{"id":1369,"date":"2016-03-06T13:07:59","date_gmt":"2016-03-06T18:07:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/?p=1369"},"modified":"2018-08-11T16:50:19","modified_gmt":"2018-08-11T20:50:19","slug":"three-questions-on-avowal-subjectivity-and-truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/2016\/03\/06\/three-questions-on-avowal-subjectivity-and-truth\/","title":{"rendered":"Bernard E. Harcourt | Epilogue: Questions on Avowal, Subjectivity, and Truth"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>By Bernard E. Harcourt\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/2016\/02\/29\/notes-from-judith-butler\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Judith Butler<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/2016\/03\/01\/stathis-gourgouris-on-subjectivite-et-verite-a-redetermination\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Stathis Gourgouris<\/a> have brilliantly framed Foucault\u2019s 1981 lectures on <em><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/2016\/02\/21\/introducing-subjectivite-et-verite\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Subjectivit\u00e9 et v\u00e9rit\u00e9<\/a> <\/em>and <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/2016\/02\/21\/introducing-wrong-doing-truth-telling\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling<\/em><\/a>. Their comments pose\u00a0three questions for our discussion:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>How individualized are we when we bind ourselves, given that we each are hardly alone in these acts but \u201cbound to others who are doing the same act under a similar constraint,\u201d as Judith Butler suggests?<\/li>\n<li>Is it possible to loosen the ties or deconstitute the way that we bind ourselves to truth through our avowals? And how would the unbinding work? Or, as Stathis suggests, how do we focus both on the binding and the opening?<\/li>\n<li>What makes sexual avowal different than every other avowal? Or to be less \u201cpassover-ish,\u201d how do these avowals differ as we shift in time (historically) and between fields (the political, the sexual, etc\u2026)?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>To begin to frame these questions, it is important to place ourselves in our own proper historical period, because one of the most salient points in both Judith and Stathis\u2019s comments is the importance of historicizing these moments of truth telling\u2014whether it is in the Homeric poem, the Stoic examination of conscience, the 19<sup>th<\/sup> century asylum, or the courtroom with Robert Badinter in 1977\u2014in order to ensure that we always remain deeply conscious of the political dimensions of those truth telling performances. So as to avoid, as Stathis just mentioned, depoliticizing our analysis.<\/p>\n<p>Judith and Stathis have placed on the table, for our seminar, the breadth of historical moments of truth telling and the range of types of avowal:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the sexual avowal<\/li>\n<li>the criminal avowal or inability to satisfactorily say who one is<\/li>\n<li>the avowal or not of madness<\/li>\n<li>the confessional and penitent avowals<\/li>\n<li>the vesperal examination of one\u2019s daily actions and wrongdoings<\/li>\n<li>the political avowal of Antilochus.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>I would like to add to that list\u2014taking a more retrospective and equally political approach\u2014the forms of avowal that mark our new digital mode of life, or, to borrow from the ancient Greek, our digital techniques of living, our <em>tekhnai peri ton psifiakon bion<\/em> or, from Latin<em>, <\/em>our own <em>artes vitae digitalis.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">***<\/p>\n<p>I will begin, then, with a contemporary episode. It involves the following statement: \u201cI mean, you know, you can call it what you want, but I am a truth teller, and I will tell the truth.\u201d\u00a0Those are the exact words, not of Antilochus, not of Oedipus, not of John the Ascetic.\u00a0No, but let me repeat them.\u00a0\u201cI am a truth teller, and I will tell the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Those are the words of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/blogs\/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results\/2016\/03\/donald-trump-truth-teller-planned-parenthood-super-tuesday-220090#ixzz41l79FBRK\">Donald Trump<\/a>, yes, Trump, just the day before last, on Super Tuesday 2016, in his <a href=\"https:\/\/time.com\/4245134\/super-tuesday-donald-trump-victory-speech-transcript-full-text\/\">victory speech<\/a> at his headquarters and resort in Palm Beach, Florida.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI am a truth teller.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>When I heard those words, I could not but think of the epigraph to <em>Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling<\/em>\u2014that marvelous passage from the philologist and anthropologist, George Dum\u00e9zil\u2019s book, <em>Servius et la Fortune<\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Looking back into the deepest reaches of our species\u2019 history, \u2018truthful speech\u2019 [la parole vraie] has been a force few could resist. From early on, truth was one of man\u2019s most formidable weapons, most prolific sources of power, and most solid institutional foundations. (<em>WDTT<\/em>, p. 28)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Or to a passage in the 1981 lectures, <em>Subjectivit\u00e9 et v\u00e9rit\u00e9<\/em>, on page 17 of the French edition, where Foucault states:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A discourse of avowal on an indissociable part of ourselves: it is around this question that we have to understand the problem of the relations \u201csubjectivity and truth.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Now, in these 1981 lectures on <em>Subjectivity and Truth<\/em>, Foucault would concentrate on sexuality\u2014or rather <em>aphrodisia<\/em> since he is reading texts from Greek and Roman antiquity and Late Antiquity\u2014in order to study the ancient arts of living. But his point extends to living in general \u2013 as we will see in the next lectures on the <em>Hermeneutics of the Subject<\/em> that generalize and extend the analysis beyond sexuality.<\/p>\n<p>The role of avowal is central to our broader arts of living, our modes of existence today in this digital age. And not coincidentally, Trump\u2019s speech is full of avowal. Not only of avowal, but of the courage of truth. Here is another statement he just made:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I\u2019ll tell you what, it takes a lot of courage to run for president. I\u2019ve never done this before. I\u2019ve been a job-producer. I\u2019ve done a lot of things but this is something I\u2019ve never done, but I felt we had to do it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Yes, notice the admissions, the confessions: &#8220;I\u2019ve never done this before,\u201d and how closely they are tied to courage. Avowal is a key elements of Donald Trumps campaign. Avowal and disavowal, especially on social media, on Twitter and Facebook.<\/p>\n<p>On Super Tuesday, again, Trump repeatedly disavowed.\u00a0\u00a0 This was concerning David Duke\u2019s endorsement, so his relationship to the Ku Klux Klan\u2026\u00a0\u201cLook, I disavowed. I disavowed\u2026\u201d Trump said in his <a href=\"https:\/\/time.com\/4245134\/super-tuesday-donald-trump-victory-speech-transcript-full-text\/\">Super Tuesday statement<\/a>.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>right after, when I reviewed it, I put out a tweet and I put out on Facebook that I totally disavow. [\u2026] And I disavowed then; I disavowed today on ABC with George Stephanopoulos, I disavowed again. I mean, how many times are you supposed to disavow? But I disavow and hopefully it\u2019s the final time I have to do it. But if you look at Facebook and if you look at Twitter, right after the show I put out a statement because I want everybody to be sure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Earlier, <a href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/blogs\/ballot-box\/presidential-races\/271310-hillary-hits-trump-over-david-duke-controversy-i-was-very\">on CNN<\/a>, Trump said \u201c&#8221;I\u2019ve disavowed David Duke all weekend long on Facebook and Twitter.\u201d\u00a0On Facebook and Twitter: that is telling\u2014and I will come back to it in a moment.<\/p>\n<p>Now, despite claiming to be a truth-teller, Donald Trump\u2019s record on truth is poor, the second worse this election season only to Ben Carson\u2014who is no longer in the running. So that makes Trump perhaps the worst truth-teller in truth.<\/p>\n<p>According <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/12\/13\/opinion\/campaign-stops\/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html\">to Angie Holan<\/a> at PolitiFact, the political fact-checking website, \u201cDonald J. Trump\u2019s record on truth and accuracy is astonishingly poor. So far, we\u2019ve fact-checked more than 70 Trump statements and rated fully three-quarters of them as Mostly False, False or \u201cPants on Fire\u201d (we reserve this last designation for a claim that is not only inaccurate but also ridiculous).\u201d<\/p>\n<p>76% of his checked statements (n = 70) are false or mostly false or worse. Only 7% are true or mostly true, with the rest half-true, half-false.\u00a0So the ratio there is 76% on the false side versus 7% on the true side.<\/p>\n<p>To give you a comparison point or two:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>President Obama, who \u201chas the distinction of being the most fact-checked person by PolitiFact \u2014 by a wide margin, with a whopping 569 statements checked,\u201d comes in at 26% on the false side to 48% on the true side.<\/li>\n<li>Ted Cruz 66% on the false side to 22% on the true side<\/li>\n<li>Marco Rubio: 40 to 38<\/li>\n<li>Hillary Clinton: 28 to 51<\/li>\n<li>Bernie Sanders: 28 to 54.\u00a0In fact, of the 17 politicians in their study, Sanders was the only one with a majority of true or mostly true statements.<\/li>\n<li>Bill Clinton had the lowest percentage of false or mostly false statements, at 24%, with 50% true or mostly true. (To remind you, the reason we are not at 100% is the gap in the middle of half-truth, half-false).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>To give you a sense of the truthfulness of our politicians, here is a graphic from the\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/12\/13\/opinion\/campaign-stops\/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Times<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/2016\/03\/04\/three-questions-on-avowal-subjectivity-and-truth\/screen-shot-2016-03-03-at-11-13-28-am\/#main\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-1371\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-1371\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/files\/2016\/03\/Screen-Shot-2016-03-03-at-11.13.28-AM-300x242.png\" alt=\"Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 11.13.28 AM\" width=\"414\" height=\"334\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/files\/2016\/03\/Screen-Shot-2016-03-03-at-11.13.28-AM-300x242.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/files\/2016\/03\/Screen-Shot-2016-03-03-at-11.13.28-AM-768x621.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/files\/2016\/03\/Screen-Shot-2016-03-03-at-11.13.28-AM-1024x828.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/files\/2016\/03\/Screen-Shot-2016-03-03-at-11.13.28-AM.png 1032w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 414px) 100vw, 414px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Now I am sure that, however non partisan PolitiFact may be, Donald Trump would question their objectivity\u2014probably deploying a power-knowledge argument that he would attribute to Foucault if he were here.<\/p>\n<p>And perhaps because of power-knowledge, so many Americans believe Trump. Believe that he is telling the truth. That is his draw it seems. At least if you listen to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ\">man or woman on the street<\/a> who supports Trump:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cHe tells it like it is.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cHe says what he means.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cI honestly believe he is telling the truth.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cHe is funding his own campaign. Nobody owns him.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This last theme is important. The idea that because Trump is funding his campaign\u2014or more appropriately, lent his campaign about 17 million dollars\u2014he is not beholden to anyone. He is his own man. He can say what he believes. He does not need to bend to anyone. He has no political or spiritual guide but himself.<\/p>\n<p>He is not engaged in an act of obedience. <a href=\"https:\/\/freakoutnation.com\/2016\/02\/donald-trump-i-dont-lie-i-tell-the-truth-i-really-dont-ever-lie-video\/\">Trump<\/a>\u00a0says this himself:\u00a0\u201cI am self funding my campaign. I tell the truth.\u201d\u00a0Actually, let me give you the full quote here: \u201cI don\u2019t lie. I mean I don\u2019t like. In fact, if anything, I\u2019m so truthful that it gets me in trouble, OK? They say I\u2019m too truthful. And, no I don\u2019t lie. I don\u2019t lie. I\u2019m self-funding my campaign. I tell the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The fact that he is bankrolling himself, to many Americans, does not raise questions about our campaign finance laws or the corrupt nature of campaign finance today\u2014but rather it says something about his truthfulness.\u00a0He does not owe anybody anything.\u00a0He is not in a condition of <em>obedientia<\/em>. Not at all like that other figure in history that Foucault describes on page 136 of <em>Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling<\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>the example concerns a woman, a wealthy woman who had decided\u00a0to renounce life and had accepted as the form of renunciation to\u00a0become the servant of someone else. She came upon a mistress who was\u00a0just towards her\u2014not indulgent, but just. She therefore asked the bishop\u00a0to find her an old and particularly unjust and cantankerous woman whose\u00a0caprices she followed so well that she achieved salvation precisely due to\u00a0the fact that the person she served was unjust.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>No, he is not obedient, nor does he present himself as subservient. Not like\u00a0Abbot John, who, Foucualt tells us:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>took\u00a0the path of saintliness as the disciple of a monk who, one day, told him to\u00a0plant a dried stick in the desert far from any well or spring. He told him\u00a0to water it twice a day, promising him that the stick would blossom (this\u00a0is an addition from a later version, but no matter). No need to tell you\u00a0how the story ends: at the end of the year, the stick was still withered. The\u00a0master criticized his disciple Abbot John for not having watered it sufficiently,\u00a0and so he watered it for another year, and of course the tree finally\u00a0blossomed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>No, Trump can tell the truth because he is funding his own campaign. He does not serve anyone. He does not obey another, only himself and his truth, he tells us.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">***<\/p>\n<p>I have emphasized Donald Trump in part to de-romanticize truth-telling and to re-politicize it. Too often, we associate truth-telling with our favorite heroes, like Antilochus, or with tragic heroes, like Oedipus. We focus on vesperal examinations of conscience, or on the performativity of the words of Pierre Rivi\u00e8re or Patrick Henry\u2014the excluded other, the mad. We gravitate toward the\u00a0<em>parrhesiaste\u00a0<\/em>who we admire or the courage of truth. But it is important to remember, lest we get too romantic, that Donald Trump too claims the position of the truth teller and, for many, he is the\u00a0<em>parrhesiast<\/em>e.<\/p>\n<p>So\u00a0with this context in mind, let me begin to address the three questions raised in Judith Butler\u2019s and Stathis Gourgouris\u2019s brilliant comments. What I would suggest, perhaps to launch the discussion, is that we may need to write a new chapter on avowal in the digital age. As I have tried to establish in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.hup.harvard.edu\/catalog.php?isbn=9780674504578\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Expository Society<\/a><\/em>, power circulates differently in the digital age. Donald Trump\u2019s presidential campaign is a reflection of that. Trump has succeeded in drawing attention to himself precisely because he is a master of reality TV and a great communicator on social media.<\/p>\n<p>In this digital age, Trump has reached such a wide audience in large part because of his Tweets and reality TV snippets. The cable news network <em>CNN<\/em> captures this best in a pithy lead to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/10\/26\/opinions\/jones-trump-social-media\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">story<\/a> titled \u201cTrump: The social media president?\u201d:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>FDR was the first \u201cradio\u201d president. JFK emerged as the first \u201ctelevision\u201d president. Barack Obama broke through as the first \u201cInternet\u201d president.<\/p>\n<p>Next up? Prepare to meet Donald Trump, possibly the first &#8220;social media&#8221; and &#8220;reality TV&#8221; president.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Trump\u2019s campaign is somewhat unique in this sense and his success has been related, in my opinion, to his command of reality TV\u2014his performances on <em>The Apprentice<\/em> and <em>Celebrity Apprentice<\/em>. Trump has become such a social media phenomenon, that even when he did not participate in one of the Republican debates, that very night he dominated the other candidates in terms of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/blogs\/live-from-des-moines\/2016\/01\/donald-trump-social-search-engine-218391#ixzz41Zf7yD2d\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">searches<\/a> on the Internet and social media postings.\u00a0And thanks to John Oliver, the second most searched presidential candidate these days is Donald Drumpf.<\/p>\n<p>But this is merely a reflection of a larger issues: we all are now functioning in a new political reality of public avowals disseminated far and wide.\u00a0This is having an effect on all the different forms of avowal, including important implications for sexual avowal. Our more curated sexual avowals today are affected by the digital media. So for instance, in contrast to anonymous chat rooms, \u201cpublic proclamations of non-mainstream or gay sexual orientations seem[s] to be rare on Facebook\u201d\u2014or at least, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.academia.edu\/1950077\/Identity_construction_on_Facebook_Digital_empowerment_in_anchored_relationships\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">more infrequent<\/a>.<span style=\"font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;\">\u00a0<\/span>According to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.academia.edu\/1950077\/Identity_construction_on_Facebook_Digital_empowerment_in_anchored_relationships\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">studies<\/a>, it is more common and disproportionally so to read mainstream, heterosexual displays of affection like this one, by a female student in a Facebook study: \u201cI am currently married to a man named xxx [real name was provided originally but removed here to protect privacy]. He is the reason I wake up ever morning with a smile on my face &amp; the reason why I look forward to living another day. He is my lover &amp; best friend.\u201d\u00a0Apparently, only recently are people beginning to post about getting divorced on social media like Facebook. Still today it is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2014\/12\/28\/fashion\/facebook-last-taboo-the-unhappy-marriage.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">relatively rare<\/a> to see \u201cthe documentation of strife, anxiety, discord or discontent.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And it affects us, everyone of us, right here as well. This very evening, our own truth telling \u2026 it is being digitized and broadcast, simultaneously, live, on webcam, around the world. We are communicating, right now, with colleagues, friends, strangers, with people in Australia, New Zeeland, Hungary, Brazil, Paris, Slovenia, Korea, Turkey, the Palestinian Territories. Yes, in the last livestream report from our last seminar, there were two colleagues in the Palestinian Territories participating in the seminar.<\/p>\n<p>We have <a href=\"https:\/\/@Foucault1313\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Twitter repeating our truth-telling<\/a> and Facebook comments.\u00a0We live in a new world, one in which we are exposed and exposing ourselves \u2013 and I do not think we can avoid our own complicity in the shifting sands of avowal.<\/p>\n<p>So, to launch the discussion, we might flesh out the original three questions with a series of other strands:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Could it be that the increased and pervasive publicity of our digital age has rendered our avowals more thin, perhaps in a useful way, in a way that might loosen the bonds that tie us to our truths?\u00a0It is, after all, far more easy today to avow or disavow to a huge multitude. Trump can do it in a flash to 6.58 Million followers on Twitter. So on Feb. 28<sup>th<\/sup>, Trump would tweet, regarding David Duke: \u201cI disavow.\u201d A disavowal that would get 5.7 thousand retweets and 11 thousand loves, likes, hearts, or favorites, whatever you want to call them. With even more on Facebook \u2013 where his official page has something like 6 million likes.<\/li>\n<li>Are these proliferating avowals in different relation to the other: There is no Dr. Leuret, no judge doing any sentencing, no spouse at the end of that vow. Are these cheaper avowals? Are they less bound to institutional structures?\u00a0Are we now facing a more instrumentalized form of avowal on-line?<\/li>\n<li>Do we need to sever these new forms of avowal from the core of truly subjective avowals\u2014the religious confessions, the spiritual guidance?\u00a0But what is this \u201ctruly subjective\u201d that I just mentioned?<\/li>\n<li>How does Antilochus\u2019 political quasi-avowal differ, in any meaningful way from Donald Trumps? Antilochus, you will remember, was fooled by his youth, or so he said. But in the process, reinstituted, I would say, in an even more solid way, the social hierarchy of seniority and heroism of ancient Greece. His purported truth-telling established a stronger order. Is it any different with Trump today?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Maybe we should end, then, where we began, once again with Dum\u00e9zil:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Looking back into the deepest reaches of our species\u2019 history, \u2018truthful speech\u2019 [la parole vraie] has been a force few could resist. From early on, truth was one of man\u2019s most formidable weapons, most prolific sources of power, and most solid institutional foundations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"#_ednref3\" name=\"_edn3\"><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Bernard E. Harcourt\u00a0 Judith Butler and Stathis Gourgouris have brilliantly framed Foucault\u2019s 1981 lectures on Subjectivit\u00e9 et v\u00e9rit\u00e9 and Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling. Their comments pose\u00a0three questions for our discussion: How individualized are we when we bind ourselves, given that we&hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/2016\/03\/06\/three-questions-on-avowal-subjectivity-and-truth\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1641,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38975],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-posts-10-13"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1641"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/foucault1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}