Justice: a battle among discourses

I, Pierre Rivière, having slaughtered my mother, my sister, and my brother...: A Case of Parricide in the 19th Century
by Michel Foucault 


I enjoyed this book on a number of levels, but in the first place (for the first 170 pages in fact)  as a gripping murder mystery, and for this alone the book was a terrific read. There is a pretty big clue as to who dunnit in the book’s title and that is not the mystery, The crime itself, as the title reveals, is sufficiently grotesque to ensure we form a very rapid opinion of the need to apprehend the perpetrator.  The mystery which arises then is what should we do with this murderer, this parricide?

This story is not fictional. We are presented with a series of contemporary documents, written at the time (1835) by many different actors in this affair, each contributing a slightly different perspective, so that we are confronted not with a single, consistent story of what happened but with a mixture of slightly different, not fully overlapping stories and  commentaries in which the impressions are disjointed, leaving the reader - without help from the editor of the book - to become increasingly engaged in the process of interpreting the conflicting evidence and then in making a judgement, not only regarding the facts of the matter but also regarding our response to the opinions of various witnesses, including medical experts who disagree with each other.  Do we think that Pierre was a vicious criminal or a deluded madman or a dismal idiot and do we consider that the appropriate penalty should be his execution or a form of protective custody to protect the public?

The second part of the book comprises a collection of very brief essays on different aspects of the case and in many ways, like the earlier documents, these extend the effect of causing the reader to question earlier judgements in the light of new insights. I certainly think it is possible that other readers, like myself, will change their minds more than once before the end regarding the sanity or culpability of Pierre Riviere.

Without a doubt this case history covers issues that remain topical two centuries later.  The antiquated concepts and theories of the time are amusing (or to some people annoying I imagine, but it is futile to complain about the culture and prejudices of a different age) but they do not, in all honesty, differ very much from a modern debate on the same topic. What I find impressive is that Foucault had the insight to leave readers to form their own opinions, confident that in the process he would achieve his goal which was not to defend or condemn Pierre Rivere nor the diverse witnesses, but to demonstrate that justice emerges from a social process to meet all sorts of competing objectives.

“....it was a dossier, a case, an affair, an event that provided the intersection of discourses that differed in origin, form, organization and function - the discourses of the cantonal judge, the prosecutor, the presiding judge of the assize court, and the Minister of Justice; those too of the country general practitioner and of Esquiro; and those of the villagers, with their mayor and parish priest; and, last but not least, that of the murderer himself.  All of them speak, or appear to be speaking, of one and the same thing;   at any rate the burden of all these discourses is the occurrence on June 3.  But in their totality and their variety they form neither a composite work nor an exemplary text, but rather a strange contest, a confrontation, a power relation, a battle among discourses and through discourses. … “

Religion and Philosophy: A voyage of discovery

Critique of Religion and Philosophy
by Walter Kaufmann 

"If you study the religions of the world to find corroboration for what you believe anyway, the inquiry is sterile. You are trying to bolster your ego with the agreement of the great. But is the only alternative to this to show what fools the great men of the past have been - another attempt to bolster the ego?  ...  Whoever reads a major work of literature without in any way becoming different or changing his outlook on the world has missed what matters most.  To find confirmation of one's prior beliefs is futile: there is scarcely any  error, prejudice or outright idiocy that could not be buttressed with a few quotations from great men.  The thing to look for is disagreement."[p.406]

In his 1978 preface to the Princeton Edition, Kaufmann says of his Critique: "It is a voyage of discovery in which the author comes to grip with a multitude of points of view that seemed to call for a response."[p.xiv] This is not a history of religion - it does not attempt to tell the story of religion for example.  I have the impression, instead, of a very experienced teacher who has had the opportunity over many years to read and re-read the great texts, and to debate their meaning with generations of students. What I see here - and others may disagree - is something like the legacy of his teaching notebooks, dealing with a whole range of relevant topics without setting out to be definitive on any.

I suspect that one legacy of his teaching history is a loss of patience with the endless recurrence of poor arguments. If there is an agenda to this voyage, beyond disinterested exploration, it is not by any means an attack on religion as such, but it is rather an attack on weak arguments and foolish opinions which have been expressed over time by highly respected commentators, whether those who favour or those who oppose religious belief. "Whatever philosophers take up nowadays tends to become scholastic, and the rigor of the scholastics is rigor mortis."

Kaufmann puts more enthusiasm into some topics than others. His slashing dismissal of the Higher Criticism, for example, does not present itself as a considered refutation so much as an impatient wave, though I found it illuminating all the same and I am not sure I needed more. He returns repeatedly to complain about the failings of William James, not so much (though partly) his Varieties of Religious Experience as his very unsatisfactory essay "The Will to Believe."  I have given James a lot of weight in the past precisely because I have wanted a way to be more respectful to religions I do not share, but maybe I need to qualify my opinions here.  He offers quite a lengthy commentary on Pascal's wager.  He gives a very helpful insight into Aquinas' Summa Theoligica, not least to emphasise that for Saint Thomas, it was quite in order to execute anyone who persistently rejected his reasoning, because he recognised fully that his arguments were capable of being interpreted entirely differently and saw no better way to avoid dispute on such important matters. Intolerance is a concern in Christian history and not just for Catholicism. Naturally, all the rational proofs of God's existence receive good coverage - naturally, they all fail to satisfy but it is helpful to have their failings made clear.  (The argument from design is included - an evergreen favourite on the internet.)

Even for Christianity, Kaufmann's coverage is not exhaustive. I do not notice Augustine getting the attention he probably merits in any serious account of Christian belief. For other religions, he makes some good comparative observations, especially regarding Judaism and the Old Testament, also referring to Buddhist teaching, but the primary focus is Christian and European. I do not think Christians will be especially pleased with his account.  It is not just that so many specific aspects of Christian teaching are shown in quite a poor light here, but also that he suggests Christianity has some major defects that are not present in other faiths.  I suspect he is saying very nicely what Nietzsche said with more punch: there is something seriously amiss in a religion that can only function on the basis that most of us (myself very  much to the fore) are predestined for eternal torment. (Otherwise, why the need for and the huge relief of being saved?) He also takes the view that Christianity pins far too much on its theology and system of beliefs, not least since it has been evident from the earliest times that there can be no uniformity because rational thinking fails to establish sufficient confidence, something even Thomas Aquinas (to take an extreme case) had to accept.  His Jewish authorities serve to point up the vast transformation from Judaism to Paul's Christianity and it has to be said, the comparison is not in the Christians' favour. (Which side of this divide Jesus belongs is a moot point indeed.)

"Of the spirit of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, many theologians have felt no breath, but they play games parting his garments among them and casting lots for them"

Kaufmann does offer a personal opinion about the value and function of religion at the end but he spares us the embarrassment of saying too much about it. I stick with my impression that the value of this book is to guide readers through so many different types of debate about religious belief in a way that is informative, critical, and above all readable. It remains inevitable that religious debate will travel an endless circuit around all of these different topics to ensure that we fail to reach firm conclusions in our lifetimes but at least, with his help, it is possible to elevate the quality of debate.

"At the very least one might accord a religious scripture the same courtesy one extends to poetry and recall Goethe's dictum: "What issues from a poetic mind wants to be received by a poetic mind. Any cold analyzing destroys the poetry and does not generate any reality. All that remains are potsherds which are good for nothing and only incommode us." " 

"A philosopher's insight may be a photograph taken in flight. Those who have never flown think they are wise when noting that two such pictures are not alike: they contradict each other; flying is no good; all hail to crawling. The history of philosophy is a photo album with snapshots of the life of the  spirit. Adherents of a philosophy mistake a few snapshots for the whole of life."