In Alina Fernandez's talk this evening, she touched on the many different ways how the Castro regime oppressed the people of Cuba. Specifically, the regime dissolved the majority of their civil rights. The people were not allowed to do anything or thinking anything that wasn't condoned by the government. The Cubans only could have one opinion and could support only one idea. This was the support of Castro and his totalitarianism. Those who thought differently or acted differently were going against the Caestro, his regime, and the country. They were seen as traitors. By going against the regime, they were risking their lives and many had to leave the country.
This type of outspoken speech would be considered parrhesia by Foucault. The situation in Cuba can be directly related back to Foucault's definition of parrhesia. He describes parrhesia as involving a sense of danger by speaking against the majority or against those who are in power. The people who spoke against Caestro and his ideology would be in danger of losing their lives or being exiled from the country.Foucault refers to an example similar to this when talking about speaking out against a tyrant. Those who voiced their opposition and discontent with the regime, like Alina, are the parrhesiastes. These people have a lot to lose. They can lose their lives, relationships, and popularity by speaking the truth and their opinions. Alina talked about how families were torn apart when family members went against the ideas of the government, and these people became viewed as evil and traitors. Many people lost their lives for their parrhesia. Foucault would say that it is our duty to preform parrhesia and speak the truth to others. Would he support the idea that everyone should preform parrhesia in a situation like in Cuba even if this means potentially causing unrest and risking their lives and the lives of others? Or would he say that is better to avoid death and violence? In a situation like Cuba, would parrhesia do more good than harm?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a really good question and I was wondering things such as this as I was reading Foucault. I believe Foucault would argue that they do have a duty to speak up. Foucault explains that if dictators (such as Castro) are unopposed then they cannot be kept into check. Parrhesia "demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger." However, once they are exiled they no longer have a chance to exercise parrhesia (he uses The Phoenician Women to demonstrate this) and "if such citizens cannot use parrhesia, they cannot oppose the ruler's power." And if a ruler does not receive parrhesia, then they have no limitation to their power. In other words, Castro eliminated people who opposed him in order to avoid this criticism. Though the people have a duty to speak up, inevitably they have virtually no chance because they are either killed or exiled in doing so.
ReplyDeleteWhile I definitely agree with Elise that Foucault says Cubans should use parrhesia as apart of their duty, I also think, in light of what were reading for next class, Thoreau would also be a strong advocate of speaking out against Castro. He even says change can start with just one person taking action, despite popular belief otherwise. The Cubans obviously would be putting themselves in harms way, but Thoreau would even support speaking up despite this. After all he was even jailed for putting his opinions in action.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree with both of you. It is a dangerous situation for them, but I don't think anything will change in Cuba until people take a stand. The people of Cuba have no rights and the government doesn't represent them so they have no obligation to even follow the government according to Thoreau. The peoply may be able to accomplish more than they think by just taking a stand.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting situation because we know Fidel was in power for decades, and his brother has taken over for him now. I feel like what the people are doing now is just waiting for them to die. Sometimes when there is a single person in power like in Cuba, especially for a long time, the people give up hope of trying to overcome the force, and just find that the best course of action is to let nature do the work, not that there haven't been assassination attempts on his life.
ReplyDelete