Malgosia quoted Foucault as saying:
>
> "[...] the principal aim, the principal target of this kind of ethics
> was an aesthetic one. First, this kind of ethics was only a problem of
> personal choice. Second, it was reserved for a few people in the
> population; it was not a question of giving a pattern of behavior for
> everybody. It was a personal choice for a small elite. The reason for
> making this choice was to live a beautiful life, and to leave to others
> memories of a beautiful existence. I don't think that we can say that
> this kind of ethics was an attempt to normalize the population."
>
...and:
> MF: "What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become
> something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or
> to life. That art is something which is specialized or which is done
> by experts who are artists. But couldn't everyone's life become a
> work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but
> not our life?"
>
Malgosia then asked the...
> question of whether treating one's life as a work of art is somehow
> inherently linked to seeing oneself as a member of "a small elite".
>
> -m
This strikes me as an important question, but not necessarily a
difficult one. Note that, in the second of the above quotations,
Foucault is explicitly critical of the fact that "in our
society....art is something which is specialized or...is done by
experts who are artists." Note, also, Foucault's rhetorical question:
"couldn't everyone's life become a work of art?"
There are, of course, two questions: does Foucault think that creating
one's life as a work of art is inherently linked to seeing oneself as
a member of a small elite?; and, ought we to think that?
I think that, in this case, we should agree with Foucault. Foucault's
works on ethics (Hist of Sex, v. 2 and 3) make it clear that he
thought that "work on ourselves" is a pervasive feature of our lives.
In "On the Genealogy of Ethics," he says that "the Californian cult of
the self" is a contemporary example, under which heading he includes
the submission of one's self to psychoanalysis, among other things.
However, he doesn't count this as creation of oneself as a work of art
because it aspires "to tell you what your true self is" (Foucault
Reader, p. 362). The same, I suggest, extends to most self-help
books, diet books, and so on.
He says: "My idea is that it's not at all necessary to relate ethical
probelms to scientific knowledge" (p. 349).
So, creating oneself as a work of art is self-making that does not
seek grounding in alleged "scientific" or otherwise "true" discourses
about what people really are, or normally are, or are deep down.
But looking at it that way makes it clear that there is _much less_ of
a conceptual link between self-invention and being a member of an
elite from Foucault's perspective than there is from the perspective
of the "Californian cult of the self." Specifically, if one drops the
idea that there is such a thing as authoritative expertise in living
or self-making, one must conclude that anyone can do it. On the other
hand, if there are deep truths about the human essence, or even about
who I am deep down, then maybe I need someone with a PhD to help me
find out how I ought to live and what kind of person I ought to be.
Don't get me wrong: Foucault rightly thinks that self-invention is
both difficult (p. 364) and something done by members of communities
rather than by individuals considered in isolation from others (cf.
FINAL FOUCAULT, p. 11). But the whole point of the art-analogy is
that there is no one best way to live, and so there is no special
group of experts who can claim to have the right answer to the
question of what kind of person one should become. One not only need
not, but cannot rely on the genuinely authoritative "last word" of
experts.
There is, then, nothing elitist about the art of living. All it takes
is some hard work and discipline, along with access to communities
(old or new) capable of sustaining the requisite practices. If it is
not today within reach of everyone, that is not because it COULD NOT
be within reach of everyone. (That is, if it requires, say, that
one's basic needs are met, or something like that, then even if that
does not now happen for everyone, it certainly could happen tomorrow,
speaking "technically").
Steve
>
> "[...] the principal aim, the principal target of this kind of ethics
> was an aesthetic one. First, this kind of ethics was only a problem of
> personal choice. Second, it was reserved for a few people in the
> population; it was not a question of giving a pattern of behavior for
> everybody. It was a personal choice for a small elite. The reason for
> making this choice was to live a beautiful life, and to leave to others
> memories of a beautiful existence. I don't think that we can say that
> this kind of ethics was an attempt to normalize the population."
>
...and:
> MF: "What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become
> something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or
> to life. That art is something which is specialized or which is done
> by experts who are artists. But couldn't everyone's life become a
> work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but
> not our life?"
>
Malgosia then asked the...
> question of whether treating one's life as a work of art is somehow
> inherently linked to seeing oneself as a member of "a small elite".
>
> -m
This strikes me as an important question, but not necessarily a
difficult one. Note that, in the second of the above quotations,
Foucault is explicitly critical of the fact that "in our
society....art is something which is specialized or...is done by
experts who are artists." Note, also, Foucault's rhetorical question:
"couldn't everyone's life become a work of art?"
There are, of course, two questions: does Foucault think that creating
one's life as a work of art is inherently linked to seeing oneself as
a member of a small elite?; and, ought we to think that?
I think that, in this case, we should agree with Foucault. Foucault's
works on ethics (Hist of Sex, v. 2 and 3) make it clear that he
thought that "work on ourselves" is a pervasive feature of our lives.
In "On the Genealogy of Ethics," he says that "the Californian cult of
the self" is a contemporary example, under which heading he includes
the submission of one's self to psychoanalysis, among other things.
However, he doesn't count this as creation of oneself as a work of art
because it aspires "to tell you what your true self is" (Foucault
Reader, p. 362). The same, I suggest, extends to most self-help
books, diet books, and so on.
He says: "My idea is that it's not at all necessary to relate ethical
probelms to scientific knowledge" (p. 349).
So, creating oneself as a work of art is self-making that does not
seek grounding in alleged "scientific" or otherwise "true" discourses
about what people really are, or normally are, or are deep down.
But looking at it that way makes it clear that there is _much less_ of
a conceptual link between self-invention and being a member of an
elite from Foucault's perspective than there is from the perspective
of the "Californian cult of the self." Specifically, if one drops the
idea that there is such a thing as authoritative expertise in living
or self-making, one must conclude that anyone can do it. On the other
hand, if there are deep truths about the human essence, or even about
who I am deep down, then maybe I need someone with a PhD to help me
find out how I ought to live and what kind of person I ought to be.
Don't get me wrong: Foucault rightly thinks that self-invention is
both difficult (p. 364) and something done by members of communities
rather than by individuals considered in isolation from others (cf.
FINAL FOUCAULT, p. 11). But the whole point of the art-analogy is
that there is no one best way to live, and so there is no special
group of experts who can claim to have the right answer to the
question of what kind of person one should become. One not only need
not, but cannot rely on the genuinely authoritative "last word" of
experts.
There is, then, nothing elitist about the art of living. All it takes
is some hard work and discipline, along with access to communities
(old or new) capable of sustaining the requisite practices. If it is
not today within reach of everyone, that is not because it COULD NOT
be within reach of everyone. (That is, if it requires, say, that
one's basic needs are met, or something like that, then even if that
does not now happen for everyone, it certainly could happen tomorrow,
speaking "technically").
Steve