Fluid Mechanics - Problem Solver - WILLIAMS, Angielskie techniczne
Felieton ergonometria 3, Problemy jakości - czasopismo
Foucault Security, Foucault
Foucault Reader, Foucault
Foucault On Kant, Foucault
Foucault and The Birth of Biopolitics, Foucault
Foucault Routledge Key Sociologists, Foucault
Foucault Routledge Critical Thinkers, Foucault
Fabricating Foucault Rationalising the Management of Individuals.EEn, Foucault
Foundation Website Creation With CSS, IT(1)
Foucault Discourse and Truth- The Problematization of Parrhesia (Berkeley, Foucault
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]Discourse and Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia.
(six lectures given by Michel Foucault at Berkeley, Oct-Nov. 1983)
THE MEANING OF THE WORD "PARRHESIA"
1. Parrhesia and Frankness
2. Parrhesia and Truth
3. Parrhesia and Danger
4. Parrhesia and Criticism
5. Parrhesia and Duty
1. Parrhesia and Rhetoric
2. Parrhesia and Politics
3. Parrhesia and Philosophy
PARRHESIA IN THE TRAGEDIES OF EURIPIDES
1. PhoenicianWomen
2. Hippolytus
3. The Bacchae
4. Electra
5. Ion
6. Orestes
7. Problematization of parrhesia
PARRHESIA AND THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
PRACTICES OF PARRHESIA
1. Socratic Parrhesia
2. Parrhesia and Community Life
3. Parrhesia and Public Life
4. Parrhesia and Personal Relationships
TECHNIQUES OF THE PARRHESIASTIC GAMES
1. Seneca & evening examination
2. Serenus & general self-scrutiny
3. Epictetus & control of representations
4. Conclusion
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Foucault.info
1 / 66
THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORD ÐPARRHESIAÑ
The Meaning of the Word " Parrhesia "
The word "
parrhesia
" [παρρησία] appears for the first time in Greek literature in
Euripides [c.484-407 BC], and occurs throughout the ancient Greek world of letters from the
end of the Fifth Century BC. But it can also still be found in the patristic texts written at the
end of the Fourth and during the Fifth Century AD -dozens of times, for instance, in Jean
Chrisostome [AD 345-407] .
There are three forms of the word : the nominal form "
parrhesia
" ; the verb form
"
parrhesiazomai
" [παρρησιάζοȺαι]; and there is also the word "
parrhesiastes
"[παρρησιαστής]
--which is not very frequent and cannot be found in the Classical texts. Rather, you find it
only in the Greco-Roman period -in Plutarch and Lucian, for example. In a dialogue of
Lucian, " The Dead Come to Life, or The Fisherman ", one of the characters also has the
name " Parrhesiades "."[Παρρησιαδής]
"
Parrhesia
" is ordinarily translated into English by "free speech" (in French by "franc-
parler", and in German by "Freimthigkeit"). "
Parrhesiazomai
" or Ð
parrhesiazesthai
Ñ is to
use
parrhesia
, and the
parrhesiastes
is the one who uses
parrhesia
, i.e., is the one who speaks
the truth.
In the first part of today's seminar, I would like to give a general aperu about the
meaning of the word "
parrhesia
", and the evolution of this meaning through Greek and
Roman culture.
1. Parrhesia and Frankness
To begin with, what is the general meaning of the word "
parrhesia
"? Etymologically,
"
parrhesiazesthai
" means " to say everything --from "
pan
" [πάυ] (everything) and "
rhema
"
[δήȺα] (that which is said). The one who uses
parrhesia
, the
parrhesiastes
, is someone who
says everything he has in mind : he does not hide anything, but opens his heart and mind
completely to other people through his discourse. In
parrhesia
,
the
speaker is supposed to
give a complete and exact account of what he has in mind so that the audience is able to
comprehend exactly what the speaker thinks. The word "
parrhesia
" then, refers to a type of
relationship between the speaker and what he says. For in
parrhesia
, the speaker makes it
manifestly clear and obvious that what he says is his own opinion. And he does this by
avoiding any kind of rhetorical form which would veil what he thinks. Instead, the
parrhesiastes
uses the most direct words and forms of expression he can find. Whereas
rhetoric provides the speaker with technical devices to help him prevail upon the minds of his
audience (regardless of the rhetorician's own opinion concerning what he says), in
parrhesia
,
the
parrhesiastes
acts on other people's mind by showing them as directly as possible what he
actually believes.
If we distinguish between the speaking subject (the subject of the enunciation) and the
grammatical subject of the enounced, we could say that there is also the subject of the
enunciandum -which refers to the held belief or opinion of the speaker. In
parrhesia
the
speaker emphasizes the fact that he is both the subject of the enunciation and the subject of
the enunciandum -that he himself is the subject of the opinion to which he refers. The specific
" speech activity " of the parrhesiastic enunciation thus takes the form : " I am the one who
thinks this and that "
I use the phrase " speech activity " rather than John Searle's " speech act "(or Austin's "
performative utterance ") in order to distinguish the parrhesiastic utterance and its
commitments from the usual sorts of commitment which obtain between someone and what
he or she says. For, as we shall see, the commitment involved in
parrhesia
is linked to a
Foucault.info
2 / 66
certain social situation, to a difference of status between the speaker and his audience, to the
fact that the
parrhesiastes
says something which is dangerous to himself and thus involves a
risk, and so on.
2. Parrhesia and Truth
There are two types of
parrhesia
which we must distinguish. First ,there is a pejorative
sense of the word not very far from " chattering " and which consists in saying any or
everything one has in mind without qualification. This pejorative sense occurs in Plato, for
example, as a characterization of the bad democratic constitution where everyone has the right
to address himself to his fellow citizens and to tell them anything -even the most stupid or
dangerous things for the city. This pejorative meaning is also found more frequently in
Christian literature where such " bad "
parrhesia
is opposed to silence as a discipline or as the
requisite condition for the contemplation of God. As a verbal activity which reflects every
movement of the heart and mind,
parrhesia
in this negative sense is obviously an obstacle to
the contemplation of God.
Most of the time, however,
parrhesia
does not have this pejorative meaning in the
classical texts, but rather a positive one. "
parrhesiazesthai
" means " to tell the truth. " But
does the
parrhesiastes
say what he thinks is true, or does he say what is really true ? To my
mind, the
parrhesiastes
says what is true because he knows that it is true ; and he knows that
it is true because it is really true. The
parrhesiastes
is not only sincere and says what is his
opinion, but his opinion is also the truth. He says what he knows to be true. The second
characteristic of
parrhesia
, then, is that there is always an exact coincidence between belief
and truth.
It would be interesting to compare Greek
parrhesia
with the modern (Cartesian)
conception of evidence. For since Descartes, the coincidence between belief and truth is
obtained in a certain (mental) evidential experience. For the Greeks, however, the coincidence
between belief and truth does not take place in a (mental) experience , but in a verbal activity,
namely,
parrhesia
. It appears that
parrhesia
, in his Greek sense, can no longer occur in our
modern epistemological framework.
I should note that I never found any texts in ancient Greek culture where the
parrhesiastes
seems to have any doubts about his own possession of the truth. And indeed,
that is the difference between the Cartesian problem and the Parrhesiastic attitude. For before
Descartes obtains indubitable clear and distinct evidence, he is not certain that what he
believes is , in fact, true. In the Greek conception of
parrhesia
, however, there does not seem
to be a problem about the acquisition of the truth since such truth-having is guaranteed by the
possession of certain moral qualities :when someone has certain moral qualities, then that is
the proof that he has access to truth--and vice-versa. The " parrhesiastic game " presupposes
that the
parrhesiastes
is someone who has the moral qualities which are required, first, to
know the truth, and secondly, to convey such truth to others .
If there is a kind of " proof " of the sincerity of the
parrhesiastes
, it is his courage.
The fact that a speaker says something dangerous -different from what the majority believes-
is a strong indication that he is a
parrhesiastes
. If we raise the question of how we can know
whether someone is a truth-teller, we raise two questions. First, how is it that we can know
whether some particular individual is a truth-teller ; and secondly, how is it that the alleged
parrhesiastes
can be certain that what he believes is, in fact, truth. The first question -
recognizing someone as a
parrhesiastes
- was a very important one in Greco-Roman society,
and, as we shall see, was explicitly raised and discussed by Plutarch, Galen, and others. The
second skeptical question, however, is a particularly modern one which, I believe, is foreign
to the Greeks.
Foucault.info
3 / 66
3. Parrhesia and Danger
Someone is said to use
parrhesia
and merits consideration as a
parrhesiastes
only if there
is a risk or danger for him or her in telling the truth. For instance, from the ancient Greek
perspective, a grammar teacher may tell the truth to the children that he teaches, and indeed
may have no doubt that what he teaches is true. But in spite of this coincidence between belief
and truth , he is not a
parrhesiastes
. However, when a philosopher addresses himself to a
sovereign, to a tyrant, and tells him that his tyranny is disturbing and unpleasant because
tyranny is incompatible with justice, then the philosopher speaks the truth, believes he is
speaking the truth, and, more than that, also takes a risk (since the tyrant may become angry,
may punish him, may exile him, may kill him). And that was exactly Plato's situation with
Dionysius in Syracuse -concerning which there are very interesting references in Plato's
Seventh Letter , and also in
The Life of Dion
by Plutarch. I hope we shall study these texts
later.
So you see, the
parrhesiastes
is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not
always a risk of life . When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you
risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a
parrhesiastes
. In such a
case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship
may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity
because his opinions are contrary to the majority's opinion, or his opinions may usher in a
political scandal, he uses
parrhesia
.
Parrhesia
, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger
: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form,
telling the truth takes place in the " game " of life or death.
It is because the
parrhesiastes
must take a risk in speaking the truth that the king or tyrant
generally cannot use
parrhesia
; for he risks nothing.
When you accept the parrhesiastic game in which your own life is exposed, you are taking
up a specific relationship to yourself : you risk death to tell the truth instead of reposing in the
security of a life where the truth goes unspoken. Of course, the threat of death comes from the
Other, and thereby requires a relationship to himself : he prefers himself as a truth-teller rather
than as a living being who is false to himself.
4. Parrhesia and Criticism
If, during a trial , you say something which can be used against you, you may not be using
parrhesia
in spite of the fact that you are sincere, that you believe what you say is true, and
you are endangering yourself in so speaking. For in
parrhesia
the danger always comes from
the fact that the said truth is capable of hurting or angering the interlocutor.
Parrhesia
is thus
always a "game" between the one who speaks the truth and the interlocutor. The
parrhesia
involved, for example, may be the advice that the interlocutor should behave in a certain way,
or that he is wrong in what he thinks, or in the way he acts, and so on. Or the
parrhesia
may
be a confession to someone who exercises power over him, and is able to censure or punish
him for what he has done. So you see, the function of
parrhesia
is not to demonstrate the truth
to someone else, but has the function of criticism : criticism of the interlocutor or of the
speaker himself. " This is what you do and this is what you think ; but this is what you should
not do and should not think . " "This is the way you behave, but that is the way you ought to
behave. " " This is what I have done, and was wrong in so doing. "
Parrhesia
is a form of
criticism, either towards another or towards oneself, but always in a situation where the
speaker or confessor is in a position of inferiority with respect to the interlocutor. The
Foucault.info
4 / 66
parrhesiastes
is always less powerful than the one with whom he or she speaks . The
parrhesia
comes from " below ", as it were, and is directed towards " above". This is why an
ancient Greek would not say that a teacher or father who criticizes a child uses
parrhesia
. But
when a philosopher criticizes a tyrant, when a citizen criticizes the majority, when a pupil
criticizes his or her teacher, then such speakers may be using
parrhesia
.
This is not to imply, however, that anyone can use
parrhesia
. For although there is a text
in Euripides where a servant uses
parrhesia
, most of the time the use of
parrhesia
requires
that the
parrhesiastes
know his own genealogy, his own status ; i.e., usually one must first be
a male citizen to speak the truth as a
parrhesiastes
. Indeed, someone who is deprived of
parrhesia
is in the same situation as a slave to the extent that he or she cannot take part in the
political life of the city, nor play the " parrhesiastic game ". In "democratic
parrhesia
" --
where one speaks to the assembly, the
ekklesia
-- one must be a citizen ; in fact, one must be
one of the best among the citizens, possessing those specific personal, moral, and social
qualities which grant one the privilege to speak.
However, the
parrhesiastes
risks his privilege to speak freely when he discloses a truth
which threatens the majority . For it was a well-known juridical situation when Athenian
leaders were exiled only because they proposed something which was opposed by the
majority, or even because the assembly thought that the strong influence of certain leaders
limited its own freedom. And so the assembly was, in this manner, " protected " against the
truth. That, then, is the institutional background of " democratic
parrhesia
"--which must be
distinguished from that " monarchic
parrhesia
" where an advisor gives the sovereign honest
and helpful advice.
5. Parrhesia and Duty
The last characteristic of
parrhesia
is this : in
parrhesia
, telling the truth is regarded as a
duty. The orator who speaks the truth to those who cannot accept his truth, for instance, and
who may be exiled, or punished in some way, is free to keep silent. No one forces him to
speak ; but he feels that it is his duty to do so. When, on the other hand, someone is compelled
to tell the truth (as, for example, under duress of torture), then his discourse is not a
parrhesiastic utterance . A criminal who is forced by his judges to confess his crime does not
use
parrhesia
. But if he voluntarily confesses his crime to someone else out of a sense of
moral obligation, then he performs a parrhesiastic act to criticize a friend who does not
recognize his wrongdoing, or insofar as it is a duty towards the city to help the king to better
himself as a sovereign.
Parrhesia
is thus related to freedom and to duty.
To summarize the foregoing,
parrhesia
is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has
a specific relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life through
danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people through criticism (self-criticism or
criticism of other people), and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and duty.
More precisely,
parrhesia
is a verbal activity in which a speaker expresses his personal
relationship to truth, and risks his life because he recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve
or help other people (as well as himself). In
parrhesia
, the speaker uses his freedom and
chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death
instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest
and moral apathy.
That, then, quite generally ; is the positive meaning of the word "
parrhesia
" in most of
the Greek texts where it occurs from the Fifth Century BC to the Fifth Century AD.
Foucault.info
5 / 66
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
