Philosophy for Us
Part Three · Series 41

Standpoint-Genealogy

I question everyone's angle — why never my own?

8 episodes ↓ 19 sources ↓ MetaphilosophyEpistemology

The question

Somewhere in the last few years I got a new reflex, and I didn't ask for it. Someone says a thing is just true, just obvious, just the way it is — and before they've finished, I'm already underneath it, asking who's served by it being obvious. A painting is "great." Whose great? A work ethic is "common sense." Common to whom, paid for by whom? It's automatic now. I do it to adverts, to my own government, to my mother at dinner. I'm proud of it. It's the closest thing I have to a defence against being a fool.

And then last week someone did it to me. Looked at something I was certain of — really certain, bone-certain — and asked, quietly, whose interest it served for me to be so sure. And my first move was to reach for the reflex, to get underneath them, to find whose standpoint the question was coming from. And I caught myself. Because if the reflex is good enough to use on everyone else's certainties, it's good enough to use on the reflex. And I have never, not once, turned it around. I don't know where I got it. I don't know whose it is. I don't know if it survives being pointed at itself — or whether the second I point it, it has to call itself a fool too.

What you practise

When someone says a thing is just obvious, you know the question to put to it: whose view is that, what does it hide. Here the same question goes to the habit: where you got it, what it was built to bring down, who gains when you call it plain seeing rather than a view of your own. You find out why both easy escapes fail — dropping the habit because it undermines itself, trusting it to strip the lie away and reach bare truth. Neither holds, and whether the habit survives is left with you. You leave able to catch yourself reaching for it and say where you stand.

The episodes

Each episode builds on the one before, and the finale hands the question back to you sharper, not settled.

  1. 01

    The move you didn't know you were making

    The habit of asking, of anything obvious, whose interest its obviousness serves — a move most of us picked up without being taught it. This first episode names the move, and gives notice of the series' one task: to turn it, for the first time, on itself.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  2. 02

    Suspicion that liberates

    The move at its best — Michel Foucault on how the clinic, the prison and common sense carry the residue of power dressed as timeless reason, and why finding that a "fixed fact" has a beginning feels like freedom. The case for the method is made at full strength before it is made to pay.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  3. 03

    Where the suspicion was born

    The suspicion itself has a birth. This episode traces it to Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality — "good" traced back to resentment and a revaluation of values — and follows the lineage down to the present. Finding the origin, it is careful to say, settles nothing yet about trust.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  4. 04

    Sometimes the genealogy builds

    Not every genealogy debunks. Bernard Williams's Truth and Truthfulness and Edward Craig's state-of-nature account of knowledge trace truthfulness to a need no human group can live without — a tracing that builds rather than buries. The assumption that origins only ever bring things down is retired.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  5. 05

    Turn the suspicion on itself

    The method is turned on itself: where did you get the suspicion, whose was it first, what was it aimed at, and whose interest does it serve for you to believe it is simply clarity? The one standing exemption is revoked, and the episode ends deliberately without a verdict.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  6. 06

    It eats itself — and so does saying so

    The first exit — "it eats itself, so drop it" — is taken seriously and fails: the charge of self-refutation is one more use of the method, delivered from the placeless position the argument has just shown no one has. Neither trusting the method nor discarding it survives the hour.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  7. 07

    The other exit is the God-trick

    The second exit — that unmasking at least yields the truth power was hiding — fails too: there is no final layer, only the place one's inquiry happened to stop. Sandra Harding's reply, that owning your position makes inquiry more objective rather than less, is heard and left open.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →
  8. 08

    Whose is the suspicion?

    The final episode sets the five positions side by side and asks the question of the whole series: whose is the suspicion? Both exits stay closed, and no verdict is passed on whether the sharpest tool in modern thought is valid or bankrupt — only that it has an address, which cannot now be forgotten.

    ▶ Listen Read transcript →

Thinkers

The thinkers and traditions this series draws on:

Michel FoucaultFriedrich NietzscheElizabeth AnscombeBernard WilliamsEdward CraigJürgen HabermasSandra HardingAmia Srinivasan

Related series

Your turn

You coach a small rowing club on a canal. Your federation brings in a new eligibility rule for the under-23 championship: a crew may only enter if it has trained two full seasons at a registered club under a certified coach. It is about fairness, the circular says. Nobody should turn up in a borrowed boat and beat athletes who have put in the years.

You say what you see. Registration costs money and certifying a coach costs more. The rule does not measure the work; it measures who can pay for two years of it. Written by the big clubs, for the big clubs. You say so at the regional meeting, and the rule is held over.

Afterwards a woman who coaches at one of those clubs walks out with you. Her rowers are eighteen and train five mornings a week, and every year some outfit assembled in April takes a title off them. "You didn't protect anyone," she says. "You protected the people who can't be bothered."

  1. Where did your reading of that circular come from? Whose is it, what was it built against, and did it catch something in this rule or fire the way it always fires?
  2. She has turned the same suspicion on you. If you reply that the big clubs have got to her, what have you just done? And if you decide every side is only interest, where are you standing to say it?
  3. Could the rule be told as a body looking after people in its care rather than a stitch-up? Would telling it that way settle anything?

A good answer traces the suspicion back to whoever handed it to you and names what it served in that room, without claiming it reached the truth under the rule — and it has to meet her without either conceding the rule was clean or judging her from a nowhere it has just admitted it does not have.

Sources

Written by AI under human direction. This is the reading the series was built from. checked against source means the passage was found in the cited work and a second, independent model checked the episode's use of it; supports in part means that check judged the use a little stronger than the passage alone establishes; passage located means a reader found the passage but it has not had the second check. Unmarked entries are background reading.

Where to start