Chapter 1
Birthing the Clinic
As with any project that begins by taking up a thesis of Michel Foucault, one must first discuss Foucault himself. That is, I must give some account of how I understand Foucaultâs work, particularly his work on medicine, psychiatry, and the social sciences. Yet placing Foucault is no small task. Foucault has occupied a questionable position as both historian1 and philosopher.2 Historians often reject him as a historian but are willing to entertain him as a philosopher; and philosophers often reject him as a philosopher but entertain his work as a historian. He has been considered a political philosopher,3 a theologianâor at least engaged in tasks that have engaged theologians4âand an enemy of hope.5 I embrace him as both a philosopher of historyâwhere history becomes a philosophical category of analysisâand as a historian of philosophyâwhere philosophy is an endeavor to understand what animates very particular practices in very particular places at very particular times. Yet Foucault refused the manacle of historian of great ideas,6 and instead of writing histories of great ideas, he wrote the histories of the others of those great ideas. He wrote histories of thought about problems.7 He took for himself the moniker of historian of thought, or historian of problematizations.8
Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow present Foucault as both historical and philosophical; they think of Foucault as offering an interpretative analytics. Foucault is analytic in the Kantian sense when he searches out the conditions for the possibility of unreason in History of Madness, of medicine in The Birth of the Clinic, and of life, language, and labor in The Order of Things; but he also searches out the sources and legitimate uses of our various types of knowledge.9 His work is interpretative in that it seeks a pragmatic reading of the coherence of our practicesâpractices in which our knowledge is instantiated.10
Gary Gutting, on the other hand, does not wish to look for easy ways to make Foucaultâs work cohere. For instance, Gutting separates Foucaultâs works into three distinct eras: (1) archaeology of discourse (including History of Madness, The Birth of the Clinic, The Order of Things, and The Archaeology of Knowledge); (2) genealogy of power relations (including Discipline and Punish and the first volume of The History of Sexuality); and (3) the problematization of ethics (including the second and third volumes of The History of Sexuality, namely, The Use of Pleasure and The Care of the Self).11
Thus, it is difficult to embrace his methodology or take up a thesis from Foucault without first placing his work in some sort of context. In this chapter, I shall first give a brief interpretation of Foucaultâs project, fully acknowledging that many interpreters of his various works would reject the possibility of a single Foucauldian project. However, Foucault is essential to my methodology as well as to the thesis of this volume. I shall attempt to give an account of how Foucault gained some of his insights, particularly on medicine, psychiatry, and the social sciences. I shall argue that Foucault describes the shifting ground for the conditions of possibility for medical practice. I shall further argue that these shifts are grounded in a shift in metaphysics. After briefly interpreting his Birth of the Clinic, I shall focus on one of Foucaultâs insights, namely, that the dead body is epistemologically normative in medicine.
AT PLAY IN KANTIAN FIELDS
According to the pseudonymous Maurice Florence, âIf Foucault is indeed perfectly at home in the philosophical tradition, it is within the critical tradition of Kant, and his undertaking could be called A Critical History of Thought.â12 If we take Foucault at his wordâfor Foucault wrote this about himself as Maurice Florenceâthen we shall have to say that insofar as he is a philosopher, Foucault is Kantian. Kant articulated the a priori conditions for the possibility of knowledge, and Foucault is interested in understanding the a priori conditions of knowledge, particularly the knowledge generated by the human sciences, medicine, and psychiatry.
Kant seeks those features of knowledge that exist prior to our experience of whatever occupies our attention. Those a priori features are the pure forms of intuitionâspace and time. As noted by Beatrice Han in her excellent treatment in Foucaultâs Critical Project, Foucault needed to settle a problem presented by Kant, namely, the exact moment when the transcendental themeâthe a priori of space and timeâcame to coincide with Kantâs study of anthropology. The concepts of subjects and objects, and space and time, have occupied much of Foucaultâs work.
Foucaultâs secondary doctoral thesis of 1961, which was not published during his lifetime, was a commentary on Kantâs Anthropology from a Practical Point of View.13 This thesis was central in forming Foucaultâs later questions, for this is precisely the point, early in Foucaultâs studies, when he began to seek a relationship between Kantâs anthropology and Kantâs three Critiques of reason and judgment. In his Critiques Kant attempts to articulate the transcendental conditions for the possibility of knowledge, but in Kantâs Anthropology, Foucault argues, there is an ambivalence between the transcendental constituting subject and the already constituted object. Han states: âThe object of the Anthropology would therefore be neither the âsubject in itselfâ of the Second Critique, nor the âpure Iâ as studied in the first, but an âobject-Iââalso âsubjectââin other words, man in his paradoxical identity as determined and determining.â14 This idea of the constituted subject and the constituting subjectâthe âempirico-transcendental doubletââwas more clearly articulated by Foucault in The Order of Things.15 So, from early in his career, Foucault was at play in the terrain mapped out by Kant. He was addressing the âcrisesâ or âproblematizationsâ created by Kant, problematizations that manifest themselves in the practices of psychiatry, medicine, and other of the social sciences. These problems will come more fully into relief in this work.
In Foucaultâs Introduction to Kantâs Anthropology, we even begin to see some of the problems associated with genealogical studies. He notes that Kantâs Anthropology developed over a thirty-year period and bemoans the fact that no earlier versions of the manuscript, as it developed, are available.16 We can see the outlines of Foucaultâs method when he states, âit is impossible to make a clear distinction between the genetic perspective and the structural method in analysis of [Kantâs Anthropology].â17 In other words, in this very early work Foucault concerns himself not only with the subject that becomes its own object of investigation, creating the Kantian problematic, but also with his own method of discovering the conditions of possibility for this problem to emerge as a problem. Here, we see in a very cursory form the outlines of the intersections of Foucaultâs genealogical (genetic perspective) and archaeological (structural method) studies. Foucault has a project that plays itself out within a Kantian tradition, precisely because he is concerned with subjects and objects, with what constitutes certain kinds of objects and subjects, and with the conditions of possibility for our present situation.
Han notes that if Foucault has a project, there needs to be an organizing question. That question is: How is it possible to have true knowledge, and what are the necessary conditions of that knowledge?18 This question animates Foucaultâs work and is an essentially Kantian one. Furthermore, Foucault attempts to solve the problem of subjectivity while avoiding the transcendental reduction. So the organizing question is about the conditions of possibility for true knowledge; but to address that question, Foucault keeps butting up against questions about subjects, objects, and their constitution, but now not in terms of the pure forms of intuitionâspace and timeâand categories of knowledge, but in terms of historical time and political space and the types of knowledges that are instantiated in our practices.
In an interview, Foucault comments on his interest in the history of thought, which is distinct from the history of ideas (by which he means the analysis of systems of representation), and which is also distinct from the history of mentalities (by which he means the analysis of attitudes and types of action).19 A history of thought is, instead, a history of âwhat allows one to step back from this way of acting or reacting, to present it to oneself as an object of thought and question it as to its meaning, its conditions, and its goals.â20 The step back is the critical step, a step back to get a good look at a problem and why the problem presents itself in these ways.
In the same interview, Foucault specifically refers to his previous works from all the different periods.21 He notes that in the History of Madness, he is documenting problems presented to what would become psychiatry. William Tuke and Philippe Pinel, he states, solve what appears to be the same problem in different ways. He observes that in Discipline and Punish he is examining eighteenth-century penal practices and how a whole group of solutions emerged to solve the difficulties encountered in the creation of prisons and penal systems in the second half of that century.22 He even cites his later work in the history of sexuality, in which he documents the different solutions proposed by different Hellenistic schools of thought on traditional sexuality.23 Thus, in retrospect, Foucault sees a critical coherency in his project.
In other words, Foucaultâs works, in his own view, present a kind of history of the present, in which he identifies a problem in our own timeâfor example, madness, penal practices, or sexualityâand asks how we got to this point. Our present problems are a consequence of how the problems were addressed in the past, which, in turn, depended upon how these problems were perceived as problems to begin with. Thus, the work of the history of thought is to discover that at the center of the different solutions to problems is âthe general form of problematization that has made them [these particular solutions] possible.â24 In order to identify issues faced by the present, we must first take a good look around at how the problems present themselves, based on the solutions documented in history. The solutions to problems emerge in particular historical and political circumstances and are instantiated in practices. That is to say, our various types of knowledge and our practices result from particular histories and particular political spaces.
TIME AND SPACE
We can see, therefore, that Foucault understands âmanââhis term in The Order of Thingsâas not just some sort of object awaiting discovery by scientists. The study of madness or life or languageâor, for my project, deathâis shaped not only by history but also by the coincidence of factors in the surrounding space, each having their own historical development. Certainly, there are continuities in history, but there are also discontinuities. Moreover, the coincidence of continuities and discontinuities forms the conditions for the possibility for the truth claims, whether made by scientists or by doctors or by social scientists. Foucault is looking at the powers of constitution and at what is constituted. He is concerned with objects and subjects, and with the a priori conditions necessary for knowledge. He is concerned with marking out a zone of freedom, all the while attempting to historicize Kantâs transcendentals. He is also concerned with space and time, now political space and historical time, especially in Birth of the Clinic.
Edward Casey and Charles Scott both draw attention to the importance of space in Foucaultâs Birth of the Clinic, and indeed, I would argue, in the whole of his work.25 For Heidegger, time is not just the tick-tick-tick of the clock but the historically constituted running toward death; similarly, for Foucault, space is never merely three non-contextual dimensions. The philosophies of time and space of both Heidegger and Foucault are linked back to Kantâs pure forms of intuition: space and time.26 As Kant notes in the Critique of Pure Reason, âThis schematism of our understanding with regard to appearances and their mere form is a hidden art in the depths of the human soul, whose true operations we can divine from nature and lay unveiled before our eyes only with difficulty.â27 Moreover, âThe schemata are therefore nothing but a priori time-determinations in accordance with rules, and these concern, according to the categories, the time-series, the content of time, the order of time, and finally the sum total of time in regard to all possible objects.â28 Time is the form of intuition that determines the imaginationâthe âdepths of the human soul.â29 Out of this form of the intuitionânamely, timeâKant holds that the time-series, the order of time, and other objective measures of time are possible, and that time is the form of intuition of the interior life of the mind, the âdepths of the soul.â30
This point about the centrality of the schematism and the âdepths of the human soulâ is specifically noted by Heidegger in Being and Timeâit leads to a question and problem from which Kant shrinks, according to Heidegger.31 âAs pure intuition, time is that which furnishes an aspect prior to all experience,â as Heidegger argues against Kantâs doctrine of time.32 Time, he maintains, is operative for all categorizations of ordinary and scientific time and for the appearance of all objects, but not as pure intuition, not as the pure form. Time, for Heidegger, is not univocal. There are a myriad of times that structure our ways of experiencing those things that appear for us. Oneâs time in history is a kind of time into which one is thrown and which structures the kinds of projects in which one engages. Heidegger claims that time can be experienced but not represented, while death can be represented to oneself in the death of the other, but not experienced in itself. Thus, death, as the end of oneâs time, also structures oneâs experience, allowing certain kinds of objects or things or projects to come into relief. Hence, all forms of objective marking of time rest on the existential running into the future, toward death, toward the end of time. Death-time structures our experiences, the objects that emerge for us, and the projects in which we are engaged. Thus, like Kant with his âschemataâ of the understanding, Heidegger grants a priority to time over subjects, objects, and space, even while time takes on a very different kind of meaning for Heidegger than it had for Kant.
Foucault takes space as an organizing principle, especially in his analysis of the rise of modern medicine; and, like Heidegger in his examination of time, Foucault is not exploring space as a pure form of the intuition; space is not an abstract a priori. Contrary to Kant and Heidegger, Foucault hold...