Sizing up the limits of thought proposed during the Enlightenment and urging us to peek at what lies beyond, Michel Foucault poses a very Foucauldian question to himself about such a brief investigation:
If we limit ourselves to this type of always partial or local inquiry or test, do we not run the risk of letting ourselves be determined by more general structures of which we may well not be conscious, and over which we have no control?
His answer is priceless:
...it is true ... we are always in the position of beginning again.
But that does not mean that no work can be done except in disorder and contingency. The work in question has its generality, its systematicity, its homogeneity, and its stakes.
In other words,
Yes, we run the risk. But I have my ways.
These quotes come from his brief 1984 piece titled
What is the Enlightenment? The question dates from 1784: That year a German paper posed the question and Immanuel Kant answered. In his response to Kant, Foucault proposes that our modern mode of self-reflection took shape then, and he notes the existence and implications of the shaping mechanisms. The Enlightenment, according to Foucault, is essentially an attitude. Several pages in, though, he tosses off this nugget: "Criticism indeed consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits".
None of his major points hinge on this statement, but I'm really taken with it.
My first thought is that limits make originality possible. Describing a work of art as "original" is often high praise. But something may be original and not necessarily good; agreed? Critics also often assert that a work of art has value when it advances a conversation--conversations about humanity, time, life, sports, religion, whatever. And advancement means moving beyond where we are at present, being presently at the limit, and as far as we have gotten. But a work of art and its critiques may also center on how the work functions within and comments on pre-established limits. Perhaps a work could even impose limits on itself. In these ways a work of art, be it a song, painting, a dance or film, for example, may not necessarily qualify as original.
Criticism of policy may also concern limits. Who is excluded from the policy? How does the policy work? and, How far reaching are its implication?
Criticism indeed consists largely of analyzing and reflecting upon limits.
Look, if I wasn’t professionally in this, I wouldn’t be following all these debates in Washington. But when you talk to them about their values, what they care about, then they say, "Of course, we should make sure every child has a good education and gets opportunity," and, "Absolutely, we’ve got to make sure that our commitments to seniors are met," and, "Of course, we want a family whose child has a disability to make sure that child is getting everything possible to allow them to succeed." And, "Yes, internationally, we want to stand on the side of human rights and democracy." And, "We understand the world is complicated, but we have a vision about what America should be in the world and we want to live up to that." And, "Yes, government should live within its means, but we think we can live within its means and still ensure that we’re delivering for the next generation." I have faith in them.
