Scarica Comparative Religion: A Relational Approach to Asian Religions - Prof. Cestari e più Schemi e mappe concettuali in PDF di Filosofia Indiana solo su Docsity!
Indian Philosophy
VEDA = 3rd^ person verb – it means “someone knows”, it can also mean “knowledge”
or “understanding”
Vedas are like a summa or paradigm of Indian civilization. It is a complex corpus of
literary sources and this sources and these sources are included in 4 collections,
called Samhita and each one of these Samhita contains 4 different levels
Summa is a complex and stratified textual corpus + hermeneutics
- It’s never widely and equally accessible through the Indian territory.
- Articulated history and living tradition
- Discontinuous luck
Vedas regard phonetics, correct pronunciation that becomes a classic and then a
standard. A process of tuning the test into a classic to canonize; canonization. Oral
compositions involving ancient ritual practices, with sacrifices involving fire. Elaborate
sacrificial system.
“The apotheosis of scools” = a kind of prestigious and ancient touchstone. There are
philosophical schools deriving from the Vedas.
Vaidika (following the vedas) vs. avadika (ot following the vedas)
Arya= horses, iron weapons, livestock.
Obtation to the deities of the Vedic pantheon in the consecrated fires of various
products, especially prepared yajna.
The sacrifice was a way to preserve the world order, to control the universe and to
acquire. “cooking the world”.
SACRIFICE RITERITUAL SINTAX
Veda – textual and ritual nucleus, formulas recited during the sacrifice rite.
CONCEPT OF TRANSERABILITY OF THE SACRIFICE: 4 transformations.
o Subject
o Merit
o Fruit
o Subject 2
OFFICIANTS: each officiant has a role, corresponding to the 4 vedas:
o Hatr: the offeror. The one who offers the donation
o Adhvaryu: principal officiant, who repeats the sacrificial formulas
o Udgatr
o Atharvan: supervisor
PRECLASSICAL CLASSICAL PARALLEL ERRATIC
Hatr Adhvaryu Udgatr Atharvan
Rgveda yajurveda Samaveda Atharvaveda
“poetry” “ritual” “chanting” “magic”
The first three known/are called as the Triple science (trayi vidya). Atharvaveda is
something external to this corpus.
4 collections (veda) in 4 different levels 16 cell matrix
1. Level 1 – Samhita (composed between 1500 and 1600 Bc), the core of Veda
tradition. Referring to form and not content.
a. Text format: confusion, recomposition – phonological exposition of the
text
b. Textual typology: collection of mantra and sutra
2. Level 2 - Bramana (composed in 1000 bc), sacerdotal test.
3. Level 3 – Aranyaka (composed between 700 and 400 bc) Forest teachings
4. Level 4 – upanisad Secret teaching
SAMKHYA = there’s dualism in Samkhya; the mind as a transformation of prakrti.
Tattva= a principle of reality. Purusa and Prakrti are 2 tattvas.
Purusa= inactive, unconcious, female. Composed of 3 elements: sattva, rajas, tamas.
There’s no relationship between Purusa and Prakrti and understanding of this
liberation.
1. Buddhi/Mahat – reason, intellect
2. Ahamkara- “the self”
3. Manas – mind
However, the mental dimension belongs to the dynamics and processes of nature.
The material universe emerges of the definition of the 4 elements.
With the Samkhya philosophy we never quite know where we stand.
THEORY OD CASUALITY: a part can only be made by a material.
Satkariavada= doctrine of the pre – existent effect + theory of transformation cause
and effect are the same ( es. Latte -> yogurt)
The tattvas are a transformation of Prakrti mind is an object and not a subject of
Prakrti.
LIBERATION= KNOWLEDGE
PURUSA’S ISOLATION= LIBERATION
INTRODUCTION TO EAST ASIAN RELIGIONS -
Connected practices
Adam Chau’s book – it faces many important questions.
Connected practices – in order to get in touch to these Asian religions we need to
change our way of approaching EAR and the way to define our approach in this
connectedness.
We are used to a theological and theoretical approach to religions and we think that
all religion and every aspect of the religion can be defined accordingly but we can’t
apply this with Asian/Chinese religions possibility for us to approach our religions in
a different way. It should be practicing centered and not doctrine centered, instead of
isolating religion groups between themselves.
How to approach east Asian religions?
Many questions like “how many religions in China, which is most spread etc.”
they are moved by prejudice. Because they’re based by the idea that religions
are countable, we count on the self-identity of religions. Also India, Japan have
uncountable religions.
SUBSTANTIVE APPROACH: what is a religion? We need to become conscious about
some presuppositions:
- Identity presupposition
- Doctrine – we tent to identify EAR like “oriental wisdom” that introduces the
concept of orientalism.
- The idea that religion should be an exclusive practice (one God, one church, one
philosophy).
- Idea that religion is interior and private matter – an individual choice.
- Ethical and social engagement – religions must be engaged in the public, if not
they’re egocentric it comes to a protestant point of view.
- Religion is morally superior of the “true religions” over “false ones”.
The Japanese case: the Kamakura Period (1185 – 1333) and “new Buddhist”
(Shinbukkyo)
- Rhetoric of the reformation against the “previous corruption”
Back to Chau’s definition… it means that the spirits exist? Which presupposition are
the core of the questions that asks this last question? Presuppositions that are behind
this question:
- we believe that believing in something is the center of every religion in the
world. In EAR, faith is not as important as in Abrahamic religions
- assuming that God is fundamental - relevance of doctrine/texts/exegesis – and not only trust.
In EAR this in not the case in which the real question is not just the existence of the
spirits and neither the content of faith. In EAR, a much important part is assigned
to the involvement in religious practices, no matter what one’s believes are.
Chau’s position on the question “spirits do exist?” depends on the anthropological
imprinting of his approach. We should aim in realizing how those people/societies look
at the world. We can condence this on the definition of emic and etic.
first distinction comes from linguistic. Chau adopts an emic approach. He speaks
about the people’s belief, in the context of their approach.
Robert Redfield’s distinction between “greater tradition” (tradition developed by
cultural literate) and “little tradition” (tradition of paesan culture)
Those presuppositions are only western? We should remember self – orientalism.
In the context of religions, this approach altern the general meaning of the idea of
practices. Representations are a kind of power, and Japanese scholars accepted the
representation of tools as they were created in Europe and they accepted this. This
discussion clearly indicates the need of reflecting upon our very own tool to imagine
representations. List of the disciplines connected in one way or another on the study
of a religion:
- statistics (based on a large use of data, which data? quantitative approach is
problematic: based on confessional religiosity and affiliation to clearly defined
groups – but Chinese religions are different because religiosity is not
confessional and not based on denominational model)
- religious studies (exegesis, philosophy of religions): doctrinal content is the
main concern, the center are the study of canonical text (debate in the study of
EAR). This discipline is connected to the development of the euripean
theological tradition which has created a category: “words religions” as coherent
system of thoughts as a result we moderns has built categories like Buddhis,
Induist as if they’re analogues with Christianity. We moderns think that the study
of religions or philosophy have their own theological preposition so we ask
“what does Buddhism say about this problem” or “what are the main Buddhist
idea?” ecc. The problem with this type of question is that they take for granted
that these religions have analogies with western religions. There is a
discrepancy between this discipline and the religious life in East Asia.
**- history of religions:
- sociology of religions:** aims in defining how certain characteristics form
religious life. Grand themes (ex. Max weber: secularization). Thought
quantitative data, sociologists aim at predicting certain results, given some
conditions. Institutional interests. Difficult application to China, due to data built
on confessional and exclusive models of religion.
- political sciences: relationship politics – religions. traditionally, less developed
(politics in liberal democracies is secularized). Strong distinction public and
private spheres. Still. This theme grows in importance in recent times.
“how do the members of this religion vote?””how to recognize and control
religious radicalization?” Very important in Italy. How do they contribute in the
stability of state? strong attention to this question in china (like islam in
Xinjiang). Not only religions that comes outside of china (islam and Christian)
but also in relation to new religions. In political sciences approach too, the
exclusive affiliation is given for granted and are not interested in defining the
nature of religion practices.
- Anthropology
There are some important differences in the various disciplines that studies religions.
they can be grouped in two categories:
Massive use of quantitative data: political science, statistic, sociology
Approach limited to texts and doctrine: religious studies, theology, philosophy,
exogenesis research is clearly defined and appreciated in nowadays
academia. This limitation is a problem for us because it doesn’t allow our
possibilities of getting in touch with an entire dimension of Chinese religions in
particular.
These groups both start from limited premises (quantitative data or doctrine). They
lack an approach to more complex, less defined phenomena, two other disciplines
have more possibilities: history of religions and Anthropology.
- In the approach of history of religions, they are analyzed as historical
phenomena, with historical changes. It starts with the idea that religions are not
the same. It focuses on changes or temporal development of religions. typical
questions of this approach could be “how religion develop in east Asia?”. There
is a massive use of texts, documents and evidence
- Anthropology: comes from the encounter between colonizers and colonized
during the epoque of colonialism. Anthropologists were those colons that
worked as advisors of the colonial government in order to make more efficient
the government of the natives. Many of those natives didn’t even have basic
instruction, and they needed to understand them to avoid riots and organize
them better. So, anthropologist had to know them better, know their languages
participant observation in order to get quantitative data. Now anthropology
have moved to the confrontation with other disciplines: a discussion on
methodology and theory is always needed.
FIVE MODALITIES OF DOING RELIGIONS IN CHINA
BY ADAM CHAU to describe how religions are done in China. An alternative to the
denominational way of interpreting religions instead of speaking about Buddhism,
Taoism, islam…. In order to give wide picture of religions a in China it’s better to speak
about how to do religions. in fact, chinese religiosity is much more a request of
practice and effectiveness of instrumentalities and opportunity than orthodoxy beliefs.
Is not strange to think about religions in China as a kind of religious services providers
instead of moral authority of the correctness.
DISCURSIVE/SCRIPTURAL: this modality has to do with the practices related
to texts
PERSONAL – CULTIVATIONAL: indicates the practices connected to the self-
transformation and taking care of oneself
LITURGICAL: connected to elaborate procedures by ritual specialists
because they were easier to use and to understand. The practices can be combined
according to the specific situation.
It's a useful manner of interpreting religions in China. but it’s also valid for many
cultural and historical situations (although with the due variations).
An alternative model to the doctrinal – textual approach or the quantitative data
approach.
Competition between modalities and within the same modality.
Religious competitions in China as competition of religious providers.
Adam Chau’s words about the five modalities in non-Chinese religion: they can be
more than five. For example Christianity’s core is spreading the gospel so
proselytizing or evangelizing is a very important modality for doing religions that is
not relevant in the Chinese word. It cann also be applied to islam. prayers, confession
doesn’t exist in Chinese religions.
GRAPH OF RELIGION IN CHINA
Majority of Chinese folk religion (local cults, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.) , then Buddhism, other religious organisations, Christianity and Islam. Considerations with this graph:
- Folk religion −−> problem with religion, Confucianism and Taoism are religions?
- Including folk within religion
- Irreligious inside Chinese folk religion
- Chinese Buddhism separated from Buddhism, together with folk separated from Buddhism
- Confucianism−−> philosophy or religion? Folk?
- Taoism is present two times in other religious organisations and in Chinese folk religion
- Folk religion and folk Salvationism This graph was done by the Chinese government, not by any European/Western scholar. In China there's no distinction between other types of Buddhism, there's only Chinese Buddhism, different from Japanese Buddhism etc. The situation of Islam in China is quite complicated, because there's the complicated situation of "minorities", it is connected with it, and Islam is also connected with the ethnic aspect of it. In China there are more or less 56 minorities and so the situation is quite complicated. In China the Uyghur minority is persecuted in China, in the region of Xinjiang. What's important here in this graph whether the Islam contains the religion of the Uyghur minority, because this graph comes from the Chinese government. Regarding Christianity, there are different types of Christianity as well, so we should assume that the Christianity of the graph is not the official one. We must be careful because we do not have a transparent situation. The patriotic Church and the clandestine Church is directly connected to the Pope, while there is also a Christianity that is the "official" Chinese Christianity, recognised by the Chinese government.
What we see is a perspective of religions in China from the Chinese government's eyes. This is a partial reconstruction; it is interesting that there are some interesting aspects:
- Taoism and Buddhism appear two times in two different parts
- Chinese folk religion is different from folk Salvationism
- Folk Salvationism is together with Taoism
- Confucianism, which is not an official religion in China, does not appear as a different type of religion but with Chinese folk religion
- The overall situation is confusing Adam Chau's helps to understand the situation of this graph. There are two ways of looking at religion: non-denominational (red part of the chart) and denominational (other colors). Non-denominational religion involves personal practices without a formal structure. Denominational religions have government recognition and formal hierarchies. In China, 73% of people don't practice religion, partly because the country is officially Marxist and can't be guided by religion. People might visit Buddhist temples either as true believers or just for social reasons, showing how religion is intertwined with society. Folk Salvationism and Taoism are other examples. The government collects data on religion, leading to a distinction between denominational and non-denominational religions. The Chinese government prefers recognized religions because they are easier to control. The red part (non-institutional religiosity) is harder to control as it involves personal practices rather than organized religion. This distinction is political rather than religious. Officially recognized religions are seen as less of a threat, while non-denominational practices can be unpredictable and hard to manage. For instance, new religions in Japan are permitted, but in China, groups like Falun Gong face persecution. Christianity poses a unique issue because of its association with the Vatican, a foreign entity. In summary, the chart illustrates two concepts of religion in China: the controllable institutional religions and the harder-to-control personal practices.
GRAPH OF RELIGION IN JAPAN
number 2 on Japanese religions (2012), based on Japanese government data: we have a majority of Shinto and related beliefs, then Buddhism and related beliefs, Christianity and other. What are the problems here?
- Many Japanese practice both Shintoism and Buddhism
- "Related beliefs" both in Shinto and Buddhism
- No space of irreligious here (atheism/agnostic, and actually the percentage of atheist people in Japan is high)
- It makes Japan appear as a very religious place
The government's push to adopt a Western concept of religion wasn't driven by
religious institutions but was imposed to fit international norms. At the time, only
"civilized" countries, mainly in Europe and North America, were considered capable of
following international rules. Other regions, like Africa, were seen as uncivilized and
needing guidance from Europeans. Thus, Japan had to adapt its cultural ideas to avoid
being dominated by Western powers and to present itself as a modern nation.
China, since the beginning, was considered a very promising market, but Japan is a
very tiny country and there's almost nothing interesting there, so it was not a priority
(according to the Europeans), so Japan started its own modernisation.
What are the distinctive characters/characteristics of religion in Japan that had to be
imposed over previous situation, situation before organisation?
1. Individual Focus: Religion in Japan was shaped to be an individual practice,
influenced by Protestantism. Unlike Catholicism, which views religion as a
community affair, Protestantism emphasizes a personal relationship with God.
2. Doctrine over Practice: Religion was studied as a system of doctrines rather than
as a set of practices. This perspective, drawn from Christianity, views faith as
adherence to specific beliefs rather than just a matter of personal trust or
feeling.
3. Philosophy of Religion: The study of religion in Japan focused on doctrines and
the individual's inner spiritual life, blending rational philosophy with non-rational
faith.
4. Distinction between Religion and Magic: True religion was seen as altruistic and
focused on the salvation of the soul, while magic was viewed as selfish and
uncivilized.
5. Expressivist Idea: Followers were expected to express their faith openly and
genuinely, not just through rituals but through personal gratitude for divine
blessings.
6. Other-worldly Orientation: Religion emphasized the goal of saving the soul and
reaching Paradise, rather than seeking material benefits in this life.
These ideas were adopted in Japan to demonstrate to the West that Japan was a
civilized country, distinct from places considered uncivilized or magical. To achieve
this, the Japanese government started to separate Shinto and Buddhism, which had
previously been intertwined. Before 1868, there was no clear distinction between
them. Shintoism was created as a modern concept, and Buddhism was not commonly
used as a term until after World War II.
The government differentiated between Buddhism (bukkyo) and Shinto (shinto).
Buddhism focused on the teachings of Buddha, while Shinto encompassed various
local gods and practices. The government labeled Shinto as a civic cult rather than a
religion, allowing the state to control the social and religious aspects of people's lives.
This separation was a strategic move to ensure that the emperor could influence
personal and communal life under the guise of civic practices.
Buddhism became recognized as a religion in Japan, while Shinto was designated a
civil cult. Shinto teachings became mandatory in schools, promoting the belief that
the emperor was a direct descendant of God. During the separation of Shinto and
Buddhism, Buddhists faced persecution. The government appeared to allow private
faith but the persecution was intense.
After this period, Japanese Buddhists worked to show that Buddhism could be modern
and suitable for contemporary times. They promoted Mahayana Buddhism as the true
form of Buddhism, highlighting its modern and non-ritualistic nature. Mahayana was
seen as more open and aligned with modernity compared to the ancient, text-focused,
and narrow-minded form of Buddhism.
In summary, Japan promoted Shinto as a civil duty and Buddhism as a modern
religion, with Mahayana being emphasized as the true and modern interpretation of
Buddhist teachings.
ZEN AND ART OF INVENTING TRADITIONS
Essay by Yamada Shoji: "the myth of Zen in the art of archery". We can find in this
article that some of these traditions are completely invented. There are some social
representations, there is some social expectation or a kind of orientation that there
are certain connections that make us think that there are some connections while
there are not. There are a lot of interesting connections between religion, philosophy,
practice, sociology etc.
Zen and the relation of the book by Adam Herrigel “Zen in the at of archery”
published in Germany in 1948 and translated in many languages. From this book we
can have a glimpse of many important phenomena that occurred in the last century
and are still fundamental today.
As Yamada said archery is mainly practiced for fun in Japan but in Europe it has a
spiritual value linked with Japanese culture. In general, this book took advantage of
orientalism. As said in the essay, the relationship with Zen and archery is an important
example of invented traditions in modern times. A chance for the discussion of
practices in modern cross-cultural relationship. What problems appear in this book?
- History of ideas (cultural studies, postcolonial studies). It appears like there is a
kind of gain where certain idea or practices develop in a place and move a place
B and go back to A in a never-ending way this explains a lot of modern
cultures. Very fast with the propaganda of nationalism.
- Epistemology: filling empty space in human communication with meaning. This
gives us some hence of how human mind work and how certain mechanism (like
orientalism) works in this contest.
- Historiography: the status of traditions in modern times.
In order to place Herrigel books in its historical and cultural context we need to look at
some aspect of its cultural millirem. According to Italian philosopher Cacciari, an
important trend in the German speaking word was attracted by the anti-systematic
approach offered by Chinese and Japanese Buddhism that was perceived different
from a systematic perception like Schopenhauer. This approach especially in the
Viennese interwar culture. Many intellectual started to search how to overcome the
dualism between thinking and its objects. Herrigel tries to show the process of
realizing the arrow there is the ego and the art is forever ruined. Hence, this is not
very different from the paradox of intentionality: try not to try.
Herrigel’s book arouse the interest of these intellectuals since it seems to face the
exact problem they were facing.
Orientalist approach: what does it mean? Coherent vision of the world based on a
dichotomy between eastern and western essences. West is the center; east is a
periphery. In this contest the west is destabilized by the east.
Paradigmatic chains: FERDINAND DE SAUSSURRE distinction between
syntagmatic and paradigmatic structures.
- Syntagmatic structure : the way in which words combine to create
grammatically acceptable phrases.
- Paradigmatic structure : substitutional relationship that a linguistic unit has
with other units.
De Saussure talks about this distinction in a specific way, making the example of a
Greek temple:
during the war that Japan started with China, and in few years was extended also to
Usa).
There is also important to discuss about certain practices: according to him Zen can
provide the needs in order to do his duties. A kind of spiritual promise which if we
consider the period imply totalization. He said that Buddhism perfectly fit a capitalist
economy and age, because it teaches how to do things without thinking. Buddhism is
interpreted in this way (but in Cestari opinion is a kind of danger). Just a flow with
action: it is politically and ethically dangerous.
Suzuki read Herrigel work: Herrigel knew Suzuki but he did know what was written in
Zen and Japanese culture which was published in 1938. They were almost parallel. It is
fascinating that two people are different and talk about the same theme. How is it
possible that two people that did not know each other were saying something parallel
about Japanese culture?
Suzuki put everything together (like a paradigmatic chain): lao-tzuan (doing and not
doing) and Sun- tzu. In Chinese culture they are completely the opposite: the first
rejected violence, the other one considers violence the way to promote politics. In the
passage, Suzuki said that the importance of acting over book-reading, over thinking,
over heading regrets and second thoughts. He said that with Zen all these trouble
questions are solved. He considered also the un-known. Anti-intellectualism.
Suzuki is an example of self-orientalism. The dominated start to think of themselves in
the same ways the dominant think of them.
Suzuki is applying orientalist to his own culture, and he does so by inverting the ideas.
Saying the the paradigm of the colonizers was wrong, so that the human is not
rational, but is irrational, like in Japanese culture (this is not true, but Suzuki wants to
subvert the ideas at the base of Orientalism).
He interprets the wuwei principle (try not to try) like conscious /unconscious, that is
really wrong.
Mushin (no mind) and munen (no thought): Suzuki interprets in a peculiar
way, as in the quotation.
Atman/Brahman= the individual principle. Buddhism is against the immutable essence
of the self because this immutable essence is a source of attachment and suffering an
internal complex. According to Buddhism we cannot think the we are immortal. This
idea in China and Japan became something slightly different: wunian/wuxin= non-
attaching mind of the practitioner during meditation. Mind is not attached to things,
ideas, circumstances both in everyday life and meditation. The person must let flow
his thoughts and therefore he’s free of thoughts. So, this approach is based upon
practice of meditating and it’s a mental training. When Suzuki speaks about Musin
and Munen he refers to the application of this Buddhist idea to samurai culture. In
samurai culture Munen/Mushin becomes a strategic principle: fighting without being
burdened by fear, doubts etc. Suzuki interprets this training as something spiritual
and unconscious, the samurai becomes egoless and pure. In Suzuki passage, he’s
speaking about samurai as kind of light mind. But its misplaced to think like this.
- Was it done on purpose? Was it imprecise and inaccurate? No, his position was
politically dangerous and tragically misleading in the historical period when
these words were written (1938 – Asian pacific war, ultramilitarist regime).
- What was accomplished during the period? Since the beginning of
modernization, the government made a shift to samuraization of society. The
words of Suzuki were like adding fuel to the fire, he converged with the
militaristic propaganda.
Cultural history of martial arts in Japan
Martial arts are always being considered as some kind of spiritual practice. This idea
of connecting spiritual practice and martial arts didn’t come out in pre – modern
times. so they are much more recent: first period of Japanese modernization (
on). The passage from bujutsu (martial techniques) to budo (martial spiritual way
do = Tao which has a moral and spiritual relevance) is modern.
The bushido (honor code of samurai) was an invention of a scholar called Nitobe Inazo
(1862 – 1933). He wasn’t a samurai; he was a diplomatic and tried to dignify
Japanese’s culture in the eyes of british audience during the beginning of the 19th
century. He wrote a book “ bushido the soul of Japan” which established the myth of
the samurais in the west. It was written in english and then bounced back to Japan.
There were some kinds of bushido even before this like for example the hanakure
written by Yamamoto no Tsunetono during the Edo period. It was written as a secret
treatise and it was remained unpublished until 1906.
Boshin Wars as the end of the military role of samurai
In the beginning of the new era Japan had to modernize many aspects like education,
economy, society, military. The world of the samurai was defined as démodé, symbol
to the feudal Japan, considered as remanence of the world that they have changed.
This is clearer during the Boshin Wars (1868 – 1869). So, an army of trained samurai
confronted the imperial army. The result was only a military defeat for the samurai but
also a defeat of an entire world. Since that period, it became clear that the old warrior
class had not chance against the modern army. In such a period, the knowledge of the
past and the past techniques seemed to be not required and people changed their
approach to these practices. In modern times, martial arts became a kind of spiritual
practice or a technology of the self. This happened to most of the martial arts like
karate, judo, kendo and archery too. The change was truly remarkable, and those
techniques were not anymore oriented to the acquisition of martial proficiencies and
effectiveness in combat, but became inner disciplines to be useful in the new world.
They became as technologies of inner fight.
Technologies of inner fight= they were originally developed for combat.
Adaptations, ritualization, sublimations and orientations towards the inner part of
human beings, aiming at transforming, elevating and empowering human beings.
They have 5 possible orientations that can overlap:
1. Personal defense
2. Aesthetic= some practices of inner fight have a kind of aesthetic value like a
dance like capoeira, aikido
3. Sport= like judo
4. Preserving health= like taijiquan
5. Spiritual exercises= naikido
When does a practice become a spiritual exercise? Which are the features upon
which we can say that it became spiritual and has nothing to do with the fight?
What about their relation to power? Technologies of control or of the self? Are this
distinction always so clear – cut?
In Foucault scheme practices that makes human beings’ slave (social control) are
different from the practices that makes them free. Foucault himself complicated
this simple distinction when he elaborates the ideas of “microphysics of power”
and the “four technologies”. Power is microphysics, it doesn’t only occur in
institution (big concentration of power) but more on the daily life, so power
circulate in intimate relationships.
Technology of control can easily slip in technology of the self or TC and TS, far from
opposing each other and easily slip into one another.
Freedom and control are not logically contradictory terms but imply each other,
and sometimes operates at the same time.
that each single individual has in perpetuating the strength of power in
society. In Foucault’s approach, sovereignty obscured the structure of
individual configuration in political discourse.
They are two distinct and disconnected entities (individual and power)
kept together by a third entity, law. Many different variations of this scheme.
Foucault is consciously working to disassemble this scheme, not to negate
it, but to recognize its real mechanism of functioning. • Which is not the
regulation of relationship between subjects or between subject and power,
but rather their subjugation to a specific political and juridical order. • The
distinction law/power, norm/exception are not really to be considered as
juxtaposed (as f. ex. still in Agamben), but they operate as just one same
paradigm: it is not the law that determines war, but war that uses the law to
consecrate its relations of forces
Power is a way of transforming individual in a way in which they work
better in a system with power, is not that they impose things but the people
become part of power
This comes down in 2 ways according to Foucault: 1. disciplinary power
(starting from education, training kids to follow certain orientation, control of
small groups of people in small areas). 2. biopolitics (is a way of controlling
large group of people in large areas, is the politics that has to do with the life
of citizens) before modernization life of citizens were not controlled by
governed, and then they started to control the citizens life too, es.
Distribution of vaccine. Biology became a central worry for the state
Biopolitics: a way to organize, nurture and protect the life of citizens of a
state (Policy and Police are closely connected). • It is also a way to control,
organize, orientate population according to certain aims and priorities that
have to do not only with taxes and state organization (the juridical and
institutional approach to political philosophy), but also with the very life (and
death) of its citizens.
Is this approach closely linked to the development of modern
statenations? Foucault’s answer to this question is not clear. This depends on
the double problem connected to the possible answer.
6 MAGGIO
Power in foucault’s approach
“It seems to me that one of the basic phenomena of the nineteenth century was what might be called power's hold over life. What I mean is the acquisition of power over man insofar as man is a living being, that the biological came under State control, that there was at least a certain tendency that leads to what might be termed State control of the biological”. He was interest in ancient philosophy so he started to develop a certain approach to ancient philosophy in a way that considers both ancient and modern practices He draws a distinction between 4 types of technologies, each of them are matrix of practical reason, is a way through which we convey the way of doing practice
- Tech. Of production, the power of producing things, allow us to transform and produce things
- Tec. Of sign systems, the power of representing things, permit us to use signs, meaning, symbols of signification es. Music or mathematics
- t. of power, imposes people to do certain things, which determine the conduct of individuals and submit them to certain ends of domination, an objectivizing of subject, he was particularly interested in this technology
- t. of the self, permit individuals to effect a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct and way of being, in order to transform themselves and obtain a certain level of happiness, wisdom, perfection, immortality. Each of these technologies are connected to one specific form of power, technology of the self is more a spread of power (is not from above to below) that affect human relations. The power of self orienting oneself, in one direction or another. Having time to take care of ourself gives power to ourself
Pierre Bourdieu (1930 - 2002): the notions of
habitus and field
Notions from Bourdieu, one of the most important sociologists of the last century, in particular we are going to discuss the notions of habitus and field: how it is possible to think about the question of practice in a certain way. Bourdieu is better than Foucault because Foucault is a bit generic, while Bourdieu has the advantage to talk about something that can be found in everyday life. Bourdieu's thought is quite complex. How to master a language? Let's try to understand how generally we master a language. It is very different and it depends on which language is your mother tongue (L1), another thing is a second or a third language, which is not your mother tongue. A language in your mother tongue will be certainly a two−steps process: Firstly you are exposed to a lot of things, words, that you have no idea how to deal with and you are simply there. When you are very small you have no structures in your mind, so you build these structures to master the language Secondly is when you generally go to school, and when you go to school you learn how to define that language (grammar, writing, reading etc.) and all the things that you've learned before will make sense to you If you try to master an L2 or L3 this is going to be quite different. You usually study grammar, words, structures, you go to a language school etc. these can be considered a two−steps process, because you start with something quite mental, you start learning things, making them conscious, but then when you need to improve, it is the opposite: L1 you go from unconscious to conscious, for L2 or other languages is the contrary, because for a second of third or whatever language you need to apply what you have learned. There is a difference between living grammar and memorization: Living grammar: when you are a native speaker you use autonomy, invention, adaptability and consciousness is preferable but not needed Memorization: when you start to learn a language which is not your mother tongue, you will be heavily dependent on memory, you are dependent on the patterns you have learned, you repeat these patterns and it would be quite difficult to adjust what you're saying in a situation, your speech will be stiff (always the same) and consciousness is absolutely needed, we cannot do it without context, if you want to become autonomous in a certain language you need the "living grammar" There is also a second way to learn an L2, which is not going to a school to learn it, but just learning from hearing, in this case it happens often with people who have no time to go to school. In this case you'll realise immediately this, you understand them but their understanding of the language is very shallow, it is like a superficial copy of the language, you understand that you cannot have a deep exchange in that language with them. That's why they are somehow dependent to repetition, but they can adapt to the situation, because they've learned everyday level, they know how to communicate, at least until they are in their own environment, whey they are not in their comfort zone anymore, they have no reference points anymore. These people will also depend on certain things. And all this is important because also language is a kind of practice: when we talk about habitus, we are talking about something quite similar. Habitus is a "living grammar" of actions and practices/applied to actions and practices. Habitus for Bourdieu is a form of action and practices which has been acquired from socialization, so you are part of a certain social environment, just like when you learn an L1 and this environment gives you the ways of perceiving reality of judging how reality is and of acting in this reality, more or less like language. In language we have certain words that are useful to define certain situations and there are different situations or different possibilities of reading reality, of perceiving reality according to the language we use. A classic example is the esquimesi populations, where they have different shades of the colour white, they say it in a lot of different way, because there's the need for them to have this.
the brain that learn, but the mind needs to have a body to perform, otherwise it is impossible. But by the way it is not a problem of consciousness. Another definition of habitus: " Habitus as t he strategy generating principle enabling agents to cope “with unforeseen and ever- changing situations ... a system of lasting arid transposable dispositions which, integrating past- experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations and actions and makes possible the achievement infinitely diversified tasks." (Bourdieu 1977 ， p 。 72; 95 ） Habitus is a way through which we are able to cope with the "unforeseen and ever changing situations". Human being is the most adaptable species in the living world, we are able to go anywhere in the world. There are other organisms that are able to do much more than this, go out in the space and still live without any air surrounding them, but this is a specific case. Human being can adapt to situations thanks to habitus and thanks to these strategy−generate principles we can also adapt to unforeseen situations, we can change, because we learn how to do it. Peter Sloterdijk is very critical about Bourdieu, saying that he is talking about human being that cannot change, that does not change and that it is destined to remain always the same. Sloterdijk should reconsider what he said because there is not a good looking into it. “The habitus - embodied history ， internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history is the active presence of the whole past of which it is the product 。 As such ， it is what gives practices their relative autonomy respect to external determinations of the immediate present 。 This autonomy is that of the past ， enacted and acting ， which ， functioning as accumulated capital ， produces history-on the basis of history and so ensures the permanence in change that makes the individual agent a the world 。 The habitus is a spontaneity without consciousness or opposed as much to the mechanical necessity of things without history in mechanistic theories as it is to the reflexive freedom of subjects without inertia'in rationalist theories.” (Bourdieu ， The Logic of Practice ， p 。 56 ） The fact that habitus embodied history is related to the structuring structure, and this is an idea of embodied history has become internalized and has become forgotten. It's nature, not history. Habitus is the living presence of the past inside you, it is an active presence. The subject/object dualism is inadequate: Objectivism: explain social life through factors independent from subjects Subjectivism: society is the mere sum of deliberate, conscious acts of individuals The problem is that this kind of dualism, common in the history of philosophy, sociology etc. is not adequate to discuss how things are, what happened in society and in ourselves, because on the contrary we are talking about something that is a bit of both. Individual and society are not two opposite forms, because individual is one form of society, a part in which society expresses itself, and at the same time society can be understood only through the generative principles that define differences. We have to talk about the non−dualistic alternative to the individual which is habitus, that is history enacted in the bodies (system of dispositions). Society has its own non−dualistic approach which is field. HABITUS FUNCTION WITHIN DIFFERENT SOCIAL SPACES: THE FIELDS (CHAMPS) Habitus functions within different social spaces, these spaces are called the filed (champs). The word field in English can have some different meanings. Field: «A field is a field of forces within which the agents occupy positions that statistically determine the positions they take with respect to the field, these positions-takings being aimed either at conserving or transforming the structure of relations of forces that is constitutive of the field.» (P. Bourdieu, The Political Field, the Social Science Field and the Journalistic Field, p. 30)
Explanation: The definition of field tells us that fields starts when there are agents that starts certain positions, and for a field to be there must be some agent that have a certain position in the field and this position−taking is aimed at conserving this position or at changing the position. This definition of field is very large, which enable us to define some social groups. “The field is a field of objective relations (of dominance, or subordination, of complementarity or antagonism, etc.) among positions [...]. Each position is objectively defined according to its objective definition together with other positions or, in other terms, according to the system of pertinent, aka efficient, properties, which allow to situate it with respect to all the other positions in the structure of the global distribution of properties. All the positions depend, in their very existence, and in the determinations imposed to those who occupy them, on their actual or potential situation in the structure of the field, i.e. in the structure of the distribution of the types of capital (or power), whose possessing allows the possibility of obtaining the specific profits at stake in the field.” (from Bourdieu, Le regole dell'arte, p. 307) Explanation: There must certain relations that can be of dominance of subordination, complementary or antagonism (like a pupil needs a teacher and a teacher needs a pupil. There are also other pupils and other teachers. For example we find a field of soccer game: the field is made by different positions: there are the players, the groups of players (team), there is the position of the trainer (coach), there is the position of the owner of the team, the position of the fans (hooligans) and at the same time we have also in this case the media. The media has a very important task inside the field. According to this scheme, which is purposefully very general, we can understand the types of relations that there are in many different fields. What changes are the types of capital and the subjects involved. The main point is that all these fields need to have something similar, there are positions, relations and actions among them One important thing that enables a field to be a field is the ILLUSIO , that means believing in that field, a kind of tasting agreement about what they are fighting for, if you are not part of the world of soccer for example, you will not understand what's exciting about that. The difference is that I am not part of that field, for me there is not tacit agreement (illusio) about any recognition of importance of that field. These players that are fighting for certain game, which can be different, with illusio confer legitimacy to the field, the field exists only if there are people who give legitimacy to this field, otherwise this field would not exist. If those people in the field think that that field does not exist, it does not. There must be a kind of believing in the legitimacy of the field, and this is where everything starts, if you do not have that legitimacy, you do not do it. Bourdieu affirms that illusio is a kind of justification of human existence after the death of God. According to Niche the only possibility to find a meaning in life is social justification. If you do not have such social justification you are nothing, you may believe in God, but in that case you are part of another field. Other examples that Bourdieu does are the literary field, journalistic field, political field, religious field etc. what is important here is that there are structural and functional similarities between fields. Structure means positions, functions are different ways of interacting between these position; in any case structures and functions are similar among these fields, even if these fields are very different from each other. There are differences in the aims, in the wat people interact within the field, according to the field, but there are some similarities. In order to understand a field we need to understand its borders and limits, because a field is not without borders and limits. Here too Bourdieu is very flexible in saying this: the borders of the field are based on the effect that has in society and among its positions, for example there are certain fields that can be very effective even outside of the field, for example the game of soccer has a certain importance in Italy and in other countries where soccer is considered important also outside of their specific field. There may be some effect of specific fields also in the way that people speak, for example some football metaphors that are important also in every−day conversation. Borders and field codifying.
