Theorists can dissociate freedom from any single ethnic origin and reattach it to another

Evidence

The goal of this third tactical operation is to make a distinction between two forms of barbarism: the barbarism of the Germans will become the bad barbarism from which we have to be freed; and then there is a good barbarism, or the barbarism of the Gauls, which is the only real source of freedom. This performs two important operations: on the one hand, freedom and Germanity, which had been linked together by Boulainvilliers, are dissociated; on the other, Romanity and absolutism are dissociated. We will, in other words, find in Roman Gaul elements of the freedom which, as all previous theses had more or less accepted, had been imported by the Franks. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 219

Categorization

  • XREF: This is a concrete instance of the strategic ‘filtering’ of barbarism in Boulainvilliers’s discourse — connects to the historian-as-weapon idea and to how origin narratives get repurposed, which maps directly onto Orientalism’s construction of the Other. — connects to: Individual liberty has become a cosmopolitan value beyond its Western origins; The truth of ideas is independent of their social origins — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 210; Historical narratives can reverse which conquered people anchors national identity — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 138 (+1 more)
  • DEFINE: The ‘good barbarism vs bad barbarism’ split is a precise tactical move: freedom and Germanity dissociated, Romanity and absolutism dissociated, freeing both concepts for reassignment.

Broader Connections