Käytännöt ja ajattelu Michel Foucault'n filosofiassa

Practices and Thought in Michel Foucault s Philosophy The present thesis examines Michel Foucault s (1926-1984) notion of practice and argues that it is an essential concept in his philosophy, especially in his analysis of knowledge, power and ethics. The thesis reveals a previously neglected chronological and methodological unity in Foucault s work. The first chapter clarifies Foucault s philosophy by outlining it according to four central themes. First, the main philosophical goal of his historical studies is to analyse how human subjects have become objects of their own thinking. Second, this goal calls for methodological precaution to avoid all anthropological universals. Third, Foucault s studies are directed towards fields of practices. Fourth, the analysis of practices is executed along three axes: knowledge, power and ethics. The second chapter concerns the notion of practice in Foucault s archaeological method. Foucault s archaeological analysis is not directed towards objects and subjects as such, but to the way that the rules of discursive practice form them in the discourse. Many commentators have neglected Foucault s concept of practice when discussing his ideas concerning rules of discourse and limits of knowledge. I argue that Foucault s analysis concerning the limits of knowledge relates to local and contingent rules of discursive practice, not to transcendental rules of thinking in general. The third chapter deals with power relations and practices. I clarify Foucault s concept of dispositif by defining it as a functional ensemble of practices, and argue that this concept is crucial to his understanding of power relations. I stress a conceptual definition, which separates relations of power from the practices of government and show that the latter is based on the idea that power relations are integrated into practices. This conceptual clarification also helps in understanding Foucault s critique concerning modern practices of power. The fourth chapter examines Foucault s way of perceiving ethics as a practice. He separates three essential dimensions in morals: moral codes, moral behaviour and practices of self. His ethics concern practices of self and he studies how these practices have constituted different relations that subjects have to themselves, to others and to their societies. I argue that Foucault s own ethical views can be found in the ideas on the importance of practices of self in the modern world, and emphasize that these ideas should be connected to his views concerning the tradition of the Enlightenment, and to his own political action.

Kuka kasvattaa, kuka opettaa? : Genealoginen tutkimus perheen ja koulun välisen kasvatusvastuun politiikasta

FAMILIES AND SCHOOLS AND THE POLITICS OF RESPONSIBILITIES - a genealogical study on family and school as carers and educators of the child population in modern society This study aims to uncover the politics behind such discourses in the media which have claimed the family to be totally responsible for children and which ignore the various responsibilities accorded to the state in matters concerning the child population. Using Max Weber s and Michael Mann s theorizing on the history of power relationships, feminist social history on patriarchy and Foucauldian power analytic concept of dispositif the study traces two competing child policies which have influenced the historical formation of modern generational order in Western societies. One of them is based on the interests of the hegemonic bourgeois elite and the other on the interests of the non-elite population, which were expressed during the phase of building the welfare state in Finland in the 1960 1980 s. The central strategies of the bourgeois child policy are 1) to construct the childhood years as a time for preparation and formation of the individual according to the interests of the elite, 2) to construct the family as the sole site of holistic care and responsibility of children in society, and 3) compulsory schooling of children of the non-elite population in state organized schools. To implement these strategies the elite uses strategically patriarchal cultural formations/dispositifs in modernized versions. The result has been the formation of a sexually divided and hierarchical order of care and education, where, on the one hand, there is the less important feminine care of children done by mothers at home and, on the other, the real education of the school, where children are made the object of authoritarian shaping and where the needs and the personal experiences of the child are ignored. The welfare order of care and education is based on the ethos of welfare society, where the state and the families are seen to share the responsibility for the child population. In this vein, families and schools are seen as partners who both have a caring attitude to children s welfare and learning. The study shows that discourses and terminology in the mainstream educational policy texts in Finland create a chaotic linguistic game which makes it difficult to have a rational discussion about the roles of family and school in the holistic care and education of children. This has opened the door to political discourses where familist interpretations of the question of responsibility are claimed to be based on law.

Kansan raittiudeksi ja kotien onneksi : Naisten kieltolakimielipiteet ja toiminta kieltolain puolesta ja sitä vastaan 1919 - 1932

It is often maintained that the Prohibition Act (in force from 1 June 1919 to 5 April 1932) still influences both the Finnish alcohol policy and notions about alcohol. This study focuses on the development of women s opinions concerning Prohibition in Finland. What role did the formulation and expression of women s opinions and women's actions play in the final outcome of the Prohibition Act? What do the debate on Prohibition and women s activities for and against the legislation tell us about the status and possibilities of women to exert influence in the Finnish society of the Prohibition era? Women s opinions are particularly interesting since they deviated radically from what has generally been assumed. It was expected that the referendum of 1931 would result in a resounding vote of 100% in favour of Prohibition, but the outcome was a majority vote against it. Over 65% of the women who cast their vote in the referendum wanted a full repeal of Prohibition. The study approaches the history of Prohibition by combining methods and theories of the history of mentalities and social history with gender history. Women are examined as a heterogeneous group with dissimilar objectives and differing ways of acting and thinking. The research material consists of press materials, archival materials from organisations, personal materials and statistics from the Prohibition period. Both discourses and practices are examined; the object of the research is best described by Michel Foucault's concept of dispositif. When participating in the public debate on Prohibition, women based their right to express their opinions and take part in action on an ideological continuum spanning a hundred years, according to which home and family were central areas of women s interest. This idea was linked to questions of morality and social policy. On the other hand, women presented themselves as working taxpayers, voters and equal citizens. The most crucial issue in women's discussions was whether Prohibition improved or worsened the temperance of fathers, husbands and sons. The dichotomies town dweller - countryside dweller, Swedish-speaking Finnish-speaking, and middle class - working class were highly significant backgrounds both as factors dividing women and in public discussions regarding Prohibition. The 1931 referendum showed that the lines of demarcation drawn during the preceding debate did not materialise in political action in line with these dichotomies: the dispositif did not correspond to the discourse. Contrary to what was expressed in public, a great number of women among the labour and rural classes, among inland inhabitants and among Finnish-speakers were also against Prohibition. The media and organisations defended temperance and Prohibition almost until the end of the Prohibition era. This discourse was in conflict with the discourse of everyday conversations and practices in which alcohol was present.