The Relationship Between Power And Knowledge

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

Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman’s work was centralised around there two different concepts of how your identity is formed through the process of power and expert knowledge. This Essay will discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault who was a French Social Theorist. His theories addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and how both of these are used as a form of social control through society. The essay will look at Foucault’s work in The Body and Sexuality, Madness and Civilisation and Discipline and Punish which displays how he conceptualised Power and identity on a Marxist and macro basis of study. The Essay will also address the Ideas of Erving Goffman who was A Canadian Born Sociologist who’s key study was what

“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

Foucault began to compare this new idea of surveillance, power and punishment of the Panopticon to the power during the Middle Ages by the King which was more public in contrast to the Panopticon. The Panopticon was more discrete. It was not a show or form of entertainment when someone was punished unlike when someone is punished with the King. By exploring this, Foucault demonstrated how surveillance has changed overtime.

PHL 612 Philosophy of Law [Calendar Description]: What is law? What makes something a legal norm? Should

“The Panopticon functions as a kind of laboratory of power,” Foucault declares; indeed, much knowledge can be ascertained by “penetra[ting] into men’s behavior” (379).

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.

In Foucault’s account of Biopower, norms and normalization include both discipline and Biopolitics of populations, ie, the social and political regulation. For him, a normalizing society is the historical outcome of a technology of power centred on life. Normalization produces individuals as the counterpart of the operation of norms which is a material artifact of power. In a Biopolitics of population, norms are mobilized in the opposite way, ie, normal comes first and the norm is deduced from it. Thus Biopolitics of populations

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

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)

For centuries scholars, social scientists, philosophers and political theorists have tried to understand the nature and mechanisms of power that structure how social life functions. Karl Marx although he never specifically developed a theory of power, his work constantly addresses it. Max Weber’s definition of power in society remains the starting point for many sociologists (Cole, 2017). Michel Foucault on the other hand theorises the question of power and his theorisation is possibly not only the most known but widely used in the present day (“The “How” and “Why” of Power: From Marx to Foucault to Power today”, 2017).

Power and truth play different but equal roles in maintaining control in a nation. Modern societies create regimes of truth that are enforced by power structures such as government, discipline and laws. When it comes to power, the government, queen or dictator is in charge. They tell their citizens what the main expectations are and how to abide by them. Nevertheless, the government should uphold fairness and not abuse its power unless it is necessary. Power is something that is earned; it is not something that is granted by default. The proper qualities, such as integrity, assertiveness and truth, in government or person can benefit its leadership skill set. Sometimes truth can be manipulated by the government to influence its people so

Knowledge and power are two metaphysical notions that play important roles within society. Power is demonstrated through physical or mental prowess but the power of knowledge is greater as it directs action through thinking. This ability to think allows for plans to come to fruition after meticulous planning, which makes knowledge man’s greatest weapon to overpower his fellow man. French philosopher, Michel Foucault realized the correlation between the two, stating, “Power and knowledge are not seen as independent entities but are inextricably related – knowledge is always an exercise of power and power always a function of knowledge” (“Michel Foucault”). J.M. Coetzee illustrates the theory in Waiting for the Barbarians as the colonial Empire encroaches on native lands through its use of propaganda. In Coetzee’s novel, the relationship between knowledge and power is evident through the corrupted Empire’s manipulation of its denizens to wage war against the barbarians which relates to Foucault’s theory of the correlation between power and knowledge.