Dr. Gordon E. Carkner’s PhD Dissertation: A Critical Examination of Michel Foucault’s Concept of Moral Self-Constitution in Dialogue with Charles Taylor.
Dr. Gordon E. Carkner’s 2006 PhD dissertation, submitted to the University of Wales (Oxford Centre for Mission Studies), offers a rigorous philosophical-theological analysis of Michel Foucault’s late ethical thought (late 1970s–early 1980s). Drawing primarily from Foucault’s The Use of Pleasure and The Care of the Self (1984a, 1984b), as well as his Collège de France lectures and interviews, Carkner examines Foucault’s proposal for “moral self-constitution”—a deliberate, reflective process of shaping the self through ancient Greco-Roman practices of self-care (epimeleia heautou). This “aesthetics of existence” positions the self as both artist and artwork, emphasizing autonomous aesthetic freedom: creative self-stylization as resistance to modern power structures, normalization, and domination.
Michel Foucault, French Poststructuralist Philosopher
Carkner appreciates Foucault’s recovery of subjectivity and agency amid late modernity’s “malaise” (e.g., moral fragmentation, nihilism, atomism, disenchantment, and the “nova effect” of overwhelming moral options, per Charles Taylor). However, he critiques its radical individualism and norm-skepticism as risking solipsism, relativism, narcissism, and ethical violence.The dissertation unfolds as a three-way dialogue across paradigms: Foucault’s post-Romantic aesthetic constructivism, Taylor’s moderate moral realism (rooted in communal horizons of the good), and a trinitarian theological extension via D. Stephen Long, Christoph Schwöbel, and Alistair I. McFadyen. This synthesis proposes “redeemed freedom”—self-constitution within relational, transcendent structures of goodness, neighborly love, and divine agape—addressing modernity’s crisis of affirmation and offering a trajectory toward communal flourishing. Methodologically, it employs close textual exposition, interdisciplinary moral philosophy, and theological retrieval, avoiding broader debates like Foucault’s historical accuracy or political implications.
The thesis advances three propositions: (1) Freedom requires horizons of significance for moral orientation; (2) Self-constitution thrives in intersubjective relations, not isolation; (3) Trinitarian goodness grounds ethics in a paradigm of love, redeeming autonomy from domination.
Abstract: The abstract frames Foucault’s ethics as an aesthetic turn from power/knowledge critiques to individual self-formation, rejecting codes and prohibitions for positive self-elaboration via “technologies of the self” (e.g., askesis, parrhēsia). It highlights interplay among power relations, “games of truth,” and subjectivity, yielding a bold ethic for modernity. Taylor praises its creativity but faults its “ontology of freedom” for evading the good, fostering amoralism or self-loss. The theologians extend this via Taylor, advocating a “transcendent turn” to trinitarian paradigms, where self-constitution emerges from communion and complementary relations. Three paradigms are contrasted: autonomous aesthetic self-making, moral horizons of community, and goodness-freedom in agape. The conclusion posits redeemed freedom as situated in the good, the neighbor, and divine relationality, exemplified in Jesus’ life.
Key Quote: “Freedom is the ontological condition of our ethics; but ethics is the deliberate form assumed by freedom.” (Foucault, 1984e, p. 4)
Chapter One/Introduction of the Discourse: Modernity’s Malaise and the Question of the Crisis of the Moral Self. Carkner diagnoses late modernity’s ethical disorientation through Taylor’s lens (The Malaise of Modernity, 1991): instrumental reason erodes meaning, the “buffered self” isolates individuals, and biopower stifles agency. Foucault’s genealogy exposes these pathologies, proposing self-care as therapeutic resistance. The chapter previews the dialogue: Foucault recovers freedom via aesthetics but denies transcendent goods; Taylor insists on moral frameworks for authentic selfhood (moral realism); theologians thicken this move with trinitarian relationality. Core concepts are defined—moral self-constitution as ongoing praxis, aesthetic freedom as subversive stylization—the thesis is positioned as a “positive critical reception,” affirming Foucault while seeking more expansive corrective horizons.
Charles Taylor, Canada’s Philosophical Grande Pensée
Chapter Outlines with Key Arguments The dissertation alternates exposition, critique, and synthesis across eight chapters, building from Foucault’s ontology to theological redemption. Below is a structured table summarizing each chapter’s focus, arguments, and contributions.
| Chapter | Title/Focus | Key Arguments and Sections | Theological/Dialogue Contributions | Key Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | The Place of Freedom in Foucault’s Moral Self-Constitution | Freedom as ontological telos: negative (freedom from domination) and positive (toward self-mastery). Sections: Nominalist anthropology (self as fluid, anti-essentialist); norm-skepticism (ethics as agent-centered stylization); transgression via agonisme (perpetual struggle); practice of freedom (eleutheria as non-slavery); power-subjectivity-truth interplay (power as productive relations, truth as modifiable “games”). Counters malaise by expanding horizons but risks relativism without communal anchors. | Sets up Taylor’s critique: Freedom needs moral orientation to avoid amoral ontology and personal dissolution. | “From the idea that the self is not given to us, I think that there is only one consequence: we have to create ourselves as a work of art.” (Foucault, 1983a, p. 351) |
| 3 | Technologies of the Self: The Technical Dimension of Foucault’s Ethics | Self-technologies (epimeleia, askesis) as reflective practices (e.g., writing, diet, gaze) for self-governance. Sections: Historical retrieval from antiquity; erotics of truth (pleasure as ethical pursuit); fusion of spiritual-political ethos. Addresses subjectivation crisis by fostering autonomy amid biopower. | Taylor: Technologies require horizons of the good; isolated, they yield narcissism. Theologians: Echoes Christian askesis but lacks divine telos. | (focus on praxis over aphorism). |
| 4 | Foucault’s Ethics as an Aesthetics of Existence | Self as artwork: From Greco-Roman moderation (sophrosyne), to Baudelairean modernity (darker/more radical). Sections: Part 1—Nature of aesthetic self-making (erasing art-ethics boundaries); Part 2—Taylor dialogue (appreciates creativity, critiques evasion of good, risks violence/self-loss). Foucault responds to disenchantment via the “beautiful life” but ignores relational embeddedness. | Taylor: Aesthetic freedom is “thin,” needing communal significance; theologians: Points to incarnational beauty in trinitarian love. | “The idea of the bios as a material for an aesthetic piece of art is something that fascinates me.” (Foucault, 1983b, p. 341) |
| 5 | Charles Taylor’s Moral Framework: A Critique of Foucault | Taylor’s realism (Sources of the Self, 1989): Inescapable moral horizons ground authenticity; critiques Foucault’s constructivism as “paleo-Darwinian” (reductive, norm-denying). Sections: Malaise diagnostics (atomism, buffered identity); strong evaluation (ranking goods); dialogical self-constitution. Affirms Foucault’s agency but insists on communal/transcendent goods. | Bridges to theology: Taylor’s horizons prefigure trinitarian communion; counters Foucault’s isolation. | “There is no priority of the individual’s sense of self over society: our most primordial identity is as a new player being inducted in an old game.” (Taylor, A Secular Age, 2007, p. 559) |
| 6 | Taylor’s Concept of Freedom and the Moral Self | Freedom as situated in hypergoods (e.g., benevolence, justice); sections: Narrative identity; crisis of affirmation (modern doubt in worth); recovery via moral footing. Critiques Foucault’s transgression as unstable without relational discernment. | Schwöbel/Long: Extends to trinitarian perichoresis (mutual indwelling), redeeming freedom from solipsism. | |
| 7 | A Trinitarian Theological Perspective: Long, Schwöbel, and McFadyen | Transcendent turn: Goodness-freedom paradigm via agape. Sections: Long (narrative theology against nihilism); Schwöbel (loss of summum bonum, recovery in God’s glory); McFadyen (relational ontology, self via neighbor). Counters Foucault’s autonomy with theonomous communion. | Synthesizes dialogue: Trinitarian love contextualizes self, defines freedom as participatory in divine relations; addresses affirmation crisis. | “The self is constituted in and through its relations to the good, the neighbor, and the triune God.” (Adapted from McFadyen/Schwöbel synthesis) |
| 8 | Synthesis: Redeemed Freedom and the Moral Self | Propositions for integration: Self-constitution in fecund relations; aesthetics redeemed by goodness; trajectory of love. Responds to malaise via dialogical, incarnational ethics. | Full dialogue culmination: Foucault’s creativity + Taylor’s realism + theology = holistic flourishing. | “Ethics is not about following rules but about becoming a subject capable of love.” (Carkner, synthesizing Foucault/Taylor) |
Main Critiques and Dialogues
- Foucault-Taylor Dialogue: Taylor values Foucault’s anti-disciplinary ethos but also diagnoses “normative confusions”—aesthetic freedom evades moral ontology, yielding a “thin” self vulnerable to power’s return (e.g., Foucault contra Taylor: Whose Sources? Which Self?). Carkner mediates: Foucault excels in micro-resistance but falters without Taylor’s “strong evaluations” (ranking a hierarchy of goods).
- Theological Extensions: Long critiques postmodern nihilism via narrative; Schwöbel laments lost transcendence, proposing God’s goodness as a key horizon for ethical balance; McFadyen emphasizes neighbor-relations, echoing Levinas on responsibility for the other. Together, they offer a “trinitarian agape” paradigm, where self-constitution is participatory (perichoretic), countering Foucault’s solipsism with relational teleology.
Conclusion: Carkner concludes that Foucault’s aesthetics vitalizes ethics but requires Taylor’s communal grounding and theology’s transcendent orientation for sustainability. Redeemed freedom—dynamic, intersubjective, and agape-driven—resolves modernity’s malaise, fostering affirmation, justice, and promoting an “incarnational spiritual culture.” The thesis invites ongoing dialogue, affirming Foucault’s provocation while advocating thicker moral ecologies. Overall, it contributes to philosophy of culture by bridging post-structuralism, moral realism, and trinitarian thought, emphasizing self-constitution as relational artistry toward the good.
Dr. Gordon E. Carkner, Meta-Educator, Author of Towards an Incarnational Spiritual Culture
Scholarly Lectures of the UBC Graduate & Faculty Christian Forum
Special November Half-Price Deal on Towards an Incarnation Spiritual Culture at Wipf & Stock Publishing
All Wipf and Stock titles — e.g., Towards an Incarnational Spiritual Culture — are 50% off through November 30.
Use code CONFSHIP at checkout.
If you select Media Mail, shipping is free.
You can find your title and all the rest of our catalog at 👉 WIPF AND STOCK.COM
ubcgcu 
Leave a comment