What is the relationship between knowledge and power? How does power operate for Foucault?
Annotated Bibliography
Kirby, M., (2000). Sociology in perspective.], Heinemann Educational. 37 -38
In chapter 2 of this book, the author discusses the field of sociology in relation to individual and the society. He discusses the issue of power in terms of culture, identity and socialization and considers Michel Foucault works and Marxism and their notions of sociology. The issue of power legitimacy in the society and knowledge in cultures is discussed and includes how inequality arises from the imbalances of and knowledge. Foucault’s view of knowledge as a kind of power is also discussed, and which counts as truth.
PATEL, S. (2010). The ISA handbook of diverse sociological traditions. Los Angeles [i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif.], SAGE Publications. 4-6
The author of the book discusses the many tradition of sociology across the world and more specifically in relation to nation-states. He highlights the reflexive sociology as being the first to start the discussion on the symbiotic relation between power and knowledge. In light of globalization, institutions and knowledge are noted as being reorganized in decisive and new ways. The complexity of dominion and power, the knowledge power relationship is seen to be structured in different ways within various nation states and across the world.
Elliott, A. and Lemert, C., 2014. Introduction to contemporary social theory. Routledge.237-240
In this book, the authors comprehensively introduces and discourses the contemporary social theory and especially the various theoretical traditions relating to Frankfurt school, globalization and beyond. The authors discourses the sociology of knowledge and power as per the philosophy of Marxism where power is possessed by the various institutions, groups or persons. In their discussion of discourse and culture, they explore the power and knowledge theory where power is seen to be in the possessions of the knowledgeable and elite class, corporations and who interact behind the scene in high circles.
TAYLOR, S., WETHERELL, M., & YATES, S. J. (2001). Discourse theory and practice: a reader. London [u.a.], Sage Publications. 76-78
In this book, the author introduces various classic papers and articles relating to discourses analysis. The authors gather major figures in discourse charts and research, the major developments and themes present in this emerging field. Specifically, the authors discuses the way Foucault represents the relationship between power, knowledge and truth, in contrast to the historical representation in other theories. They highlight Foucault belief regarding the power/knowledge discourse especially his concern on how knowledge is put to work.
Bălan, S., 2010. M. Foucault's view on power relations. Cogito-Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2, pp.38-40.
This article analyses the issue of power as of great importance in the philosophical work of Michel Foucault. It clearly highlights how his argument parted with how Marxists interpreted power relations and his suggestions that power is not basically something that is possessed by institutions so that they use it to oppress groups or individuals. The article highlights Foucault’s view on how power operates in the daily interactions between the institutions and people , in that the operation of power or its action involve s not a possession but a strategy.
Relationship between knowledge and power
According to Foucault, Knowledge and power are not independent entities but are both inextricably linked since power is exercised through knowledge and it’s a function of the same. Knowledge and power are therefore, linked through texts and discourses (TAYLOR, WETHERELL, & YATES, 2001, 76). In this case, discourse involves disciplines and social institutions and is characterized by modernity, post-modernity and tradition. The Genealogy of Power and Archaeology of Knowledge were the major works through which his methodology tries to establish this relationship, where genealogy provides a procession viewpoint on discourse web as opposed to archaeological perspective that offers just a snapshot (TAYLOR, WETHERELL, & YATES, 2001, 76). To Foucault, the relationship between power and knowledge is established by the Genealogy of Power. The body is the key element in the power relations operations that are based in a political arena. Analyzing discourse practices is important in understanding the link between political practice and the scientific discourse. Analysis of Genealogy shows that the body is an object of knowledge and is also targeted by exercise of power. A political strategy that involves body’s knowledge and not necessary how it functions is the means through which perception of the body as productive or docile object is obtained. The attention is placed on diffusion of various power technologies and how they relate to the emergence of various kinds of knowledge. These include the science that has an individual person as an object of study (TAYLOR, WETHERELL, & YATES, 2001, 77).
Therefore, power is not seen as a possession of a dominant class or the sovereign but is a strategy. According to Foucault, power is not an institution or a structure but it involves a strategic situation that is complex and also a force-relations multiplicity, and non-subjective or intentional at the same time. For its existence, power depends on the number of times of resistance and which ought not to be reduced to one focus of rebellion. The Subjugation politics, seen in western societies can also explore the relationship between knowledge and power. Initially, the western legal systems presented how absolute power was incorporated in the sovereignty (PATEL, 2010, 4). For instance, the understanding of prison and punishment as elements of political technology from resistances and rebellions which occurred in almost the entire world during the late 1960s and early 70s represents a specific power technology that was exercised over the body and mind. A move away from the focus seen in punishment history that is from body to soul indicates appearance of new discipline tool. In this case, there was not liberation of the body from the power’s grip but instead a displacement of the body to a mediatory and secondary position (PATEL, 2010, 5).
Hence, the three forms of punishment that historically existed including penal torture, penal incarceration and humanitarian reform show the issue of power subject and knowledge object. With regard to penal torture, the link between truth and power are presented on the body. Penal incarceration denied individuals their liberty for some time and involved a strategy for transforming people to make them retrained and submissive. This finally leads to transformation of subjugated bodies as knowledge objects (PATEL, 2010, 6). Knowledge can’t be disinterested but is inextricably interdependent with power. In prison, knowledge is derived and them used in an attempt to transform the offender. In this scenario, focus shifts from offender’s act to criminal’s life, which is a new knowledge subject and power object. By identifying tendencies, instincts and character, the criminal is perceived to be seriously related to his offence, creating the criminology discourse. Therefore, power and knowledge are manifested in prison and punishment and completion of particular major statements is a kind of power that is exercises through various techniques, procedures and instruments. Discipline involves wielding power while knowledge leads to technologies through which power is exercised (Elliott and Lemert , 2014,237).
The power knowledge relationship can also be interpreted as a reciprocal legitimization relationship, which can explain the problem core to understanding the modern statehood. Both power and knowledge needs to be legitimized and it should be possible for them to claim credibility and such recognition has to be worthy. Knowledge legitimization just like political power is bound to changes and it is impossible to explain such changes in terms of knowledge content (Kirby, 2000, 37). This means that power is legitimized by knowledge and on the other hand, power is legitimized by knowledge. Such a symbiotic relationship can be proved, especially in terms of constantly increasing extent to which a reference to knowledge justifies political decisions. This spurns from energy and environmental policies, new industries location, wealth distributions and financial crises management decisions. In a society that knowledge-based and very complex, legitimization state power has virtually be through science and knowledge. This relationship is never a one-way path, and just like power is legitimized by knowledge, most of its legitimization is derived from decisions made by the state such as what is to be learnt in schools, the kind of knowledge need for a candidate to be qualified for a particular public office and what kind of research to be publicly funded (Kirby, 2000, 38).
The relationship between power and knowledge can be structured differently across within nation-states and worldwide, and between traditions. Weberians and Marxists placed more emphasis on the finding the relationship between economic structures and cultural power, while Foucault considered power as existing within a given culture but in relation to various relations between power and knowledge (PATEL, 2010, 4). Hence, all people find themselves trapped in a web that is complex but of varying discourses, every discourse providing a specific way of understanding the aspects of their behavior. Hence, there are discourses that that provides ways in which people can understand the way they feel themselves as ethnic identities, employees, women or men, hospital users and family members (Elliott and Lemert , 2014,237). This complex discourse web leads to creation of culture or a relationship between knowledge and power in a given society. The different resistances in the society can be activated by each discourse among the various individuals and social groups. For instances , the flourishing lesbian culture that has come about in part through resistance to discourses that are dominant and through which heterosexuality is normalized and other overshadowing other kinds of sexuality. A person’s sense of self-identity really emerges from the manner in which he or she is positioned in terms of a specific discourse of modes of knowledge. A major result of the relationship between power and knowledge is “the subject’s constitution”. This means that a person’s sense of self-identity is gotten from the relationship between power and knowledge (Elliott and Lemert , 2014,239). According to Foucault, power is not something that the ruling elites or bureaucracy possesses and it is not always concentrated and it is not concentrated in fundamental institutions like the state, corporations and financial institution (PATEL, 2010, 6). Power is relational and is depicted through knowledge systems or discourse.
How does power operate for Foucault
Foucault disagrees with the notion that few or groups people in the society wields power through coercion, dominating sovereign acts or episodic. According to him, power emanates from everywhere and is everywhere meaning that it is pervasive and dispersed. In this sense, power is not an agency or a structure, but a form of “regime of truth” or meta-power present in the society so that it is constantly negotiated or flux (TAYLOR, WETHERELL, & YATES, 2001, 76). The term power-knowledge is an indication that power is created though various accepted truths, scientific understanding and knowledge. Truth is produced in this world only on the basis of numerous modes of constraints, and it leads to regular power effects. There is a distinct truth regime in every society including politics of truth that are general, meaning the accepted kinds of discourse and which are made to appear as true and ways which makes one to differentiate what is false and true(TAYLOR, WETHERELL, & YATES, 2001, 77). Power is a boundary that constraints or enables possibilities of a given action and, and individuals’ relative capacities to be aware of and determine their boundaries. Foucault does not view power as a repressive or coercive thing that force people to do what they do not wish to, a force that is positive, productive and necessary in a society. Indeed, it produces truth rituals, object domains and reality and the person and any knowledge he may gain is needed for this production. Power is something that manifests itself in a particular manner and not something that a person can possess. Its employment is though a setting like organization, where people act as channels of power but not as the points of power’s application. In addition, power involves a relation’s network system that comprises of the entire society, but not a relation between the oppressors and oppressed. People are seen as just power objects but the center that exert such power or resistance (TAYLOR, WETHERELL, & YATES, 2001, 78).
Power does not mean that there is not freedom, that rights are transferred or that all the power of every person is transferred to few people. It does not equate to violence since passivity is the only contrast to violence. Contrary to this, a relationship of power may only be expressed in terms of two components that are indispensible if such a relationship is to continue. Power involves various actions that are carried out upon another individual’s actions or reaction. Even if violence can form part of power relationships, its actual exercise cannot be termed as violence, but a way upon which an acting subject is acted upon (Bălan, 2010, 38). Hence, power involves less confrontation between enemies or the relation of one to another than an issue of government. In this case, government refers not only to states management or political structures but also the manner in which individual or group conduct may be directed. To Foucault, freedom is a key component of power since it can only be exercised over subjects who are free and as long as they have freedom (Bălan, 2010, 40). Power cannot operate when a person is in chains, in which case it will be an issue of constraint to physical relationship. The concept of will and uncompromised freedom are at the center of operation of power. A state does not majorly own power; instead it creates systems of relations between people in order for a good working of political system. This can explain the replacement of monarch system of power by a democratic one in Europe (Bălan, 2010, 40).
References
Kirby, M., (2000). Sociology in perspective.], Heinemann Educational. 37 -38
PATEL, S. (2010). The ISA handbook of diverse sociological traditions. Los Angeles [i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif.], SAGE Publications. 4-6
Elliott, A. and Lemert, C., 2014. Introduction to contemporary social theory. Routledge.237-240
TAYLOR, S., WETHERELL, M., & YATES, S. J. (2001). Discourse theory and practice: a reader. London [u.a.], Sage Publications. 76-78
Bălan, S., 2010. M. Foucault's view on power relations. Cogito-Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2, pp.38-40.
