Comparison Of James Scott 's And Michel Foucault 's Theories Of Power And Resistance

Although there are somewhat of similarities between Weber’s and Foucault’s relations of power and dominance, how they evaluate the concepts separately and the ways these concepts are practiced in society, can be distinguished differently. Webber appears to occupy the polar opposite with the respect to his claims of how power becomes existent with bureaucratic instruments and bureaucracy itself, Foucault argues that the power relations are everywhere in society and with expansive elements; society has no option but to internalize (Shaw 2011). His explanation of power is much broader than Weber’s. Focault rejects the hierarchical models of power, and believed that relations of dominance are formations of unequal power (McClaren 2002), and over time domination may seem fixed in society’s social structure (Shaw 2011). Additionally, Foucault looks at the concept of power from a functional strategy, with the functional practices administered by authority, and emphasises that authority commonly uses discursive power and the operation of discourse to maintain the dominance (Smart 2010; Shaw 2011). What is compelling about Foucault’s concept of power are his discursive claims. Unlike Webber, he suggests that power relations are not necessarily derived from state practices, but are all under state control, and highlights that “state and hegemony is in the every area of life” (Shaw 2011). Further, to understand some of Foucault’s functional examples, he focuses on the everyday lives of

All humans crave one thing: Power. Power is directly defined as “the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.” This theme is shown throughout the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. However, there are different forms of power. Different forms of power can be seen throughout the book, and even in many short stories and poems. These different forms of power can be either good or bad, depending on how the power is used. Power can come from fear, wealth, or leadership and trust.

For example in the setting of a workplace the power does not pass from the top down; instead it circulates through their organizational practices. Such practices act like a grid, provoking and inciting certain courses of action and denying others. Foucault considers this as no straightforward matter and believes that it rests on how far individuals interpret what is being laid down as "obvious" or "self evident", institutional power works best when all parties accept it willingly. Foucault's notion of power is a difficult notion to grasp principally because it is never entirely clear on who has the power in the first place, once the idea is removed that power must be vested in someone at the top of the ladder, it becomes much more difficult to identify what power is or where and whom it lies with. Foucault believes that we are used to thinking about power as an identifiable and overt force and that this view is simply not the case, because it is taken for granted that the above statement is true then it is much more complicated to comprehend power as a guiding force that does not show itself in an obvious manner.

Foucault goes through the way governments have attempted to control populations throughout history, and how power has exercised

“Foucault’s work gave the terms discursive practices and discursive formation to the analysis of particular institutions and their ways of establishing orders of truth, or what is accepted as ‘reality’ in a given society” (Goldberg). Discursive formations display hierarchical arrangement and are understood as reinforcing certain already established identities or subjectivities- in matters of sexuality, status, or class for example. These dominant discourses are understood as in turn reinforced by existing systems of law, education and the media”. Foucault’s work is to show that members of society such as intellectuals, “are implicated in discourse and in the discursive regimes or systems of power and regulation which give them their livelihoods

This part of the paper will provide a comparison with a theorist previously discussed in a lecture. The theorist with whom Michael Foucault’s arguments will be compared to is Emile Durkheim. Durkheim sees crime as functional. He says that if there was no crime, all our values would be dispersed--these values are laws. These laws are observed by sanctions and punishments attached to it. However, in order for these laws to exist, there must be a punishment, thus, for there to be a punishment, there has to be crime. Repressive law, according to this classical theorist was based on punishing for the evil doing of the criminal through revenge. Durkheim believes that a crime is not collective and when one goes against the core values of society, one threatens the entire order of society. Therefore, this theorist would agree with Foucault that when disciplining a criminal, he or she should be stripped of their freedom and when

Often time power can be understood as control of material resources and wealth, control of politics and the institutions that make up society (Hutchison,2015). It is important to recognize and identify the core concepts of power or lack of power with individuals in society. The conflict theory allows examination within the text of those who hold power and lack power. The end result of power to hold dominance over another person, group, or society. As a result of the control and power is causes those who lack power to be devalued or alienated from a setting or even society (Hutchinson, 2015).

Never was there ever a more ambiguous term than Power. To single out any one definition of power would limit the words potential, however, the ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something, is succinct in entertaining its polysemic nature. Power is subjective to its holder, wether it be the individual, the people or the position. Through the quote, “I am not interested in Power for Powers sake. I am interested in power that is moral, that is right, that is good”, Martin Luther King Jr presents an ethical, just view of power, contrary to those explored in the texts Othello and 1984. Shakespeare and Orwell use specific literary devices to successfully portray the Power of the Individual, Power of Position and Power of

Modern day power originates from the mind in that we give certain figures power based upon man-made forms of value or worth like money. The definition of power has fluctuated throughout time, and while the past may have emphasized the more violent aspects, today, we have shifted towards a more control based interpretation. Both Michael Foucault and John Berger delve into the idea of power and its functionality. Based on their texts, in our current socio-cultural setting, power is best exploited when the concept behind the power is deindividualized for many purposes, internalized by the people, and integrated throughout society to the point that its origins is mystified.

According to Foucault, power does not belong to the individual, but to the system, to the institution. In his essay on Discipline and Punish, Foucault presents his idea of the panopticon mechanism, a mechanism in which visibility is a trap. With little importance over the actual individual in the role of the observer or of the observed, the object of the system is total power over the observed. Due to the unique shape of the panopticon, there are no corners and thus no blind spots for the observed to hide in. The private space is replaced by the public one. Furthermore, as final evidence of total control, the observed never knows for sure if they are being watched or not, as they can’t see the observer (Foucault 200-205). Foucault further argues that this system is followed by any government institution, placing the society under permanent observation. Individuals might try to evade the system, but achieving liberation and freedom is not something that anyone could do. Dostoevsky’s famous novel, Crime and

Through these various accounts, one witnesses how the reactions in different situations allude to an individual’s outcome and their authoritative position in relevance to others. Ultimately, power is a state of mind in this sense, for an individual’s importance in these situations is determined by the power with which they believe they behold. Not only this, but their success as individuals and how they survive their various encounters is also projected through their mentality associated with power, and it allows them to better manage their

dealing simply with subjects, or even with a “people,” but with a “population,” with its specific phenomena and its peculiar variables." (298/25) This is where we begin to see Foucault's concept of Biopower come into play. One of the central themes of Foucault's writing, he defines biopower as "[T]he forms of power, the channels it takes, and the discourses it permeates in order to reach the most tenuous and individual modes of behavior, the paths that give it access to the rare or scarcely perceivable forms of desire, how it penetrates and controls everyday pleasure—all this entailing effects that may be those of refusal, blockage, and invalidation, but also incitement and intensification: in short, the 'polymorphous techniques of power.'” (292/11 For Foucault, Biopower relates to the government's concern with fostering the life of the population, but is also a form of complete control of that population through surveillance or perceived surveillance. Foucault believed that Biopower permeates through the

We have to contend, in the exercise of our personal power, with the influences of such power-channels in our environments and how they add to, limit or distort our exercise of power - e.g. hierarchies, coalitions,

Foucault, addresses in the first part of his work, the power of the sovereign. He guides the readers through the historical period of the power of the monarch and Feudal system and transforms them into the 18th and 19th century. He put particular emphasis on the spectacle of the tortured individual. “Among so many changes, I shall consider one: the disappearance of torture as a public spectacle (p.7).” The spectacle functioned for

Foucault in theorizing the relationship between power and knowledge basically focused on how power operated in the institutions and in its techniques. The point is how power was supported by knowledge in the functioning of institutions of punishment. “He places the body at the centre of the struggles between different formations of power/knowledge. The techniques of regulation are applied to the body” (Wheterell et al., 2001: 78)