How Critique of Flexibility Relate to Critique of Performativity - Free Paper Sample

Introduction

Malabou's critique on flexibility is centered on the inescapable fact that neuro-ethicists and analytical philosophers cannot argue against a cohesive and harmonious identity. Malabou explores the destructive potential of flexibility by highlighting the effect of degenerative diseases on the human brain (Malabou, 2008). Lyotard's critique of performativity shows how it has been used to legitimize the state and in the process devalue education in schools. A close analysis of the two critiques reveals that flexibility is a function of performativity (Lyotard, 1984). Flexibility has gained attention in the modern world because of the consensus of the experts. The two critiques expose the capitalistic ideologies behind flexibility and performativity and how they are deployed to exploit the working class.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Critique on Flexibility

Malabou argues that neuroscience has received a lot of attention from philosophers and neuro-ethicists. The human brain is a bio-marvel with a high processing power that enables the human species to operate on top of the evolutionary tree. In the last fifty years, the human brain has become a scientific and cultural obsession (Malabou, 2008). Analytical philosophers and neuro-ethicists celebrate the human brain for its plasticity and the ability of the human brain to mutate and change itself to adapt to the existing circumstances. Analytical philosophers argue that brain identity is just like a sculpture that is made of individual memories collected from years of experience. The neuroplasticity of the human brain allows us to shape the identity of the human brain through experiences.

Malabou argues that scientists and analytical philosophers have often ignored the destructive extent of neuroplasticity to the human brain. Malabou argues that plasticity entails the ability to explode and destroy an existing from. The comparison between brain identity and sculpture is misleading because the destruction of identity entails another from nowhere. She further argues that the plasticity of the human brain is centered on capitalistic ideologies. Capitalistic ideologies seek to portray the worker as malleable and flexible to meet the needs of the employer. This implies that the worker can adapt and stretch to a task that opens the worker to potential exploitation (Malabou, 2008). Flexibility is often portrayed as the ability to take imposed forms rather than create new forms. Malabou examines negative plasticity where a person's identity can be negatively transformed within a blink of an eye. She argues that neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's can create new identities without any logical explanation (Malabou, 2008). A normal and healthy brain is not just capable of linear developmental change, as argued by scientists and analytical philosophers.

Critique on Performativity

Performativity is often seen as the language, which essentially functions as a form of social action and is colored with change. John Austin described performativity as the capacity of written and oral speech or communication to translate into action (Lyotard, 1984). Some examples of performativity in action are the language being used to make legally binding contracts, creating legal unions between two people through marriage, and inspiring industrial workers to unionize and take action against their employer. Building on performativity, Judith Butler argues that gender is socially constructed. Gender is constructed through speech acts and non-verbal communication through performativity.

Lyotard defines performativity as the legitimization of social norms and postmodern forms of knowledge. According to Lyotard, performativity operates as a system of optimization through input and output through the use of speech. Jean-François Lyotard argued postmodern knowledge must report and carry out another task through the maximization of inputs and outputs. Jean-François Lyotard argues that the modern education system is no longer concerned with the pursuit of ideals such as emancipation, personal autonomy, and freedom (Lyotard, 1984). Instead, the focus of education is the techniques and skills essential for the stock market's operation. The education system is also geared towards the legitimization of the state and maintaining internal cohesion in society. Lyotard calls for a change in the education system due to the commodification of knowledge. One of the Lyotard key critiques is that the inclusion of the performativity criterion in education has eliminated the idea that knowledge and training absorption are two separate things. In the field of research, performativity creates a system of terror that includes the exclusion of players from the market and the inclusion of games (Lyotard, 1984). A researcher has to demonstrate that he or she is worthy of funding to receive funding to carry out his or her research. The legitimization of performativity has led to the prioritization of the consensus of the experts. The safest investment is what is perceived by the majority of the experts as the most efficient in terms of input and output ratio. It is seen as the safest investment. Jean-François Lyotard further argues that performativity is against the interest of research and the acquisition of knowledge.

The Relationship Between the Critique of Flexibility and the Critique of Performativity

Malabou's critique of flexibility exposes the capitalistic ideologies that tend to use neuroplasticity for the exploitation of the working class. A changeable identity is key to the worker's exploitation because he or she can stretch the worker beyond his or her limits. Malabou argues that the flexibility of the human brain is not beneficial for a normal and healthy brain. She gives an example of how neurodegenerative diseases cause sudden and unexplained changes in identity. From this premise, the push for neuroplasticity of the human brain is to exploit the working class CITATION Mal08 \l 1033 (Malabou, 2008). Similarly, Lyotard argues that performativity has deprived postmodern knowledge of its utility. Postmodern knowledge has been commoditized to meet the working class's needs, maintain cohesion in society, and provide legitimization of the state. Performativity is a legitimization criterion for technology, workplace, academia, and all sectors of life.

The performativity criterion does not capture the type of knowledge developed in the science or the way such knowledge is developed. The process of learning has been commoditized to serve the interest of capital owners. In essence, performativity replaces knowledge to capital CITATION Lyo84 \l 1033 (Lyotard, 1984). Lyotard argues that performativity leaves students poorly educated, and as such, it serves to legitimize the state and maintain social cohesion. Similarly, neuroplasticity does not benefit the working class, but rather it creates an avenue for the exploitation of the working class by the state. Lyotard's critique of performativity and Malabou's critique of flexibility show that the two concepts are falsely pushed in modern society for nefarious reasons hidden from ordinary citizens. Lyotard's critique of performativity shows that flexibility in neuroscience is a function of performativity. Flexibility on neuroscience has been legitimized as common knowledge despite the overwhelming evidence that the sudden change of identity is detrimental to the human brain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Malabou’s critique of flexibility goes contrary to the established norms in analytical science. The human brain is seen as a medical marvel that has placed human beings on top of the evolutionary tree. She argues that plasticity entails creating new forms from the oblivion. Sudden changes in identity have proved to be detrimental to the human brain. Lyotard's critique of the performativity is centered on the legitimization of postmodern knowledge. Performativity has created a system in which modern education is tailored to allow for the legitimization of the state and maintain social cohesion.

References

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1st ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Malabou, C. (2008). What Should We Do with Our Brain? (1st ed.). New York: Fordham University Press.