Power+as+Knowledge

Michel Foucault- “Power as knowledge” (1976)
 * =Title= ||  ||
 * =Author= ||  ||
 * =Date= ||  ||
 * =Summary By= ||  ||
 * =Summary= ||  ||
 * =Discussion points= ||  ||

What Foucault had to say about power: Power is everywhere (474) It is not just “a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizens of the state. (473)   Nor is it a form of subjugation that has the form of rule (473) “There is no power that is exercised without a series of aims and objectives” (474) It is through discourse that power and knowledge are combined (478) · Discourse can be both an instrument and effect of power as well as a hindrance because discourse can also become a starting point for an opposing viewpoint or strategy. (478)   Central Questions: What is the nature of human nature? Is there human agency? In this power model there appears to be agency in terms of the ability to have/exercise power at any one time. At every level of social interaction individuals have some influence at one point or another over how power plays out. There is no indication that there are always the same winners in losers. It is also possible for individuals to lose in one sphere and win in another. It also appears that power is not some monolith that remains concentrated in any one area, person, or institution, but a more fluid concept that is constantly ebbing an flowing, even within hegemonic structures. And can there be equality? The article does not specifically address how this definition of power corresponds with equality, while acknowledging that in that the “power” (not used in the way he described, but in more of a traditional sense) to control one’s own sex there is inequality. Discussion Questions: How does Foucault’s conception of power speak to issues of inequality? Does his analysis merely remove institutions and replace them with people? (Especially if you consider politics as war-making, or Machiavelli- the prince 476)

What do we stand to gain from "seeking the pattern of modifications which relationships of force imply on the very nature of their process(477), as opposed to answering the question of who has power in the order of sexuality and why? What are its implications for a wider range of social inquiry and why?

= = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =