Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Michael foucault idea of power
Significance of power in politics
Foucault's Theory of Power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Michael foucault idea of power
Foucault discusses the whole idea of power stressing much on the positions of those people who hold power in any societal setting and how they relate with their subjects to try and ensure that the power is exercised effectively without abandoning or neglecting a section of the subjects being ruled. He also discusses the issue of sex and connects it to power giving details of how sex and politics interrelate. Foucault, in his discussion, gives a detailed analysis on the relationship between power and objectives that those holding power seek to achieve in the long run. He goes ahead to describe the tactics that those in power and generally politics need to employ in order to realize results in view of both the governors and the governed. In his …show more content…
When discussed in the field of politics, the idea is that not only men have power to rule people but also women should be trusted and accorded the responsibility to rule people in good faith. This is one way of ensuring that equality prevails in politics and it gives people an assurance that whether someone is a man , woman or of young age, he/she can hold power and administer it in the most appropriate way without causing any tension. The tactical polyvalence of discourses is another principle that seeks to relate power and the aspect of knowledge. Foucault emphasizes that knowledge is a prerequisite to power and that inadequate knowledge is likely to make it hard for a person to exercise power effectively. He argues that discourse must be perceived to be a chain of segments which are discontinuous. The discontinuity of the segments is what finally appears to be the correct conception or perception of what power, knowledge and sex are. Double conditioning is another principle which seeks to give a clear understanding of the relationship between these three areas. The author’s argument is that the fact that the father is the head of the family does not necessarily imply that he can represent the state. He also argues that a family setting is not a true duplicate of the society because a society entails many different aspects which may not be present in the family. He is against making assumptions that a small part can be a representative of a
Foucault capitalizes that power and knowledge contribute to the discourse of sex; he discusses how people in power controlled this discourse to repress sex entirely. Foucault talks about the repressive hypothesis in his book. The repressive hypothesis states that whoever holds the power, also controls the discourse on sexuality. Specifically, those in power, according to the repressive hypothesis, exercise to repress the discussion of sex. In addition, Foucault comments that knowledge represents power. Whoever has the power can dictate the language of the population, thus this causes powerful people to also regulate the knowledge of the population. Although Foucault does not agree with every aspect that the repressive hypothesis exclaims, he agrees about the timing of when people started to repress sex. With rise of the bourgeoisie in the 17th century, a rise in tighter control about sex also took place. Foucault stated that the discourse of sex remained
(Rabinow 8) Foucault argued that people can rise to power using discourse, “Discourse has the ability to turn human beings into subjects by placing them into certain categories.” (Rabinow 8) These categories are then defined “according to their level of deviance from the acceptable norm.” (Rabinow 8) Some examples of such categories are the homosexual, the insane, the criminal and the i.e. a rabbi now 8). By the above method, called “dividing practices,” people can be manipulated by socially categorizing them and then comparing them to norms.
Introduction The belief of Tocqueville that women play a critical role in societal shaping cannot be separated from his emphasis on the importance of good values and mores to maintain and achieve social prosperity and stability, especially in a democracy. According to Tocqueville, the term mores referred to the various notions that men possessed the different opinions, and the total ideas that shape the mental habits. In the estimation of Tocqueville, mores forms one of the large general causes that are responsible for the democratic republic maintenance in the United States. Mores, according to Brooks et al. (2000p.89), are especially influential and crucial in the democratic societies because of the freedom that people enjoy the strong role of the opinion of the public and the general authority weakness.
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
...easily controls and manipulates the way individuals behave. Although there are no true discourses about what is normal or abnormal to do in society, people understand and believe these discourses to be true or false, and that way they are manipulated by powers. This sexual science is a form of disciplinary control that imprisons and keeps society under surveillance. It makes people feel someone is looking at them and internally become subjective to the rules and power of society. This is really the problem of living in modern society. In conclusion, people live in a society, which has created fear on people of society, that makes people feel and be responsible for their acts. Discourses are really a form in which power is exercised to discipline societies. Foucault’s argument claims discourses are a form of subjection, but this occurs externally not internally.
Pierre Bourdieu was a highly influential theorist. He provides a unique and fascinating definition or understanding of power as well as an explanation and analysis into how power works. This work serves to outline what is this specific concept of power means and contains, how it is created, what are the various forms it takes on and in general, how power works. Power is a difficult concept to define conclusively or definitively however, Bourdieu explains power to be a symbolic construct that is perpetuated through every day actions and behaviours of a society, that manipulate power relations to create, maintain and force the conforming of peoples to the given habitus of that society (Bourdieu, 1977). Power, is a force created through the social conventions of a specific community that dictate what is expected or accepted by the people while also determining how they understand the world in which they live (Bourdieu, 1977).
In Foucault’s analysis, the concept of Panopticon is developed based on the manipulation of knowledge and power as two coexisting events. He believes that knowledge is obtained through the process of observation and examination in a system of panopticon. This knowledge is then used to regulate the behaviors and conduct of others, creating an imbalance in power and authority. Not only can knowledge create power, power can also be used to define knowledge where the authority can create “truth”. This unbalance of knowledge and power then marks a loss of power for the ends being watched, resulting in an unconditional acceptance of regulations and normalization.
Golder, B. 2009. Foucault, anti-humanism and human rights. Published online by the Hawke Research Institute, University of South Australia, Underdale, SA, 2009.
Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?
Michael Foucault’s chapter titled Panopticism, analyzes how power has advanced in relation to surveillance. The chapter explores how when surveillance first evolved and how the King was the overall dictator and enforcer. The King held all the power and was capable of deciding what rules must be followed and the punishments that were associated with when the rules were disregarded. Punishment and torture was how the King choose to use his power. The King often turned to violence to deter people from committing crimes that he disproved of. It Foucault’s chapter, The body of the condemned, it describe how Robert-François Damiens would be tortured due to his attempt at killing the King. Instead of just
Sarah Snyder Professor Feola Gov’t 416: Critical Theory Assignment #2 On Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” Michel Foucault may be regarded as the most influential twentieth-century philosopher on the history of systems of thought. His theories focus on the relationship between power and knowledge, and how such may be used as a form of social control through institutions in society. In “Truth and Juridical Forms,” Foucault addresses the development of the nineteenth-century penal regime, which completely transformed the operation of the traditional penal justice system.
“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse compartments may be realized.” (Foucault)
Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984) dealt with many aspects of social philosophy during his career, but it is his philosophy surrounding the role and dominance of the author in modern literature that this essay aims to deal with. From the 19th century onwards, Foucault notices that through social and political frameworks, the presence of an author vastly dominates the content and categorisation of any publication of that author. He also throws into question the idea of when an author becomes an author and what writings that he produces should become known as his work. The example he gives refers to items such as letters of correspondence or even simple lists that although might have been constructed by the same author of a canonical text, are not recognised as works of literature. What makes works of literature stand out is the content. Indeed, if one can recognise some basic principles of an authors works that may be used to relate previously anonymously published work, does that not disprove the existence of an original author. Foucault argues that when these common principles are identified (he himself recognises four in this essay) another could simply produce identically styled work according to these, thus rendering the author obsolete. When considering Marx or Freud who both claim in their work that an individual is only a component of the unconsciousness or political agenda, how can an author as an individual even exist? He recognises the author as a fleeting figure, only known through the “singularity of his absence and his link to death” (p.1624) and thereby questions further the role of the individual.
Society is highly stratified when considering social classes i.e. - upper class, middle class, lower class, and working class citizens. That being said, not everyone has the same access to the superstructure; thus creating tension. The largest problem when considering structure and agency is the constant struggle and negotiation of power inequality. Among the asymmetry of power are two major disparities; class and gender. Thinking as a critical theorist, one must consider the individual’s participation in the public sphere; “The word means a false view of the world that is in the interests of the powerful citizens in order to keep the subordinate classes oppressed” (Habermas, 10). Though the public sphere is virtually a democratic sphere where ideas can circulate and opinions are formed there are certain restrictions when referring to lower classes and women and thus how their agencies as individuals are limited.
Foucault in Power/Knowledge (1980), describes knowledge as being conjunction of power relations and information seeking which he terms as ‘power/knowledge’. He states that ‘it is not possible for power to be excercised without knowledge, it is impossible for knowledge not to engender power.’ Foucault here emphasizes that knowledge is not dispassionate, rather an integral part of struggles over power. It also draws the attention to the way that, in producing knowledge, one is also making claim for power. Hence, for Foucault it was more accurate to use the newly formed compound ‘power/knowledge’ to emphasise the way that these two elements depend on one another. “Thus, where there are imbalances of power relations between groups of people or between institutions/states, there will be a production of knowledge. Because of the institutional imbalance in power relations between men and women in Western countries, Foucault would argue, information is produced about women; thus we find many books in libraries about women but few about men, and similarly many about working class but few about the middle classes.”