Foucault speaks about the parrhesiastic contract in which there is an implied approval to speak freely. The subject is permitted by the powerful to speak what is on the mind. Of course, such an approval would be unneccesary were the topic of speech not, in some way, dangerous. The powerful gives permission for the subject to deliver bad news or a critique of their leadership and, by so doing, provides themselves with the resources needed to change strategy and adapt to a potential danger. Without the parrhesiastic contract the relationship would be of despot and slave and parrhesia would not exist through the non-existence of the parrhesiastic contract.
In performing parrhesia the parrhesiastes is aware of their already constituted relationship of subjection to their audience. I’m reminded here of Foucualt’s words from the Eye of Power in reference to the internalisation of subjection through the awareness of the authoritative gaze:
An inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual under its weight will end by interiorisation to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercizing this surveillance over, and against, himself. A superb formula: power exercised continuously and for what turns out to be minimal cost.
Parhessia necessarily involves the subjectifying creation of the other in a position of power; and it is this move that potentially makes blogging parrhesiastic. Even an imagined audience containing an other of power invokes or creates a level of danger in the writing. The appearance of the other simply confirms or realigns the boundaries of the parrhesiastic contract.