Falzon’s Introduction to Political Philosophy (26, 28 May 2020)

İyi bayramlar!
In ethics and political philosophy, it is impossible to have a neutral theory because the
philosopher’s assumptions about human nature, how he evaluates history (as a progress or as
corruption or as something else) and his vision of the ideal society shapes the type of political
philosophy he makes. The reason I had chosen Falzon for a brief introduction to political
philosophy was because he was taking into account this perspective-dependent nature of political
philosophy. After learning a summary of these three rival theories (liberalism, Marx, Foucault),
you have to make your own existential choice of which one fits you better. If you want to make a
synthesis, then please don’t avoid the possible inconsistencies between their premises, and try to
make them compatible by adding further premises. Of course, there are many different versions
of liberalism, and various interpretations of Marx, every summary have to involve some over-
simplifications. But to compare theories from a bird eye point of view, these simplifications are
inevitable. I think Falzon interprets those three stories in a more or less impartial way, not
defending one against the others. Even if he had favored one position, it would be fine, if he told
us that from the start. (For example, I prefer Marx’s story but also think we have a lot to learn
from both liberalism and Foucault. You are not responsible from the Foucault part in the final
exam.)
*** Please feel free to ask me your questions about the following class notes in the
forum I am uploading to this week’s moodle page.***
 Falzon begins with a scene from animated film Antz, ant Z goes to a psychoanalyst:
- “The whole system makes me feel insignificant.”
- “Excellent. You’ve made a real breakthrough. You are insignificant.”

Falzon interprets this scene from a liberal perspective: there is an essential conflict between the
individual and society (both in liberalism and existentialism); social demands threaten individual
freedom, only heroic individuals can rebel and assert their individuality against social pressures
for conformity. (e.g. Socrates, Galileo, Hrant Dink, etc.)

VS. Marxist interpretation: Consciousness of alienation is the first step towards liberation, since
it transforms overcoming alienation into a real possibility. So, the essential conflict is NOT

1
between the individual and society, this is only a symptom of alienated social relations
(especially a feature of capitalism).

How different theories of human nature lead to different views about the origins and duties of the
state?

THE LIBERAL STORY:

1. Human nature: atomistic individual is prior to society (society is nothing but an aggregate of
individuals).

a. self-transparent: best judge of his interests and

b. selfish: main motivation is pursuit of self-interest (even at the cost of harming others),

Remark: A person can be self-transparent without being selfish and vice versa, think of
examples.
Hence: Our ultimate goal is happiness (maximum pleasure and minimum pain) AND society is
external to the self
VS. Communitarianism (socially embedded self): society is not outside but inside us,
constitutive of our identity.

2. Negative freedom: satisfaction of desires without external interferences (by other people and
the state) is sufficient to be free. For a criticism of what negative freedom leaves behind, see.
Aldous Huxley’s dystopia Brave New World; Century of the Self documentary.

Why is it called negative? The absence of obstacles is sufficient for being free; you don’t have to
know what you want to do with your freedom to be free. In contrast, for positive freedom, first
you should know your goals, so that accordingly, you can specify what the obstacles on your
freedom are.

BUT what if those desires are manipulated? There can also be internal constraints on freedom)-
p.125-126 ... hybrid versions of freedom (still liberal- p.127):
- Kant’s moral autonomy (being motivated by desires restricts our freedom; repress your
desires to be a free individual: every human has capacity for rational self-determination

2
 and can/should resist being motivated merely by their desires, in order to be fully human.
Reason ought to control desires (similar in Plato)

- Mill’s personal autonomy: (sublimate your desires to be a free individual: pursuit of

desires is permissible unless this harms others but pursuit of higher pleasures is essential
to have individuality (to be a free person)... freedom of action vs. freedom of a person
(having a character)- similar to virtue ethics.

- Positive freedom (Rousseau, Marx): rational self-determination + collective self-

determination.

3. Individual vs. Society: Since desires are infinite and resources are finite, absolute freedom
leads to an inevitable conflict between individuals leading to a state of war, where strong
oppress the weak (as in law of the jungle); there is insecurity for all.

VS. States by legitimizing inequalities lead to law of the jungle (R, M)

4. Freedom vs. Security: To serve their long-term interest, people decide to establish the state
that would protect their individual rights (rights to life, liberty, property) against others. So,
there is an essential tradeoff between freedom and security. Liberalism is preoccupied with
the issue of security, because it universalizes distrust between humans.

5. Individual vs. state: But since state has monopoly of coercive power (Weber), how to
guarantee that it would not oppress individuals? (STATE AS A NECESSARY EVIL) By
distinguishing a private sphere (area of non-interference) as the domain of freedom.

Private sphere Public sphere1

Subjective choice of the good Neutral rights (procedural justice)
Diversity (as a human) Equality (as citizens)

1
VS. Feminists (historicity of the private-public division and how it serves to oppress women; personal is political)
& Marxists (no essential division between private and public spheres, this reflects the alienated condition of the
split self (Man vs. Citizen) in capitalism... On the Jewish Question (Marx’s critique of political emancipation) “The
language of rights is regularly invoked in the defence of individual freedom agaginst what is perceived to be
excessive state interference” (124) [What if the states are getting weaker and corporations stronger, would the
extension of rights to oppressed groups be sufficient for their emancipation? Can we reduce the demand for
freedom to a discourse on rights? Political coercion is not the only kind of unfreedom, what about economic
oppression?]

3
 Freedom Social authority/ laws

SO, maximum freedom = minimum state

HAPPY END: Laissez-faire capitalism is the model for free society (although it may have other
disadvantages such as inequality, poverty, etc.) Main obstacle to freedom is political coercion
(authoritarian states) and state intervention into economy (welfare state, socialism).
DISCUSS: Is minimal state= weak state?

Strong right hand/ “state as a father to be feared” (oriented towards security/social order/justice
by increasing prisons, surveillance, disciplinary society) and weak left hand / “state as a mother
who takes cares of the poor, disabled, oppressed” (social security, social justice, welfare state).
Liberals claim that state should not interfere with “market imperatives” that lead to unequal
distribution of power (dismantling redistributive welfare states) BUT market imperatives can
legitimately interfere with every sphere of our lives (commodification, new enclosures of basic
needs: health, education, water, prisons, etc.)

e.g. Even though crime rates have fallen after 1980s in USA, the number of prisons has arisen.
Why? Prisons have started to be privatized, and they have become a very profitable business,
using prisoners to make jeans, etc. without any payment!! Blacks who are drug dealers are the
majority of people in prisons. So, the weakening of the motherly state has increased poverty, and
people had to do illegal things (like selling drugs) to survive, so then comes the fatherly state and
punishes them for the crimes they did not choose voluntarily. For a good documentary on
Netflix, see “13. Madde” (Article 13) For an interesting article on this issue:
https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/davisprison.html

MARX’S STORY:
1. Human nature: social, productive beings, historically changing needs (no fixed human
nature, no pre-social state of nature) humanisation is a historical process. Not self-
transparent (people’s desires and beliefs can be manipulated, so they are not always the
best judge of their interests). E.g. Alienation does not imply consciousness of alienation.
E.g. ANTz story- “I feel insignificant”; “You made a real breakthrough, you are
insignificant!”)

4
 2. Positive freedom: Freedom (having control over one’s life: rational self-determination
AND collective self-determination) is not the natural starting point for all, but an ideal to
be achieved collectively, through replacing capitalism with socialism.
3. Class conflict: The essential conflict is not between self and others (symptom of
alienation in capitalism, not inevitable) but between different classes with opposite
interests (desire for profit at the expense of exploitation of many). Rich have oppressed
the poor throughout history, so economic relations are not voluntary exchange relations
between equal individuals, but oppressive for workers. Hence, economy is not the realm
of freedom for all, minority is free at the cost of unfreedom of the majority.
4. Economy and politics: Political power is not separate from the economic power. State is
not neutral, does not serve everyone’s interests equally. It is not created by the consent of
all, made by the economically powerful groups, in favour of their interests; legitimizes
economic oppression.
5. We are slaves unaware of their chains, ruled by alien powers. There is illusion of freedom
in capitalism because of false consciousness (negative freedom is not sufficient, we also
need rational self-determination and collective self-rule).
REMARK: Kant and Mill’s autonomy as a universal capacity and as an ideal but Marx shows
how capitalism makes autonomy impossible for the majority of people.

E.g. (by responding to market demand, increasing the supply) increasing number of universities
and the number of jobless university graduates to create a “reserve army of labour” (surplus
population with no job prospects, including the disabled people), to decrease all wages and
increase work hours. (Now, %40 of world population is surplus population, %30 works in
agriculture and %30 has full-time jobs. But 30 years ago, when the majority was working in
agriculture, the surplus population was very small. What a waste of humans!)

SAD END: This is not freedom! We don’t have security! State does not serve common good
(self-realization for all)! But possibility of overcoming classes and the state, to achieve freedom.
Wake up!!
So, the Marxist Picture:

5
 - Shifts the focus from the individual to social relations: Humans are shaped through their
social relations (Relational ontology vs. Subject-properties ontology)
- Shifts the focus from the political to economic power relations: Not political domination
but economic oppression (exploitation) is the fundamental source of oppression and
states merely serve the interests of the economically powerful classes, rather than
“neutral” (since all citizens have the same rights) as in liberal theory.

NEW CONCEPTS: ALIENATION and FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS (effects of ideology):

since the system shapes people’s desires and beliefs they may feel happy with their condition
[see. illusion of freedom and fetish of happiness in my books]
“The same system that denies their needs and interests also produces in them a false
understanding of what their needs and interests are. For example, to the extent that
individuals, through education, the mass media and so on, are brought to believe that a
certain economic order is the best possible system, or the only possible way of organizing
things, this influences what they might even consider wanting. And by bringing workers
to accept their situation, this kind of manipulation serves to maintain their subordination
and perpetuate the existing states of affairs... our real interests lie in collectively
controlling our labouring activity” (Falzon, p. 133)

EXAMPLE (A thought experiment): Imagine a society in which, everyone works only 4 hours
and thereby unemployment has been overcome, when 2 people do the same job. Wouldn’t this
serve everyone’s needs more than the present system? Why can’t it be implemented? (opposing
class interests, and %1 rule the world, disregarding the interests of 99%)
Limits of the possible= limits of the permissible?
EXAMPLE: Hollywood films mostly include a hero fighting against society (celebration of the
eccentric individual) rather than collective struggles changing both the world and people’s
consciousness. Why? (p. 134-135)

Common objections to Marxism:

1. The relativist objection (accusing Marx to be an essentialist): How do we know that Marx’s
notion of human nature is better than the liberal account? THINK: Can there be any political
theory that is neutral, i.e. without such normative assumptions (axioms)?

6
2. Paternalism objection: The notion of “real interests” and “false consciousness” can justify the
state for oppressing the dissident minority, in the name of their best interests, and can “force
them to be free”! (Even if I don’t know my real interests fully now, it does NOT mean that
somebody else knows better or can use force to impose this on me). BUT communitarian
assumptions ≠ authoritarian state (e.g. Plato’s anti-individualistic authoritarianism and
Hobbes’ individualistic authoritarianism)
3. Economism: non-economic forms of oppression (e.g. gender oppression) cannot be
adequately dealt with. (Why not try to synthesize Marxism and feminism, rather than reject
Marxism to defend feminism?)
4. Classes are dead now: Class consciousness has decreased because of identity politics and our
self-definitions as consumers, as middle class. But since humans are not self-transparent for
Marx, most of us can be mistaken about what is in our best interests. So, people having less
class consciousness is not an evidence that our class positions are irrelevant to explain the
structural relations of oppression in capitalism. (This is analogous to the case that, people
having less belief in objective moral values now, is not an evidence that shows there are no
objective moral values.)

FOUCAULT’S STORY: (NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EXAM) 2

Application of Nietzsche’s genealogy of morality to social institutions; critique of reality,
science as ideological.
1. Human nature: There is no human nature. Subject (subjectivity) is created by
power/knowledge/discourse and we can be emancipated by de-construction of such
discourses.
2
REMARK: Power is not negative (preventing us from pursuing our real interests) as in liberalism (political power)
and Marxism (economic power) but positive, new forms of power/new techniques for social control/ disciplinary
techniques (implemented in schools, prisons, hospitals, family, army) have shaped new subjectivities (more
capable, productive and efficient). How through an extensive system of surveillance (panopticon) people become
their own jailers, assuming they are watched all the time [ as in Twitter, Facebook?] through maintaining “detailed
records, files and statistics concerning individuals and population” [seems similar to Weber critique of bureacracy,
iron cage] Foucault claims these new disciplinary controls have caused the development of capitalism and
liberalism (p.143)[vice versa, due to over emphasis on security, efficieny and manipulation of individual desire for
fame maybe] Social control established through a “regime of normality”: different forms of training and
institutions aim to produce good students, proficient soldiers, reliable workers, healthy bodies, good mothers!!!
Hence, no notion of human nature but essentialising resistance, there is a fundamental human yearning for
freedom [every action produces a reaction??] p.147

7
e.g. Madness is a judgement, not a fact; it has no reality apart from a discourse.3
Socrates: know what you are! VS. Foucault: Refute what you are!

2. New notion of power:4 “Total surveillance” (as in panoption, we become our own jailers,
watching and controlling ourselves) and “regime of normality” through various
institutions makes us reliable workers, good students, efficient killers/soldiers, healthy
bodies. (Toplumsal kurumlardaki iktidar biçimleri: tımarhane, okul, etc. → Bilgi alanları:
psikiyatri, pedagoji, etc.) This is compatible within politically liberal states VS.
totalitarian state in “1984”.

Foucault: How is social order maintained now? Not through explicit coercion, but through
techniques of normalization5 VS Marx: for the benefit of whom?
So, he shifts the focus from political power, economic exploitation to sub-cultures (gays,
etc.) and everyday life.
E.g. Madness, illness, criminality, “perversions” in sexuality. (overlaps with main concern of
postmodern films now; cult of the anti-hero)
Then is there no escape from social regulation? No, disciplinary society ≠ disciplined society.
3. Discipline always causes resistance; humans have a fundamental yearning for freedom.
(A new human nature??). Why?6 What about false consciousness? VS. Illusion of
freedom (Rousseau, Marx) VS. escape from freedom (Sartre, Fromm)

4. Postmodern freedom as spontaneous outbursts of revolt against “normalization”, in

prisons, asylums, schools, etc.7 Like Mill’s experiments in living, diverse life styles.

3
Nesnelerin söylem dışında gerçekliği yok! Variety of discourses, one is not better than the other → possibility of
constructive criticism?
4
Power is not something possessed by individuals or groups, power creates individuals. Liberals claim political
power restrict desire-satisfaction, Marxists claim economic power relations prevent us from being aware our real
interests (see Falzon). Power has no centre, like in Negri and Hardt’s book the Empire.
5
Foucault claims that there are distinctively modern disciplinary techniques. (18. yüzyıldan beri iktidardan
yukarıdan değil, toplumsal vücudun kılcal damarlarından işliyor.)Why? (inquisition vs. electrical chair?)
Documentation in health, welfare, education, prisons are these equally bad? (is it related with Weber’s critique of
bureaucracy?) e.g. soldiers are made efficient killers and(?!) welfare state creates good mothers; both are
repressive?? He mixes the right and left hands of the state!
6
Mechanic idea of action vs. reaction, or similar to Nietzsche’s will to power, as the attribute of all living things!
7
Compare with new art films about freaks, anti-heroes, outsiders, etc. e.g. Anderson’s film If, students open fire on
school teachers, like in US now and the postmodern rise of anarchism.

8
SO, no end of the story, just a game to be played. 8

In short, liberalism deals with the justification and limits of political power and Marxism
deals with forms of economic domination (p. 138) Marx is accused to be an economic
determinist, liberals emphasize political power too much, Foucault’s emphasis on culture.

Summary of the three stories about political philosophy:

Liberals Marx Foucault
-static human nature historically changing no human nature
- atomic ind socially embedded subject as social construct
- cult of heroes celebrating collective struggle praising marginals
-political power (central) economic exploitation dispersed cultural power
-freedom: natural starting pt. collective achievement individual resistance
-no alienation can be overcome alienation is meaningless

For the liberals, since human nature is unchanging (competitive pursuit of private-
interests/everyone is selfish) in every society, there will be inevitable conflict between
individuals (because they have infinite desires and different values and beliefs, finite resources).
People are both selfish and self-transparent (best judge of their interests). This assumption
implies that the main function of the state is providing security by restricting people’s freedom.
Everyone is free to do things which are legally permissible. Negative freedom reduces freedom
to freedom of action and some freedom of choice (choosing between the available options, rather
than the power to create new options for oneself).
In contrast, for Marx, human nature is historically changing. He defines human nature in
terms of changing needs, powers, abilities, social relations. Selfishness and competitive human
nature are created/encouraged by capitalism and they may be overcome in a different social
system. The main conflict is not between individuals, but between two classes with opposite
interests (capitalists want to increase their profit which conflicts with workers’ wishes to have
more wages and more leisure.)

8
Is Foucault compatible with liberalism? With Marxism? Foucault’s ‘critique’ of Marx: any human nature implies
standards of normality implies treatment of deviants (Is this really bad? It will lead to resistance so it is good, in the
final analysis).

9
 For Marx, the main social problem we have in capitalism is alienation (alienation does
not presuppose that there is a fixed nature, from which one is alienated: that is Rousseau’s
“corruption”, not to be confused with Marx’s “alienation”! Alienation simply means that as in
Dr. Frankenstein, the creators are ruled by their creations (such as money, religion, state). There
is a widening gap between possibilities (expansion of the self through increase in
interconnections with others, developed tastes, emancipation of the senses and feelings: Marx’s
idea of self-realization) and actuality (shrinking of the self, all people’s value is reduced to their
market price, all social relations reduced to relations between commodities- i.e. commodity
fetishism) For Marx, both workers and capitalists are alienated. It is not a matter of feeling
alienated or depressed, it is has both objective and subjective aspects. It is possible to be
alienated without feeling alienated, but the converse (feeling alienated without being alienated) is
impossible.
Overcoming alienation is necessary for achieving positive freedom= emancipation
(overcoming oppressions). Since Marx uses the dialectical method, he argues that alienation is
not an obstacle but a precondition for emancipation. Let’s see how? Dialectical progress is never
linear (thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis schema was not used by Hegel or Marx); it resembles a spiral
which can either move upwards, or sometimes downwards.

Dialectics of overcoming alienation (detachment and re-attachment):

E.g. Child Adolescent Adult
Identification with family identity crises feels at home in “her” world
Absence of alienation Alienation overcoming alienation
The adolescent gets detached from her family but does not often identify with other
groups too. She wants to be free from external pressures but does not exactly know how she
wants to use this freedom. There are two roads for her to take: EITHER
a. She has an alienated consciousness: escapism through drugs, consumerism, etc.
(prolongation of the identity crises) OR
b. She achieves a consciousness of alienation (understanding that her problems are not
private, caused by the social system –e.g. for which a banker is more
valuable/useful/earns more salary than a philosopher- and try to overcome these through

10
 uniting with others who have similar problems and concerns) and becomes an adult
(emotional maturity).
Capitalism benefits from keeping people in a state of childhood or adolescence so that they
would be passive consumers or narcissistic individuals who are concerned only for themselves,
who would compete within the system rather than cooperate to change the system. E.g. “divide
and rule tactics” (men-women, Turks-Kurds, Muslim-secular, etc)

11