remaining ignorant of other information unless it is introduced to it either directly or indirectly. For example, if it had never seen, read, or heard about an elephant, it would not be able to comprehend the idea of an elephant. Similarly to this, even as an adult, one is only able to understand what one knows. If you are never introduced to the concept of communism, then you would never know what it is. 

On the other hand, previous knowledge can affect how you perceive new information, as well. As citizens of the United States of America, we are instilled with the idea that communism is bad before we even fully understand what it is, because we are taught that communism is a threat to our democracy. However, if you were to take a citizen from Poland from before the cold war, the situation would be completely different. The idea of communism would be introduced as a force that could give rise to better modes of living. 

And thus the coercion becomes more evident. The episteme that we find ourselves immersed in is what defines what we are. It not only affects our behavioral patterns, such as the way we position ourselves and the manner in which we talk, but it also affects the way we think and what we think.  If the episteme is altered, then we are altered as well. Foucault deviates from the enlightenment ideal of the individual as the generator of force in favor of the idea that the force is what generates the individual (or the forces of said individual).

Honestly, guys, Foucault is bringing me down. Even though his claims make sense and at the moment seem indisputable, I would definitely prefer to agree with Sartre’s enlightenment mode of thought. But, unfortunately, in the eyes of Foucault the self-deceptive idea of freedom of thought only gives rise to more affective docility, and I would prefer not to give him that satisfaction. I’ve found myself in between a rock and a hard place, and the only solution is more Foucault. What do you guys think? Is there a way to debunk the idea of knowledge/power? Is any way to create room for the individual or are we all just doomed to be influenced without our own true individuality?

 

Also, in response to Chandler’s blog from last week:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7b1soBg821qcu0j0o1_500.jpg