Fearless Speech is a presentation of
Michel Foucault’s six lectures on the Greek concept of parrhesia, delivered in the fall of 1983, at the University of
California at Berkeley. These lectures
were part of his seminar entitled “Discourse and Truth”. Parrhesia
was also the topic of a lecture series given in France, just before Foucault’s
death in 1984. In his choice of a
title, Pearson sacrifices accuracy for attractiveness by unduly emphasizing the
element of courage (or fearlessness) in parrhesia, to the exclusion of other
equally crucial ingredients such as freedom, belief, criticism, duty, and
verity, all at issue in a time when ‘frankness of speech’ was becoming
problematized. It was an issue Foucault was preoccupied with later in his
career, and is central to the Greek notion of the ‘cultivation of the soul’,
which is the foundation for Foucault’s ‘care of the self.’ The editor, Joseph Pearson, audited the
Berkeley seminar and has compiled the text nearly verbatim from tape
recordings, editing to present the lectures in a style more appropriate to book
format. One of the quirks of Pearson’s presentation is that it retains many of the
idiosyncrasies of the lecture while adjusting for awkward constraints of time
and circumstance. I think some readers
will appreciate the interruptions that preserve the authenticity of these
lectures, even if they are at times a clumsy break in the conceptual flow.  The book’s easy conversational style is also
a welcome respite from some of Foucault’s notoriously less accessible works.

In the lecture, Foucault aims to
construct a genealogy of the critical attitude in western philosophy by
historically examining the problematization of the parrhesiastes, the truth-teller.  The genealogy of problematization is Foucault’s characteristic
method for analyzing thought in its historical context. He analyzes “…the way institutions,
practices, habits, and behavior become a problem for people who behave in
specific sorts of ways, who have certain types of habits, who engage in certain
kinds of practices, and who put to work specific kinds of institutions.” His
‘history of thought’ is a study of the way unproblematic, ‘silent’ practices,
previously accepted without question, become issues of controversy and incite
new reactions within an institution. 
The ‘history of thought’ regarding parrhesia
is then the study of how thinkers began to address the issues and implications
of ‘truth telling’. The Ancient Greeks
asked questions such as: Who is able to tell the truth? What are the moral,
ethical and spiritual conditions that entitle someone to present him or
herself, or be considered, as a truth teller? Which topics are important to
tell the truth about and what are the implications of parrhesia for politics and governance? What is the relation between
the activity of truth telling and the exercise of power?

In these lectures, Foucault draws on the works and methods of Euripides, Plato, Aristotle,
Epicurus, Epictetus, Isocrates, and the Cynics among other ancient
personalities from between the fifth century BC and the rise of Christianity.
It is during this period that philosophical questions regarding the activity of
parrhesia began to emerge. Foucault
shows the evolution of parrhesia
during this period by examining the relationship between truth telling and
rhetoric, politics and philosophy. He begins by showing how and where Euripides
addressed parrhesia in the dynamic
between the sovereign and governed, yet Foucault’s attention turns intently to
the tension between parrhesia and
democracy. A negative dimension of parrhesia
is exposed when it is recognized that the practice of parrhesia conflicts with the integrity of the democratic
institution. Socrates’ confrontation with the Sophists on rhetorical, political
and philosophical dimensions mark the beginning of a critical attitude towards
the truth teller in the history of Western thought. The verity of a truth-teller could no longer be taken for
granted, as it was realized that sophistic frankness of speech could turn a
democracy to tyranny, or compromise any common logos a state might have. To differentiate between the true parrhesiastes and a reckless orator, who
dangerously speaks to flatter the masses, questions of education become an
issue. Foucault focuses on the Socratic
notions of harmony between bios and logos, virtue, courage, and truth. The
successful harmony between one’s lived experience (bios) and these other factors indicate a ‘cultivation of the soul’
that marks the legitimate truth teller. 
This is the influence of a philosophical emphasis on parrhesia, and Socrates is presented by
Plato as the model parrhesiastes.

In Euripides, Foucault notes a different balance, involving
genos or birth, which marks the parrhesiastes. But Foucault seems to
favor the Socratic notion of truth manifest ethically and ontologically in
life, as the foundation for his own doctrine of  ‘care of the self.’ When a pivotal shift occurs and the truth
teller is seen critically, various techniques emerge to facilitate the method
of parrhesia and the process for
‘cultivation of the soul.’ Foucault shows how Epicurus, the Stoics, and the
Cynics each expanded the practice of truth telling in unique directions.
‘Cultivation of the soul’ is a process of enlightenment that involves a guide
who helps an individual to realize his or her relationship with truth, and
which compels the person to educate and cultivate themselves to the best of
their ability. Foucault’s ‘Care of the
Self’ is his version of the ‘cultivation of the soul,’ his treaties on living
that incorporates Socratic notions of harmony between logos and bios, as well
as techniques and notions developed by other ancient thinkers. For Epictetus, self-sovereignty was central
to shaping one’s character, and this practice later developed into an ‘aesthetics
of existence’ for Foucault, a form of self-creation and cultivation that
directed ethical existence.

Foucault’s historical scholarship is apparent in these
lectures as he explores some of the history on this subject, and acknowledges a
few non-western influences that other historians may not be privy to. This is a
book for the reader interested in classical history and literature, but it is
not an exhaustive historical analysis of parrhesia
as an idea. One virtue of these lectures is their widely applicable relevance
to practitioners, scholars and students of diverse disciplines, as the issues
of parrhesia naturally lend
themselves to issues of relational power dynamics, between doctors and patients
for example, the teacher and pupil or state and citizen. Foucault’s ‘care of
the self,’ and his exploration of ancient techniques of self-mastery are
relevant to the psychotherapist, whose job it is to assist the client in a
process of self-cultivation and mastery. 
The psychologist can be likened to a Socratic figure as a touchstone or basanos who tests the degree of accord
between “…an individual’s life and its principles of intelligibility.” This
application to psychology seems relevant to more recent trends, and is perhaps
a step away from the Christian and psychoanalytic traditions of confession to
another. Foucault’s analysis is useful
in understanding an existential or humanistic approach to psychology, which may
emphasize personal responsibility and self-creation over passive confession and
self-disclosure.

His discussion of truth-telling techniques and methods of
self-cultivation are also relevant to those interested in education, as
Socratic, Cynical, and Epicurean styles of directing others to self-cultivation
are addressed. Issues of the parrhesiastes’ relationship with a
student can be instructive where curriculum reform and modern day
teacher-student dynamics are concerned, or where the general goal of education
is in question. Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, the lectures are provocative
to those concerned with political issues, including censorship in democratic
society, and the role of citizenship. 
Whose voice is heard in society, especially in democratic societies, and
what is the measure of one’s legitimacy as a speaker (parrhesiates)? Should the
democratic society cultivate certain qualities in its citizens such as a
tendency to care for the self so that the people are not easily swayed by
oration that appeals to the desires? This issue bares also on questions about
the media’s strong influence on public sentiment. In fact, all of the above
mentioned issues of parrhesia as
relevant to psychology and education bare directly on the above political
questions, as they unveil issues of the individual in a societal context.
Lastly, this volume is essential to those English speakers who are interested
in Foucault’s scholarship, especially those interested in his later work and
its place in the history of philosophy.

Revised review posted May 14,
2002.

©
2002 Jennifer Matey

Jennifer Matey is a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at
the State University of New York at Stony Brook. She holds a Masters degree from that institution.

Categories: Philosophical