As promised, here are answers to the midterm questions. I didn’t have a very good key from prior terms, and I asked a lot of new questions on new texts, so I had to “take” my own exam, answering all 18 questions.

Uh, it was pretty tough. Be sure to check your iffy answers against mine, and feel free to reach out if you’re still puzzled on anything. Good review for the final exam, which will emphasize the new material from Freud onward but will also bring back some of this older material.

I hope you’re all recovering from the challenging midterm: I’ve rolled up my sleeves and am grading now (which is definitely on the “alienated” side of any prof’s labor).

Meanwhile, I came across a review of a book by Yanis Varoufakis, a Greek economist, arguing that we have entered a new phase of economic development that represents a return of sorts, a “technofeudalist” era. The article rightly points out that there’s a wave of analyses at present making parallel arguments–the article mentions McKenzie Wark’s Capital is Dead, and I would add Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism–that, whatever their differences, believe that we have reached an inflection point where the development of global capitalism out of the ashes of medieval feudalism to the present is giving way to … something new.

We just took a little sip of Marx, and you’d need some big gulps from Capital to properly contextualize Varoufakis’s book, but the bit from Capital we read together, with its attempt to show the distinctiveness of capitalism and the use of money as “universal equivalent” by contrasting it with feudal barter, Crusoe’s self-accounting, and the idealized communist collective organization of labor through planning, give us enough light to read by in assessing these recent books.

See you Thursday, when we’ll reel back the histori-o-meter to 1900 or so and run it back again, looking at the development of theories of the psyche and the subject from Freud onward.

In “The Fact of Blackness,” an excerpt from Black Skins, White Masks, Franz Fanon discusses how Black people are viewed by white allies and by people who take pity on them, challenging both the assumption that there is nothing unique about Black people and the assumption that there is something deficient about Black people.

Fanon refers to Jean-Paul Sartre, an ally, who asserts that Black people are the same as any other working-class people, thus erasing the uniqueness of the Black identity and the struggles undergone by Black people. Fanon writes: “[…] he was reminding me that my blackness was only a minor term. […] Jean-Paul Sartre had forgotten that the Negro suffers in his body quite differently from the white man. […]” (1359). This refers to the centuries of structural discrimination and oppression suffered by Black people that makes the Black experience fundamentally different from the experiences of white people. While it is true that working-class white people have their own struggles, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that Black people do not uniquely suffer on account of their race, something that white working-class people do not have to experience. This is something that is relevant even today, not just when it comes to the opinions of white liberals but also with regard to the people who claim that there is no such thing as systemic/structural discrimination. The history of oppression of Black people has to be taken into account before naively and insensitively claiming that there is a level playing ground and anyone can achieve upward mobility through hard work. In the racialized American society, there are various other factors with regard to race that need to be considered before coming to conclusions such as this.

While Fanon makes a strong case in favor of the struggles that the Black experience comes with, he strongly asserts that such challenges do not constitute shortcomings. He says: “[…] I refuse to accept that amputation. I feel in myself a soul as immense as the world, truly a soul as deep as the deepest of rivers, my chest has the power to expand without limit” (1360). He takes pride of his Black identity even as he stresses the systemic discrimination that Black people experience in white-dominated societies.

Fanon’s positions have a lot of relevance in American society today. We need to celebrate literature, art, cinema, and music by Black people. We need to make the teaching and learning of history more comprehensive so that the rich history of Black people is included in it. This will help students learn more about the unique challenges faced by African American people while also acknowledging their contributions to American society. The fact that systemic/structural discrimination exists needs to be understood so that people realize that the existing socio-economic structure is not working for everyone and for people to have equal access to opportunities, a lot of things need to be fundamentally changed and reshaped and for that we need to understand the roots of the many inequalities we find in American society.

In “Society Must Be Defended,” Foucault delves into the complicated web of power dynamics that shape society. One of the central distinctions he draws is between “disciplinary” power and “biopolitics,” each with its own distinct characteristics, objectives, and techniques.

As Foucault describes it, disciplinary power focuses on individual bodies and their regulation. It seeks to control and normalize behavior through surveillance, examination, and punishment. The central object of disciplinary power is the individual body, which is subjected to various techniques such as panopticism, where individuals are aware they may be under constant observation, leading to self-regulation.

The modern prison system is an example of disciplinary power at work. Inmates are subjected to strict routines, constant surveillance, and disciplinary measures to control their behavior and conform to societal norms. The panoptic design of many prisons ensures that inmates are always potentially under observation, leading to self-discipline.

On the other hand, biopolitics, according to Foucault, is concerned with populations rather than individuals. It focuses on managing and controlling life processes, such as birth rates, mortality rates, and overall health. The central object of biopolitics is the population, which is governed through techniques such as the regulation of healthcare, social policies, and interventions aimed at improving the overall well-being of the population.

An example of biopolitics can be seen in public health campaigns. Governments and health organizations implement policies and programs to improve the health and well-being of the population as a whole, such as vaccination campaigns, health education programs, and regulations on food and drug safety.

In conclusion, Foucault’s distinction between disciplinary power and biopolitics sheds light on the complex nature of power dynamics in society. While disciplinary power focuses on individual bodies and behavior, biopolitics looks at populations and life processes. Understanding these concepts helps us analyze and critique the various ways in which power operates in society and shapes our lives.

    In “Can the Subaltern Speak?”,  Spivak introduces the exploration of power dynamics and representation using colonial and postcolonial contexts. She critiques Western intellectual discourse for often marginalizing the voices of the marginalized, whom she refers as “subaltern.” Spivak argues that the act of speaking for the subaltern can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures rather than empower them. She elaborates on the complexities of representation and the challenges of giving voice to the subaltern with Western frameworks. This introduction lays the groundwork for Spivak’s analysis of the subaltern’s and the ways in which their voices are silenced or appropriated by dominant power structures. She states “I cannot entirely endorse this insistence on determinate vigor and full autonomy, for practical historiographic examples will not allow such endorsements to privilege subaltern consciousness”. In this quotation she is discussing the tension between the desire for clear, definitive narratives and the acknowledgment of the complexities and limitations of representing subaltern voices. Spivak cautions against fully endorsing the emphasis on depicting the subaltern with determinate vigor and full autonomy in historical terms. She highlights the practical challenges within historiography, such as incomplete historical records and the influence of dominant power structures, which complicate efforts to privilege subaltern consciousness. Spivak emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the complexities and limitations inherent in representing subaltern voices within dominant discourses while cautioning against simplistic or romanticized portrayals.” As for the receiver, we must ask who is ‘the real receiver’ of an ‘insurgency?’ The historian, transforming ‘insurgency’ into ‘text for knowledge,’ is only one ‘receiver’ of any collectively intended social act.” Spivak questions the identity of the true recipient of an “insurgency” and suggests that historians, who transform such acts into textual knowledge, are just one among many potential recipients. She emphasizes the other perspectives involved in interpreting collective social actions and highlights the role of historians in transforming these actions into knowledge, which stands out as it challenges another interpretation.