Vincent Kundukulam
During the last few decades, history as a discipline has gone through a phase of intense soul-searching and self-critique. The process of self-engagement is triggered off by historiography, one of the most flourishing branches of study in the hermeneutical turn of the sciences. Historiographers examine how historians study a topic choosing particular sources, applying special techniques, and adopting specific theoretical paradigms. They scrutinize as well the type of tools and methods historians use, the evidences they depend up on and the mode of interpretating the corpus. In this sense, historiography can be considered as the history of history that examines how knowledge is obtained and transmitted.
One of the findings of historiographers is that the histories we learn are not objective. They are only interpretations. The histories change according to the corpus historians use and the methods and tools they apply. Even those historians who consult a wide range of documents, cannot but become selective due to the reasons given above. In spite of the rigor that they adopt, their work shall be partial and subjective. Critics of history opine that at least a few historians make history a conscious cultivation of stories.
Michel Foucault (1926-1984) the French thinker, inspired by the philosophy of science of Gaston Bachelard and the historiography of FernandBraudel developed two special concepts in order to reveal the intellectual structures that influence the thought of a historical period. They are archaeology and genealogy. The objective of reconstructing the intellectual structures behind each epoch is to understand the real nature of statements that have emerged from peculiar contexts in history. As part of this method, Foucault goes beneath conscious life and reveal the epistemic unconscious. According to the archaeological method, systems of thought and knowledge are governed by rules that operate beneath the consciousness of individual subjects. Such rules determine the boundaries of thought in a given domain and period.
One of the results of Foucault’s genealogical studies is that he found an essential connection between power and knowledge. According to him, agents of power use knowledge to control human bodies and minds. Foucault does not think that knowledge exists first as an autonomous achievement and then it is used at a later period for action. According to him the deployment of knowledge and deployment of power are simultaneous from the beginning. What he concludes from the inextricable relation between power and knowledge is that regimes of power give rise to the bodies of knowledge about the objects they control. Each society has its regime of truth, a truth designed by its ‘general politics’. ‘Systems of power produce, regulate, distribute, circulate and operate truths.
The above-made epistemological analysis shows us that we cannot take for granted even the present-day culture and ethics as they are controlled by a bunch of corporates. With technological devices they cook statistical data and create the impression that such and such traditions and habits are inevitable for a developed society. And then they make products to meet those needs. We need not pin point examples to legitimate this fact because it is obvious everywhere. Increasing demand for the products they make they draw a huge amount of profit. In conclusion, it is a fact that our culture and ethical behavior are controlled by those who are in power and in industry and that our culture is often in itself manipulative.
kundu1962@gmail.com
