Parrhēsia

A close association between caring of the self and d the notion and practice of parrhēsia has been established in the light of Foucault‘s observation. Generally speaking, parrhēsia is translated into English as ―freedom of speech,‖ ―truth-telling,‖

or ―speaking frankly,‖ which concerns one‘s freedom to say everything he or she bears in mind regardless of any potential menace or consequence. Foucault was preoccupied by the philosophy he uncovered from Hellenistic culture on the concept of parrhēsia. According to Foucault‘s research, the word parrhēsia etymologically derives from the combination of pan [πᾶν] (everything) and rhema [ῥῆσις] (that which is said), meaning ―to say everything.‖ Parrhesiastes refers to someone who utilizes parrhēsia; or, to put it more literally, the one who ―says everything‖.

In Fearless Speech, a collection of a serial lectures Foucault delivered at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1983—a year prior to his death, Foucault delved into the concept of parrhēsia and, in virtue of his investigation on the its transformation, he epitomized his transcendental rumination about the pertinent concerns such as truth-telling, care of the self, and the aesthetics of existence. A brief book as it is, though, Fearless Speech prepares the reader a solid

ground for the Foucault‘s theoretical assumptions. Foucault specifies the act of parrhēsia as follows:

Parrhēsia is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a specific relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people through criticism. (19)

Based on Foucault‘s observation, to exert the act of parrhēsia, a parrhesiastes is prone to expose himself / herself in peril which, under certain circumstances, might even cost his or her life. Thus, for those who utilize parrhēsia no matter how risky and perilous it can be, they demonstrate perfect examples for the care of the self and of other people as well. In Fearless Speech, Foucault also lays emphasis upon the relation between parrhēsia and courage:

―The parrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. […] Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger.

And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the „game‖ of life or death.‖ (16)

According to Foucault, the speaker (i.e., the parrhesiaste) has to be equipped with sufficient courage to confront anything that goes against truth, and confronts the risk it might later ensue. Socrates, in this regard, serves to be a perfect example as a parrhesiastes who speaks frankly and fearlessly to the dwellers of Athens.

Albeit Socrates is aware that the truth he believes and delivers is bound to incur hatred and indignation of the people, which might even cost his life in the most extreme case, he, as a speaker of truth, still chooses to be faithful to himself as well as to his fellow people in Athens. His use of parrhēsia—his frank and fearless

speech—enables him to take proper care of himself and also the people whom he encounters. In other words, Socrates treats himself as well as others as an object of care, which allows him to govern himself and other people and live properly, judiciously, ethically and even beautifully.

In the novel Life and Times of Michael K, the practice of parrhēsia has also been widely utilized by Michael K as well. Reticent and even mute sometimes, he still insists on articulating the truth in the face of the doctors, associates, armed soldiers and the police as well. For instance, shortly after his mother‘s sudden death, Michael K begins to wander around by the roadside because he has nothing else to do. One day, when Michael K once again spends his daytime rambling woodland paths, an armed soldier stops him with his rifle pointing at his face. Pretending that he is just doing his routine check for the public affairs, the soldier‘s real intention is to rob Michael K of his private property. When the soldier asks Michael K, ―what do you think the war is for?‖ Michael K replies, ―For taking other people‘s money?‖ (37) Michael K‘s direct and dry answer seems to provoke the soldier who intimidates Michael K right away by saying, ―Watch it. You could be lying in the bushes with flies all over you. Don‘t you tell me about war‖ (37). Michael K‘s direct and honest reply reveals his courage, since by pointing out the truth that the soldier is literary ―taking other people‘s money,‖

he exposes himself to a peril which, under the worst scenario, could end up with his dead body ―lying in the bushes with flies‖ all around him. Still, Michael K chooses to take the risk regardless of the fact that a rifle is pointing at him.

Later in the novel when Michael K is once again brought to a camp, he is informed by a police officer that, since he is not in jail, he has to work before getting anything to eat. Instead of following the regulations in the camp, Michael K tells the police officer, ―I didn‘t ask to come here…How can I work when I am locked up?‖

(77). At first glance, his question appears to be ludicrous, and he might be beaten or even get shot by the annoyed police officer who is irritated by his seemingly mischievous question. However, he still gives voice to what he believes to be true regardless of the potential peril. The truth is: He does not commit any crime, and thus the policeman has no legal power to keep him in the camp unless he chooses to stay there. The Michael K we encounter here is not the same as the one who used to devour all kinds of orders and regulations without further rumination. Asking him to simply accept all the unreasonable orders ―is like going back to childhood (77).‖ And for him, his childhood is ―like a nightmare‖ (77) which he is reluctant to recall or review, and he is desperate to get away from it.

There is another time when Michael K asks the guard if he can open the gate for him. The guard refuses to do so by telling Michael K not to run away, for he ―got a home here‖ (85). Michael K, however, replies him relentlessly by pointing out the fact that the place where he has been kept is not a home but a camp, and he does not want to stay in a camp anymore. In addition, his recalcitrance, like his refusal to eat any food from the camp, also suggests his silent articulation of truth—the truth leading him to the aesthetics of existence.