The topic of this post is about agents of action, more specifically, individual agents vs. group agents, and which is better, or at least to analyze both.
Foucault describes our society and its institutions (the school, the store, the library, etc) as a system, where each institution contributes to the total system. However, Foucault also points out that these institutions can also be negative, causing people to be forced into acting the way the system does, depending on the system. The library may force one to be silent, whereas a school may promote thought yet repress it at the same time.
Foucault talks about how the establishment of these institutions is dangerous, and how the individual may very well be erased and substituted for the institution. We become the school, or the library, or the police.
However, others, such as Hobbs, talk about how institutions and governments are necessary and needed, because without government, we would have total chaos. Hobbs argues that governments are needed to maintain order, and that governments are ultimately needed and good for the individual.
Hobbs and Foucault’s views may seem like polar opposites, however, they do seem to agree on one point. They talk about the individual as the most important thing, they talk about how the individual needs to be the one that benefits from any system.
Now that we’ve examined both radical views, Foucault and his views to completely abolish structure as a whole, and Hobbs, claiming that it is good, we’ve gotten down to the same point, the individual.
Before we can conclude that the individual is the most important, let’s look at one more person… John Rawls (or Rawls). Mr. Rawls talks about a social contract, a deal between the people, and the government. Rawls believed that society would always be bifurcated, that the government and the people (or the individuals) would always be separated.
Rawls agreed with Foucault in the sense that structure, if not controlled, was bad. However, Rawls’ solution was not abolishing structure. Rawls wanted to establish a social contract, or a deal between the government and the people.
Rawls’ ideas supports that the government is the most important player in the social situation, not the people. In Rawls’ system, the government have the power, not the people. However, Rawls knew that people needed to be protected, and thus he created the social contract, or a deal between the people and the government.
Rawls’ ideas puts the pressure and the power on the government, not the people.
I’m not one to pull conclusions, so I’ll leave you with the ideas of Rawls vs Hobbs and Foucault, and the mini-conflict between Hobbs and Foucault. One though you may want to consider… How does America work? Rawls, or Hobbs/Foucault? Which system actually works?
