Foucault Power and Knowledge
Summary
TLDRIn this video, we delve into Michel Foucault's influential theories on the intricate relationship between power and knowledge. Foucault revolutionizes traditional political thought by shifting focus from the rulers to the ruled, advocating that power is not a top-down force but a pervasive, circulating entity. He challenges the conventional view that power suppresses knowledge, instead arguing that power generates knowledge, thus controlling what is known and knowable. The video also addresses the limitations of Foucault's theories, questioning the origins of power and the implications for political change.
Takeaways
- 😀 Foucault is a highly influential 20th-century thinker, particularly known for his insights on the relationship between power and knowledge.
- 🔍 Traditional political philosophy focuses on the ruler and the state, whereas Foucault shifts the focus to the ruled and the everyday power dynamics.
- 🏛️ Foucault critiques the traditional approach to power, arguing that it is too simplistic and hierarchical, suggesting instead that power circulates and permeates all aspects of society.
- 🏫 Foucault examines institutions like schools and prisons to understand how power operates and disciplines individuals, influencing their behavior and internalization of authority.
- ⏰ He discusses the role of routines, schedules, and structures within institutions as mechanisms that enforce discipline and normalize certain behaviors.
- 📚 Foucault posits that power dictates the terms of knowledge, shaping what can be known and how it is understood, challenging the conventional view of power and knowledge as separate entities.
- 🌟 Power, according to Foucault, does not suppress knowledge; instead, it has an appetite for it, seeking to categorize and control the knowable.
- 🤔 The script raises questions about Foucault's philosophy, such as how it's possible to know anything if power dictates knowledge, and what the implications are for studying power itself.
- 🧐 Foucault's work leaves open the question of the origin and nature of power, which could be seen as an amorphous force that is always present and shaping society.
- 🌐 The script suggests that Foucault's views may challenge the feasibility of political change, as power is seen as an ever-shifting and reconstituting entity rather than a static structure to be overthrown.
Q & A
Who is Michel Foucault and why is he significant?
-Michel Foucault is one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century known for his work on the relationship between power and knowledge. His ideas have significantly impacted various fields including philosophy, sociology, and political theory.
What is the traditional approach to the problem of power according to the video?
-The traditional approach to the problem of power is based on juridico-institutional models, focusing on sovereignty, the theory of the state, and who holds power within a community.
How does Foucault's perspective on power differ from traditional political philosophy?
-Foucault's perspective differs by focusing on the ruled rather than the rulers, and by viewing power as a circulating force that permeates all aspects of society, rather than a top-down hierarchical structure.
What does Foucault suggest about the power dynamics in institutions like schools?
-Foucault suggests that power dynamics in institutions like schools are evident in their structures, such as rows in classrooms, bells, and daily routines, which discipline individuals into responding to authority and internalizing power structures.
How does Foucault view the relationship between power and knowledge?
-Foucault views power as dictating the terms of knowledge, suggesting that power decides what can be known, how much should be known, and even what can be considered true or knowable.
What is the conventional Greek view on the relationship between power and knowledge as mentioned in the video?
-The conventional Greek view, traceable to philosophers like Plato, is that political leaders need proper knowledge to use power well, akin to how a ship's captain or a doctor needs expertise to perform their roles effectively.
What does Foucault argue about the nature of power in terms of its relationship with knowledge?
-Foucault argues that power does not suppress knowledge but rather produces it, with an appetite for categorization and control, as a knowable thing can be more easily managed.
What are the two major problems with Foucault's argument as discussed in the video?
-The two major problems are: 1) If power produces knowledge, how can we know anything, especially about power itself, without merely participating in it? 2) Foucault does not clearly explain where power comes from, what it wants, or if it has agency, which threatens the validity of his argument.
How does the concept of wellness illustrate Foucault's idea of power's relationship with knowledge?
-The concept of wellness illustrates Foucault's idea by showing how relaxation and leisure have been turned into a discipline and industry, with power entering this domain and categorizing it, making it knowable and controllable.
What is the implication of Foucault's view on power for political change and the establishment of just power structures?
-Foucault's view implies that political change might not be about overturning power structures but rather about power reconstituting itself in different forms, which challenges the idea of establishing a more just power structure.
Outlines
🧠 Understanding Foucault's Perspective on Power and Knowledge
This paragraph introduces the topic of discussion, which is the influential French philosopher Michel Foucault and his examination of the relationship between power and knowledge. The speaker aims to clarify Foucault's key insights, which are often misunderstood. The focus is on how Foucault diverges from traditional political philosophy by emphasizing the analysis of power's penetration into everyday life and individual bodies, rather than just its institutional forms. The speaker references Giorgio Agamben's interpretation of Foucault, highlighting his departure from the 'juridico institutional' models of power to a more nuanced view that includes the ways power affects our lives in spaces like prisons and hospitals, not just in traditional political institutions.
🏫 The Impact of Power Structures on Daily Life
The second paragraph delves into Foucault's examination of power dynamics within societal institutions, using the school system as an example. It discusses how schools, through their structures and routines, discipline students into certain behaviors and responses, effectively internalizing power structures. The paragraph also explores Foucault's radical view on the relationship between power and knowledge, suggesting that power dictates what can be known and studied, and thus shapes our understanding of truth and reality. The speaker points out that Foucault sees power as having an appetite for knowledge, as it allows for categorization and control, challenging the conventional view of power as suppressive of knowledge.
🤔 Foucault's Challenges: Power, Knowledge, and Political Change
The final paragraph addresses the complexities and criticisms of Foucault's theories. It raises questions about the implications of his views on power and knowledge, particularly how it affects our ability to know and understand power itself. The speaker also discusses the issue of the origin and nature of power, noting that Foucault does not provide clear answers, which could undermine his entire argument. Furthermore, it touches upon the challenges Foucault's ideas pose to traditional notions of political change and justice, suggesting that his view might not support the idea of overthrowing an unjust regime in favor of a more just one, as power is seen as an ever-changing and self-reconstituting force.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Michel Foucault
💡Power
💡Knowledge
💡Discipline
💡Giorgio Agamben
💡Sovereignty
💡Aristotle
💡Truth
💡Wellness
💡Agency
Highlights
Foucault's key insights revolve around the relationship between power and knowledge.
Foucault abandons traditional juridico-institutional models of power in favor of analyzing its concrete manifestations.
Agamben summarizes Foucault's work as a decisive abandonment of traditional approaches to power.
Foucault's work challenges the traditional political philosophy by focusing on the ruled rather than the rulers.
Power, according to Foucault, is not a hierarchical, one-way force but circulates and permeates society.
Foucault shifts focus from political institutions to everyday spaces like prisons and hospitals to understand power dynamics.
The state is considered superstructural by Foucault, as it operates on the basis of already existing power relations.
Foucault's analysis of schools as disciplinary institutions highlights how power structures are internalized.
Power and knowledge are deeply intertwined, with power dictating the terms of what can be known.
Foucault extends Aristotle's view that politics is the master science, determining the scope of other sciences.
Foucault suggests that power has an appetite for knowledge, as it allows for categorization and control.
The concept of wellness as an industry exemplifies how power invades and codifies aspects of life.
Foucault argues that power produces knowledge, not just suppresses it, challenging the conventional view.
The question of how it's possible to know anything about power if power produces knowledge is a major issue in Foucault's theory.
Foucault's work does not fully explain the origin or agency of power, which threatens the validity of his argument.
The implications of Foucault's views on power challenge the possibility of political change and the establishment of just power structures.
Transcripts
hi everyone so today we're going to talk
about michelle foucault and particularly
the relationship between power
and knowledge foucault is certainly one
of the most influential thinkers of the
20th century in fact
i would say you'd be hard-pressed to
find anybody who's been as influential
however people really struggle to
understand foucault
so i'm going to try to help you with
that in this video i'm going to talk
about foucault's key
insights and by the end of the video
we'll also discuss a couple of the major
problems with foucault's argument so you
can understand the limitations
of his thinking and as i mentioned if
you really want to understand fuko
i think you really have to understand
the relationship between power
and knowledge
[Music]
so for my money one of the clearest and
best summations
of foucault's whole project can be found
in this work by giorgio agamben
now agamon himself is another difficult
to understand theorist
and so when you first read this this is
going to seem difficult
but i promise you it's all going to make
sense in a second so agamon says
one of the most persistent features of
foucault's work is its decisive
abandonment of the traditional approach
to the problem of power
which is based on juridico institutional
models
the definition of sovereignty the theory
of the state
in favor of an unprejudiced analysis of
the concrete ways in which power
penetrates
subjects very bodies and forms of life
come again so essentially what agamon is
saying is that foucault's work
takes the whole tradition of political
philosophy and turns it on its head
and this is partly why foucault is hard
for us to understand because
when we first read him he seems to be
thinking about things
upside down and backwards now to
understand foucault's innovation let's
think for a second about traditional
modes of political thought
in particular let's think about
aristotle aristotle famously advanced
this theory of the six regimes
his claim was that all governments all
regimes can fit into one of six
categories
governments are differentiated from each
other in a couple of ways first
by number the number of rulers is the
regime world by one person like a
monarchy
or is it ruled by many like in a
democracy and the other thing we need to
look at is interest
whose interest does the ruling party
serve the public interest
or its own interest this according to
aristotle's what differentiates a
monarchy from a tyranny
a monarchy and a tyranny both have one
ruler but the monarchy rules
in the public interest while a tyrant
clearly rules in his own interest
so this is what agamben was saying about
the sovereign and the state
the traditional way to think about
politics is to focus on
who rules everything then follows from
what kind of power structure a community
has in place
different regimes will have different
laws and will produce different types of
citizens
foucault flips everything around instead
of focusing on the ruler
he consistently focuses our attention on
the ruled
but it goes further because fuco's other
main point is that
our traditional accounts of power are
reductive
they're too simple power is not this
hierarchical
one-way force that moves from the top
down
rather foucault says power circulates it
moves
all around us and even through us
foucault
asks us where is power visible is it
only in the senate or the courtroom or
the parliament
this he thinks is an oversimplification
matcha foucault's work is about drawing
our attention to
other kinds of spaces like prisons or
hospitals
it's in these places where foucault
argues power dynamics are most clearly
visible
if we try to understand power only by
attending to the state
or the sovereign to explicitly political
institutions
we're missing the whole picture foucault
is less interested in rulers
lawmakers and forms of government he
wants to move beyond the state
first of all because the state for all
the omnipotence of its apparatuses
is far from being able to occupy the
whole field of actual power relations
and further because the state can only
operate on the basis of other
already existing power relations the
state is super structural in relation to
a whole series of power networks that
invest the body
sexuality the family kinship knowledge
technology and so forth
let's take a school for example when we
think about what's happening in schools
we
typically think about well what are
students studying are they studying
math or science history and when we
think about power dynamics we
usually think about a teacher a teacher
is kind of like a ruler
in the classroom but foucault would say
we're missing the whole picture
he wants us to focus on the whole
apparatus of a school system why do
classrooms so often have rows
and why do schools have bells and
meticulously worked out daily routines
and schedules
foucault talks about this in one of his
most famous works discipline and punish
and he suggests that
those kinds of structures produce a
person they discipline you
into being the sort of person who
responds to bells who responds to
schedules who
responds to a particular mode of
authority not only that
but schools incentivize us and reward us
in ways that prompt us to internalize
these power structures
when we're in school we try to be good
students we try our best
we want to excel at obedience that's
power okay now let's talk a bit more
explicitly about the relationship
between power and knowledge
because here again foucault is flipping
the tradition
on its head the conventional way of
thinking about this relationship between
power and knowledge is again
traceable to the ancient greeks you've
probably heard people talk about the
ship of state
this is a classical metaphor used to
illustrate the importance of political
expertise
philosophers like plato liking governing
a city to piloting a ship
in both situations lacking the proper
knowledge
the right kind of expertise will doom
you
doom the ship or the state to failure
this is a classic socratic argument that
our political leaders much like ships
captains
or carpenters or doctors need to know
what they're doing and if they don't
have the proper knowledge
then they will use power badly so this
is the conventional way of thinking
about power and knowledge
think about a chainsaw for example if
you have a chainsaw
and you know how to use it well you can
do things with that chainsaw
but if you have the chainsaw and you
don't know how to use it
well you can hurt yourself and others
now
foucault posits a more radical
relationship between power and knowledge
the key claim is really that power
dictates the terms of knowledge
so power decides what things there
are and in what ways they can be known
now in some respects this isn't entirely
radical this is just an extension of
something aristotle said which is that
politics is the master science
and it determines what all the other
sciences can do
what ought to be taught in school how
much ought to be known what ought not to
be studied
that's just the business of politics
foucault extends this argument and
suggests that
if power dictates what can be studied
how much should be known
what cannot be known then doesn't power
in a sense dictate what is
true and maybe even more what can even
be knowable
think about something like wellness
basically
we've taken relaxation leisure rest
and turned it into a whole industry a
discipline
we have conferences on wellness we can
now take degrees
in wellness studies our free time our
leisure is now being codified
and measured we are being encouraged to
discipline ourselves into resting
properly
foucault might suggest that what we see
here is power invading
entering into this new region or
territory of our lives
power actually has a kind of appetite
for
knowledge because a knowable thing is
something
categorizable it has definite limits and
if it can be known
it can be controlled we sometimes
imagine an adversarial relationship
between truth and power
we might think of figures like socrates
or galileo as
these lovers of knowledge who speak
truth to power
foucault imagines a very different
relationship where
power actually produces knowledge so in
the fuconian sense power is not
interested
in the suppression of knowledge or the
suppression of truth
power actually wants the proliferation
of knowledge
power wants more and more things to be
identified to be categorized to be
defined
once we become objects of knowledge we
become subject
to power power has an appetite for
knowledge and increasingly fine
distinctions
increase powers reach now you don't have
to agree with this foucault might be
wrong and as i said there are serious
problems with foucault's argument and
i'm gonna address two of them here
problem one if power does produce
knowledge
how is it possible to know anything and
in particular
how is it possible to know anything
about power
foucault i don't think ever fully solves
this problem
wouldn't studying power then just be
participating in power we are studying
things that power wants us to study and
we're learning about the categories that
power has already defined for us
and if all that's the case what is
foucault
doing as a thinker and a writer how does
he understand his own project if
knowledge
is subject to power second problem what
is power where does it come from what
does it want
does it want anything does it have
agency does it have an agenda
foco never really answers this question
and it threatens to invalidate his whole
argument
foucault is very useful and very
effective
at describing power's effects he's very
good very persuasive about describing
the way power works powers techniques
the things it
does and how it operates in our lives
all that is very persuasive and
believable
but where power comes from it's kind of
like the force
it's just out there all this means in
focalin terms
it may not be possible to overthrow an
unjust regime for vico political change
just means power endlessly
reconstituting itself in different
forms the whole idea of overturning a
government or a power structure
in order to establish a more just power
structure
becomes kind of suspect aren't we just
substituting one power formation for
another power formation
and if you think there are political
models that are better or more just than
others
then i think we might have some problems
with foucault
that'll do it for now talk to you soon
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)