SEMIOTEXTIE) FOREIGN AGENTS SERIES Coptigh © 1997 Senior) (Copy ©2007 Senior) As ord a Al sighs reed. No par of thi bok my be sepa ‘teva temo anise by any mean, i, mechanical, pote copying: onling or other, withow pie pein a he publi abs by Semin) 2007 Wine Bh Suv 427, an Ange, CA 90057 Speci thanks Andsew eran, Mak Basu, Jin Bla, Careline Busts, Sade Cae, Jed Eins, Jos Rui Funes Peer Gente, Mary Kal Heid Pais Pal Rabo, Dominique Sead and Nichola Zar. Caner Arty: Googe Pe ‘AMan Oesings Docs, 205, print 2612" 39 94° (Coury of he artis and Mindat aly Longe Design Hedi Kok IsBW-10:158435-0393 ISBN-13:978-1-5845-0392 Dissibated by The MIT Prem, Cambridge, Mas nd Landon, England Pit in th United Sees of Americ, THE POLITICS OF TRUTH Michel Foucault Edited by Sylvére Lotringor Introduction by John Rajchman Translated by Lysa Hochroth & Catherine PorterWhat is Critique? HENRI GOUMIER: Ladi and Gentlemen, I would Rist like t0 thank Mr. Michel Foucault for having made time ia his busy schedule this yea for thie session, especially since we ae catching ‘him, not the day afer, but only about swo days afer his long ti ‘Japan, This explains why the invitation For this meeting was sather ces. Since Michel Foucault's paper is infact a suprise and, as we can assume, 2 good surprise wll not have you wait any longer for the pleasure to heat MICHEL FOUCAULT: Iehank you very much for having invited me to this meting before this Soci. I believe hat about cen years ago gave a ak here on the subject ented Whar an aucbor® For the isuesbout which I would like speak today, T have no file. Me Goubier hasbeen indulgent enough to say that che eason for this was my wip co Japan. Truly, chis is avery kind ater tion of the ruc, Ls ny, in fac, chat up uni a few days ago, 1 Jha hardly been able wo find ate: or eather cece was one that kept -bauocing me bur that Ids want to choose. You ae going to see ‘why: ie would have been indecent ‘Actually, che question about which I wanted ta speak and about which Tall wane wo speak iss Wha i etigue? I might be worthtrying out afew ideas on tis projec thar keeps aking shape, being ‘extended and reborn on the our limite of philosophy very dose to it up agin it, a its expense, in the direction ofa Fase philso- phy and in ies, perhaps, ofall possible philosophy. And i eems thar beeween the high Kansan enterprise and the litle polemical profesional activites chat are called critique, ie seems to me that there has een inthe modern Western word (ating, more o les, empiicaly from the 15th tothe 16th centuries) a certain way of thinking, speaking and acting, cerain relationship to what exists, ‘a whae one knows, to what one dos, rlainship wo sci, 10 culture and also a reatonship to others that we could call, let’ ay the sitiabatibide, OF couse, you will be surprised ro hear that there is romething ik erica antiude that would be specific ro modern civilization, since there have been so many cvtques, polemics, et, and since even Kant problems presimably have of ns which go back way before the 15th and 16th centutes, One will be surprised eo sce that one eis ro ind nity in this eique, although by is very nacre, by its funtion Iwas going cay. by its profession, ie sem to be condemned to dispecson, dependency and pure heteronomy. Afr al, ettique only eit in relation (0 something othe than el isan instrament, 2 means fora furure ‘or a truth chat ie will not know nor happen to be, it oversees a domain ie would want to police and is unable to regulate. All his ‘means that itis function which s subordinated in relation to what philosophy, science, plies, ethics, lw literature, et, postvely constinte. And at the same time, whatever the pleases oF com penaatons accompanying this curious actvey of equ, i seems that i tacher regula, almos alway, brings noe only some sil bic of ult itclaims to have, buc also hat ici supported by some kind of more general imperative gener sil han ha of eradicating ‘rors. Thee is something in critque which i akin to viree. And ina certain way, wha [wanted to speak to you about i this etal atsicude ae vere in geneal ‘There ae several routes one could take co discus the history of this xtc ast. I would simply like to suggest this one to you, which is one posible route, again, among many others. I will suggest the following variation: the Christian pastoral, or the (Christian church inasmuch asi acted in a precisely and specifically pastoral way, developed this ides—singular and, I believe, quite oreign to anciene culture that each individual, whatever his ge of stars, from the beginning to che end of hs life and in his every action, had to be governed and had ole imal be governed, chat istosay directed towards his lation, by someone to whom he was bound by 4 tor meticulous, deuiled teatonship of obedience. And this salvation oriented operation in a lationship of obedience to someone, has to be made ina triple relationship to che eth: uth understood as dogma, eh also 0 the degree where this entation implie special and indivdualzing knowledge of indi- viduals and finally, in tha this direction i deployed lke a refctve technique comprising general ules, particular knowledge, peceps, methods of examination, confessions, interviews, ete Afterall, we must nt forget what, for cenure, the Greek church called teh techni ad what the Latin Roman church called ars arsum, Ie was precisely the dizerion of conscience the art of governing men. OF ‘course, this ar of governing for long time was linked to reaively limited pracce, even in medicralsocery, to monastic life and cepecaly to the practic of elatvely rected spiel groups. But live that fom the 15th ceneury on and before the Reformation, ‘one can say that cere was veritable explosion of dhe ar of governing men, There was an explosion in wo ways: fis, by displacement in Waist