Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Foucault essay on power
Foucault and power
Foucault essay on power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Foucault essay on power
Meghan Byers Professor Koontz ENGWR 302 9 April 2014 Analysis of Modernity and the Aufklärung in Foucault’s What is Critique “What is Critique?” by Michel Foucault contains explanations for why we are governed in the way we are, the accompanying want to not be governed so much or at all, and to finally be governed not because we want to but because we consider the consequences for doing otherwise and decide to not rebel against authority. (In “What is Critique?”, Foucault refers to the French people when he means “we” but his essay is often relevant to and expanded to the entire Western world and culture.) Foucault defines being governed as “a certain way of thinking, speaking and acting, a certain relationship to what exists, to what one knows, to what one does, a relationship to society, to culture and also a relationship to others” and he states that there is a critical attitude of this that forms out of rebellion to the way we are being governed as well as it exists indefinitely in perpetuity to it (42). Put more simply, the critical attitude exists alongside our way of being governed and the critical attitude is as dependent upon our way of being governed as much as our way of being governed is as dependent upon the critical attitude. This critical attitude appears as a reaction to “modernity” also known as a prevailing attitude that came into being due to the Enlightenment in post-dark ages times. Furthermore, he sees much of who we are or have become as something that has been governed into us (as well as he alludes to a power and knowledge dichotomy he will discuss later). Foucault argues that this is the foundation of the critical attitude and he states that the main purpose of his essay is to define criticism, cause hi... ... middle of paper ... ...lidated or simply rational or simply generally accepted” (61). This maintains that something known by one may not be considered knowledge if it does not follow the conventions of the knowledge of the time, those in power, or if the thing known does not coerce people into believing it, it may not be considered knowledge at all. This drives home the point that all knowledge is subjective to a time, power, person, or place. Foucault expresses, again, that this is not necessarily troubling because “nothing can function as a mechanism of power if it is not deployed according to procedures, instruments, mean and objectives” and that means that all knowledge would be meaningless if it did not have power. Knowledge has to have power to exist as it does in the same way that critique must exist with our current means of governing in order for governing and critique to exist.
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
However, there are other critiques that take a different approach on the oppression that exists in the novel. In "Urban Panopticism And Heterotopic Space In Kafka 's Der Process And Orwell 's Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Raj Shah argues that the way in which society in novel is oppressed is not an obvious oppression but one that focuses on constant surveillance. He uses Foucault’s arguments on panopticism to describe this. Shah states, “Foucault neologizes panopticism to describe a form of power relying not on overt repression, but rather upon the continuous surveillance of a population and the consequent strict regulation of the body” (703). He explains it is the constant surveillance that strips individuals of their rights and places them under oppression. He goes on to
Ever feel as though someone is watching you? You know that you are the only one in a room, but for some reason you get an eerie feeling that you are not alone? You might not see anyone, but the eyes of a stranger could be gazing down on you. In Foucault's "Panopticism," a new paradigm of discipline is introduced, surveillance. No one dares to break the law, or do anything erroneous for that matter, in fear that they are being watched. This idea of someone watching your every move compels you to obey. This is why the idea of Panopticism is such an efficient form of discipline. The Panopticon is the ideal example of Panopticism, which is a tool for surveillance that we are introduced to in “Panopticism.” Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," has taken the idea of surveillance one step further. The government not only observes everyone, but has complete control over society. The citizens of the United States cannot even think for themselves without being interrupted by the government. They are prisoners in their own minds and bodies. The ideals of “Panopticism” have been implemented to the fullest on society in Vonnegut’s "Harrison Bergeron," through physical and mental handicaps.
In 1790, Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament, made an impassioned plea in “Reflections on the Revolution in France” to avoid letting the radical changes occurring around the world cause B...
...ga, Dino. “Modules on Foucault: On Power.” Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Purdue U. 1 Dec. 2013. .
Foucault once stated, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests” (301). By this, he means that our society is full of constant supervision that is not easily seen nor displayed. In his essay, Panopticism, Foucault goes into detail about the different disciplinary societies and how surveillance has become a big part of our lives today. He explains how the disciplinary mechanisms have dramatically changed in comparison to the middle ages. Foucault analyzes in particular the Panopticon, which was a blueprint of a disciplinary institution. The idea of this institution was for inmates to be seen but not to see. As Foucault put it, “he is the object of information, never a subject in communication”(287). The Panopticon became an evolutionary method for enforcing discipline. Today there are different ways of watching people with constant surveillance and complete control without anyone knowing similar to the idea of the Panopticon.
(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.
More easily understood Foucault is presenting forth the idea of hegemony, or the thought that power structures exist because everyone buys into them. For example, women’s dress in business situations. For the most part, women are expected to dress in nigh uncomfortable clothes in the work place: skirts, heels, makeup (to a degree). Women accept this, men accept this, and everyone in society accepts this as a norm. Because it is seen as “normal” rather than something forced upon women by a group, other women will police their peers: sharp looks, snide comments, etc. This norm is policed by those who are trapped by it and they never think about why it is they are required to dress as they
Before the Revolution, France experienced a period of time called the Enlightenment. Traditional concepts, such as religion and style of government, were debated upon by scholars, philosopher, and ordinary people. One of the most famous writers of the Enlightenment was philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He introduced the concept that the people should be in charge instead of an individual ruler. This idea became known as the general will. In his “Ths Social Contract” Rousseau states, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau). Throughout the future French Revolution, Rousseau’s writings became a cornerstone to the French people. His ideas gave the French people a definition on why the position of the King should be abolished. What was even better, Rousseau even described why the people be placed in charge. At the time of the Revolution an enormous amount of France’s power was allocated to the King and very little was left for the people. In order to achieve more power for themselves, the citizens of France lobbied against a monarchy and instead for Rousseau’s philosophy that the collective whole should rule. Under the ideas of Rousseau, all French citizens would receive power because the collective whole was the governing power. However, obtaining such intentions required that the people abuse the traditional powers of France as Furet
As each person feels alone and alienated under big brother’s watchful eye, they have no choice but to build the only relationship and bond they can, with that of their oppressor. The knowledge that the thought police watches the citizen’s every move influences the masses towards a “norm” of a constant state of fear and discipline resulting in utmost loyalty to Big Brother. Also, because people have no idea when they’re being watched, they learn to behave as if always under scrutiny. This transforms people into their own forms of a panoptic gaze, policing their own thoughts and actions from the fear of possible surveillance. Foucault refers to it as “ becoming the bearers of our own oppression”.
...e concept of panopticon is enough in our society to insure discipline when he says, “A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation. So it is not necessary to use force to constrain the convict to good behavior, the madman to calm, the worker to work, the schoolboy to application, the patient to the observation of the regulations. Bentham was surprised that panoptic institutions could be so light: there were no more bars, no more chains, no more heavy locks” (Foucault 289). Only thing that our society needs today to make it a better place is panopticon. This is exactly what Foucault is saying when he says, “panoptic institutions could be so light”. People in our society are just like the prisoners inside the panopticon. We think that some is watching from the tower and we behave properly similar to the traffic rules example that I talked about.
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?
In the essay “The Politics of Truth”, Michel Foucault examines what critique is. Foucault begins his explanation of critique by relating it to Immanuel Kant’s definition of enlightenment. In the essay “What is Enlightenment” Kant argues that society has developed an “immaturity” that relies on the direction of authority. Kant states “If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need to exert myself at all” (3). Kant believes that this “immaturity” leads to society being constrained. Kant believes that “the public’s use of one’s own reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment” (4). Kant provides an example of a tax payer who pays his taxes but questions them as well. Kant states that the taxpayer “[civic duty is to] publicly express his thoughts regarding the impropriety or even injustice of such taxes” (5). In Kant’s example, a connection can be made to Foucault’s argument “what is critique?” Foucault’s examination of critique begins with his question “how to be governed like that” (44)? Foucault uses this question and its connection to Kant’s “Enlightenment” to critically look at the history of “power and knowledge”.
From a very young age we are taught to hold back any criticisms we may have for those of authority, be they our parents, teachers, bosses, or elders. Through minute everyday interactions throughout our childhood, minute interactions can often result in unintentional lifelong lessons. This backfires because in turn, many are not taught that criticism is not exclusively negative. Though I do believe it is very important to respect the authority figures in our lives, i do not believe withholding criticism is a sign of respect. Rather I see it as a result of intimidation or fear. People should instead realize that critical thinking as a whole is not inherently negative, and encompasses a far more broad process of understanding, beyond simple negativity. People no matter how high of a position of authority they possess are still only human and are therefore very capable of making mistakes. In such cases it’s important to point out these mistakes. This does not mean one would have
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.