Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault are two of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, both concerned with how human beings understand and shape themselves. Yet their approaches diverge significantly. Ricoeur emphasizes narrative identity—the stories we tell to unify our lives—while Foucault analyzes technologies of the self, the practices and discourses by which subjects are formed. Comparing these two perspectives sheds light on the tension between coherence and fragmentation, freedom and power, in modern conceptions of the self.
Ricoeur: The Narrative Configuration of Identity
For Ricoeur, identity emerges through the act of storytelling. In Time and Narrative and Oneself as Another, he argues that we make sense of our lives by configuring events into coherent narratives. This narrative identity balances:
-
Sameness (idem-identity): continuity across time.
-
Selfhood (ipse-identity): the capacity to change, promise, and take responsibility.
Narrative identity provides both stability and openness. It is not a fixed essence but a dynamic process of interpretation, linking personal memory, ethical responsibility, and communal belonging.
Foucault: Technologies of the Self
Foucault approaches selfhood differently. In works like Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality, he shows how subjects are shaped by power relations and discursive practices. Later, he turns to technologies of the self—the ways individuals work upon themselves (through confession, self-examination, ascetic practices) to become certain kinds of subjects.
For Foucault, the self is not primarily a narrative agent but an effect of practices, norms, and power structures. Identity is neither continuous nor unified but contingent and historically constructed.
Points of Convergence
Despite their differences, Ricoeur and Foucault share some concerns:
-
Self-formation: Both see the self as something we construct, not something given.
-
Mediation: Ricoeur emphasizes texts and symbols, while Foucault emphasizes practices and discourses.
-
Ethics: Each links selfhood to ethics—Ricoeur through responsibility and justice, Foucault through care of the self and resistance to domination.
Both offer resources for thinking about freedom: Ricoeur through narrative reconfiguration, Foucault through critical practices of self-transformation.
Points of Contrast
The contrasts, however, are stark:
-
Continuity vs. Discontinuity: Ricoeur seeks coherence in narrative identity, while Foucault stresses the fractures imposed by power.
-
Hermeneutics vs. Genealogy: Ricoeur interprets symbols and stories, Foucault excavates histories of discourse and discipline.
-
Ethical Aim vs. Critical Resistance: Ricoeur’s formula—“the good life, with and for others, in just institutions”—posits a positive ethical horizon, while Foucault emphasizes critique, fluidity, and experimentation with ways of living.
Why the Comparison Matters
Placing Ricoeur and Foucault side by side highlights two competing visions of selfhood:
-
A hermeneutical self that seeks coherence through narrative and responsibility.
-
A genealogical self that resists unification, seeing identity as contingent and shaped by power.
In today’s debates—around digital identity, gender, memory, and politics—both perspectives remain vital. Ricoeur reminds us of the need for continuity and ethical responsibility, while Foucault reminds us to question the norms and discourses that shape who we are allowed to become.
Tension as Fertility
The dialogue between Ricoeur and Foucault is not about choosing one over the other but about holding their insights in tension. Narrative identity offers depth and coherence; technologies of the self reveal contingency and power. Together, they expand our understanding of selfhood in a complex and plural world.
