The Theory Of Knowledge And Power

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

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.

Q1A) In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its sense perception?

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic

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.

I believe knowledge is power because it helps we as a person, be reminded of past events so that when events like what happened before happens again we do not repeat it. When the history is recorded in the knowledge of past times, math is also and so is science all recorded in knowledge that remind us of events that happened at one time. When knowledge is here in this world to correct mistakes and remind us of how to do something like how to properly conduct wars and the armies successful and failing tactics. I doubt those who think that knowledge is nowhere near considerably close to power is completely mistaken for the fact that without knowledge we would be no where in close to the society we currently have. Also how would one determine

In modern day society people chase after the belief that knowledge is power. The more knowledge you have the higher you are viewed in the food pyramid of society. But in my opinion I don’t believe so. Defined by the dictionary, “knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject”, and the way we receive our knowledge today through the education system provides greater opportunities to those who are powerful and rich while discriminating those who cannot afford to pay for the price of knowledge. Two influential works of literature that support this belief are “Blue Collar Brilliance” and “Hidden Intellectualism.”

Knowledge is power relates extremely well in Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451. It relates to the power the books contain, which leads to the reason in which why books are banished. When Montag finds out why books are eliminated from society he decides to do something about it. Knowledge is power is also present in what Clarisse explains to Montag and maybe the reason to why she is now dead by getting “run over”.

By studying different cultures, through artifacts found in their now desolate, but previously thriving communities, we can look at the details of their beliefs, ideas, attitudes and assumptions of a particular society at a given time. A common theme in this course has been the idea of knowledge and power and how they correlate to each other. As you grew up you may have heard the saying “Knowledge is Power” but during this semester we are looking at a number of different text and artifacts that suggest that Power produces knowledge. This means people in positions of power create a “truth” or master narrative that will unite the common people in order to fulfill the elite class’s agenda disregarding the common people’s well-being. By looking at these artifacts found in the Downtown San Jose Chinatown that was burned in the late 1800s, we can see how these Chinese immigrants lived and maybe even answers to how and why their home was torched.

francis bacon, A pioneer for the enlightenment era, stated knowledge is power. I believe the statement is as relevant in modern time as it was in the 18th century. Pursuing a K-12 education revealed the Finity of knowledge to comprehend are physical world, break biases, and realize the more we know scholarship

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)

In this essay I shall compare James Scott’s theory of power and resistance with Michel Foucault’s, as in what similarities do they share in their structure of theories; and contrast the difference as in their understanding of power, position they take to look for/into power, exercise of power and resistance in response. By contrasting the two approaches on the subject of power and resistance, I shall argue, if one wish to look for the powerful and the weak, Scott’s approach is the go to. But for now, I find Foucault’s idea more plausible that we are surrounded by or inescapable from power, and that by any means, are not necessarily forced to submission; rather as freedom the same time.

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

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.