Foucault taught to Y12. I need some help please

[Thatsinteresting]

I have received an email from school that Y12 will be looking at Foucault's theories on Power. This in itself isn't a huge issue but the video they have been sent to watch does say that he also wrote about sex and sexuality. The teacher always signs off he/him and so I'm wondering if he is subtly trying to introduce queer theory. I know that Foucault was a child rapist who wanted to remove the age of consent but I'm wondering if I should say something to school and if so what?

WTF is an ‘impressionable adolescent’ if it’s not a 16 year old? The brain isn’t formed until 25!

I know James Lindsay can be difficult (partly because he gets so annoyed with idiots on xwitter) but he is an excellent source for understanding postmodern wankery* - here’s a video in conversation with Glenn Loury (Professor at Brown University) where they talk about Foucault’s ideas as currently applied in the areas of social justice.

I can find you more if you find it helpful:

*I have a BA from Goldsmiths so believe me, I’ve spent a lot of time submersed in postmodern wankery!

ShamblesRock it's a lunchtime drop in lecture, open to all Y12

One difference may well be that if are studying Foucault at university it is probably because you have elected to study Philosophy or a Social Science in which Foucault may have some relevance. Foucault would be just one philosopher amongst many covered.

The scenario with the pronoun using teacher running a lunchtme session specifically looking at Foucault, says to me this is not so much about thinking critically about different philosophical approaches, but about pushing a very particular position.

Yes, I studied Philosophy at degree level and we started with Plato. You have to understand the history and development of philosophical thought in order to assess and test out any new model. All thought systems are a product of their time and under the influence of what went before.

He's an important thinker and anyone studying social theory at Uni is going to get better acquainted with him and with post modernist and post structuralist ideas. Yes the language is challenging but there are plenty of introductory texts about his work from which people can start to think critically. These are young adults.

He was a paedophile and if studied should not be slipped in under the guise of a lunchtime club to school children.

Exactly. A teacher wishing to promoting the ideas of an individual who seeks to strike down boundaries between children and sex. No red flags there!

Yes, but for what it's worth, a very basic introduction to Foucaultian power relationships is unlikely to go beyond
a) power is relational rather than always being top down
b) power is about creation/shaping rather than always being destructive.
There's unlikely to be much chance to go into anything juicier, let alone Foucault's hugely controversial views on sex. I mean, maybe at a push they'll introduce his distinction between "liberation" and "freedom"-which is, of course, the source of much iffy modern thinking, but I doubt it. Even if they do it'll likely descend into a discussion about who has power over whom and why. That's usually what happens with undergrads and I can't see this being different.

Nobody needs a Foucaultian power session in a lunchtime drop in format with no lesson plans or oversight.

Is Foucault now more important than the trinity: Marx, Weber, Durkheim?

When I was studying social sciences in the early 90s, Foucault was considered a short cut for people who weren’t serious. Times do change! We still studied statistics and research methods. Most of what I see as evidence in social sciences these days would not have passed muster.

For me, the rise of Foucault, is symbolic in the drop in prestige of the social sciences amongst the public. All that power and relative stuff just comes across as gaslighting.

I think there was a view it would be short lived, but if anything it became more influential after the 1990s! You still learn research methods in social sciences and can take stats options.

Yes, I studied Philosophy at degree level and we started with Plato. You have to understand the history and development of philosophical thought in order to assess and test out any new model. All thought systems are a product of their time and under the influence of what went before.

To be honest the main thrust of post structuralism was that things weren’t linear and there weren’t foundational concepts for the whole of philosophy that you can study in stages. It also emphasised how meaning and theory was not driven through philosophic tradition itself but lots of other structures such as language, linguistics, art, praxis. There are also lots of philosophic traditions that don’t emanate from Plato.

And that is because post structuralism was 'post' something...it was reacting and responding to what went before. Nothing arises in a vacuum.

@lollylo I can remember more than one of us going to officd hours of our Philosophy professors to talk about our concerns with “postmodernism” it seemed like tautological nonetheless and dangerous sophistry. Everyone was told in turn essentially to calm down, it was really only a movement in architecture and for analysing literature from a new angle. It wasn’t serious philosophy and it would go anywhere. 👀

They got that wrong!

None of which makes sense unless you know what it was arguing against.

The only reason to take this approach IMO is to make sure the students don't have any chance of pulling together their thoughts enough to disagree.

It's very interesting to me that on the one hand the middle classes seem to be intellectually dominated - at least number wise - by two groups. All of these mediocre social science artsy types embracing this kind of tautalogical non-thought, and then you then get the more "skeptic" pro-science ones who are almost always actually logical positivists, - an position many philosophers would describe as self-refuting.

I feel like there is a sort of parallel between these two groups, or a link of some kind - both missing something important?

@TempestTost 😁

I’d email and say this is intriguing, impressed by the level of thought you’re exposing the children to, which other philosophers are going to be featured?

And I’d ask which women especially, perhaps suggest Simone de Beauvoir (and if the teacher points out her views on the age of consent - she campaigned to have it abolished, then you have an in to explain Foucault was equally problematic)

I'd be happy for mine to study it.

And they don't have to agree with it but to use it. amongst other examples/philosophies, to aid analysis.

If you want to let a teacher meet with your kids to discuss 'power' of a paedophile after he has already sent videos about how the paedophile also talks about sex and sexuality (which this is really about) then I am not sure what else to say. There are no other philosophers, or analysis. There are no lesson plans, schemes of work.

I agree! Really missed how embedded it would become. Though lots of people would see philosophy in general as tautological nonsense.

This. Remembering this is a teacher who already signals their adherence to queer theory through their use of ideological language.