PUBLIC SPACE AND CONTROL: THE PROBLEM OF FREEDOM IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF HANNA ARENDT AND MISCHEL FOUCAULT

Abstract

In modern philosophical discourse, the concept of freedom is not merely a set of legal and political mechanisms, but also a fundamental problem that indicates the subject's position within space and structure. This article comparatively analyzes the concepts of freedom of two monumental thinkers, Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault, who changed the course of twentieth-century political and social philosophy, from the perspectives of the autonomy of inner consciousness, the reconstruction of the subject, and the relationship between power and freedom. Hannah Arendt argues that freedom exists in the public space where people act together. An individual preserves their freedom when they act in a public space together with human collectives that encounter one another under equal conditions and unite through their differences. Michel Foucault, approaching the issue from a local perspective, considers this idea an illusion. There is no social or public sphere in society that is not penetrated by power. Schools, prisons, factories, and hospitals place individuals into a standardized framework. For example, the ideal is an obedient student, that is, an individual who does not go beyond prescribed norms and remains submissive. For Arendt, the subject is a being endowed with the potential to initiate a new beginning. The freedom of the individual does not exist within the self; rather, it exists when individuals act collectively in the political sphere. In this way, they are politically reborn. In Foucault’s philosophy, however, the freedom of the subject exists politically when individuals become aware of mechanisms of control and struggle against them.