Jump to content
Rhizome

Official Thread: Foucault

Recommended Posts

Foucault's knowledge/power. i understand the basics and i am beginning to read more kritikal literature. i have not read much but i plan on running Foucault a lot this year. i know that Foucault says that knowledge is power and that all knowledge manifests itself in forms of power and vis versa. He also says power is bad and that it exists through the streets and alleys of the world. If he says power is bad that means he says knowledge is bad? Am i right or am i overgeneralizing Foucault's philosophy on power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault's knowledge/power. i understand the basics and i am beginning to read more kritikal literature. i have not read much but i plan on running Foucault a lot this year. i know that Foucault says that knowledge is power and that all knowledge manifests itself in forms of power and vis versa. He also says power is bad and that it exists through the streets and alleys of the world. If he says power is bad that means he says knowledge is bad? Am i right or am i overgeneralizing Foucault's philosophy on power?

 

I don't know for certain, but if you make the knowledge is bad claim, you might not want to run Topicality or any procedurals for that matter; not with education standards that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault's knowledge/power. i understand the basics and i am beginning to read more kritikal literature. i have not read much but i plan on running Foucault a lot this year. i know that Foucault says that knowledge is power and that all knowledge manifests itself in forms of power and vis versa. He also says power is bad and that it exists through the streets and alleys of the world. If he says power is bad that means he says knowledge is bad? Am i right or am i overgeneralizing Foucault's philosophy on power?

 

I haven't read much Foucault literature but, if he makes that claim, then he probably is saying that when an individual obtains knowledge he/she obtains means to control; power. For example we have scientific knowledge, and we use it to manipulate our surroundings and environment (ultimately leading to negative effects). If we have knowledge of space and science we have ability to expand and apply that knowledge for power. For example, you could use your knowledge to implement ballistic missiles in space; HARD power. If you implement a technology using scientific knowledge you are gaining power in that other countries might see you as legitimate in the space field ; space leadership --> power. These might be obvious statements now that i think of it... whatever. If hes making the claim that knowledge is power, i would assume he would be saying that ultimately knowledge is bad because it results in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault's knowledge/power. i understand the basics and i am beginning to read more kritikal literature. i have not read much but i plan on running Foucault a lot this year. i know that Foucault says that knowledge is power and that all knowledge manifests itself in forms of power and vis versa. He also says power is bad and that it exists through the streets and alleys of the world. If he says power is bad that means he says knowledge is bad? Am i right or am i overgeneralizing Foucault's philosophy on power?

 

I haven't read much Foucault literature but, if he makes that claim, then he probably is saying that when an individual obtains knowledge he/she obtains means to control; power. For example we have scientific knowledge, and we use it to manipulate our surroundings and environment (ultimately leading to negative effects). If we have knowledge of space and science we have ability to expand and apply that knowledge for power. For example, you could use your knowledge to implement ballistic missiles in space; HARD power. If you implement a technology using scientific knowledge you are gaining power in that other countries might see you as legitimate in the space field ; space leadership --> power. These might be obvious statements now that i think of it... whatever. If hes making the claim that knowledge is power, i would assume he would be saying that ultimately knowledge is bad because it results in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to clear up the answers to this question, as I think that previous attempts have granted the premise of this question instead of interrogating it:

 

Foucault's knowledge/power. i understand the basics and i am beginning to read more kritikal literature. i have not read much but i plan on running Foucault a lot this year. i know that Foucault says that knowledge is power and that all knowledge manifests itself in forms of power and vis versa. He also says power is bad and that it exists through the streets and alleys of the world. If he says power is bad that means he says knowledge is bad? Am i right or am i overgeneralizing Foucault's philosophy on power?

 

Important distinction for any discussion of Foucault's theories. Get rid of the idea that Foucault thinks that particular things are good or bad. Such signifiers are overly deterministic and tend toward a hegemonic or static representation of that which exists. Instead, you need to think about Foucault as pointing towards more or less dangerous constellations of power. Foucault never makes the claim that power is bad (and thereby, knowledge), and I would direct you to to a pair of resources to make more sense of what Foucault is saying. In the "Method" chapter of History of Sexuality Vol 1 he makes the claim that "Where there is power, there is resistence," because even though individuals are constituted by the discursive formations which organize the world, we also act upon them and are able to maximize our capacities despite these restraints. Rather than power solely being a limit on our abilities, it also allows new possibilities for subjectivity to emerge. Although it might seem paradoxical, to be outside of power is far more dangerous than being within power. My second reading suggestion would be his late essay "The Subject and Power," where Foucault draws the distinction between conditions of slavery or violence, and that of power. The most relevant paragraph is below:

 

When one defines the exercise of power as a mode of action upon the actions of others, when one characterizes these actions by the government of men by other men-in the broadest sense of the term-one includes an important element: freedom. Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual

or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse comportments, may be realized. Where the determining factors saturate the whole, there is no relationship of power; slavery is not a power relationship when man is in chains. (In this case it is a question of a physical relationship of constraint.) Consequently, there is no face-to-face confrontation of power and freedom, which are mutually exclusive (freedom disappears everywhere power is exercised), but a much more complicated interplay. In this game freedom may well appear as the condition for the exercise of power (at the same time its precondition, since freedom must exist for power to be exerted, and also its permanent support, since without the possibility of recalcitrance, power would be equivalent to a physical determination) (Foucault, Subject and Power, 790).

 

Are particular constellations of knowledge dangerous? Certainly. Power as well? No doubt. Does this mean that Foucault is against power and knowledge? Absolutely not. Instead, he would ask the critic to analyze particular crystalizations of power to see if they tend toward domination, and act ethically in response to the answer. Hopefully this clarifies the your query, and if there are more ambiguities or questions which you want to work through, I (or one of the forums other useful citizens) will be happy to assist.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you consider hegemonic power projection a feat of modern juridical power? For example, in the 1991 U.S. Invasion of Iraq, we projected our hegemony by defeating the Iraqi military. A lot of disads last year dealt with U.S. power projection capabilities as well. Do you know any authors who (1) point out that power projection is a form of juridical power or (2) criticize juridical power?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you consider hegemonic power projection a feat of modern juridical power? For example, in the 1991 U.S. Invasion of Iraq, we projected our hegemony by defeating the Iraqi military. A lot of disads last year dealt with U.S. power projection capabilities as well.

 

This is actually a more debated question than you might believe. From my personal perspective, I take seriously Hardt and Negri's suggestion that we are witnessing a transition in the structure of sovereignty, whereby the sovereign-function is being sublated to the supra-national level, and it no longer makes sense to describe military interventions as anything other than the police power of Empire to keep the flows of capital moving. I mention this, though, because while Empire was published in 2000, we saw its publication followed by 9/11 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many critics of Empire point to these campaigns as evidence that the state remains primary in attempts to explain the international system (for better or for worse). Such critics would likely agree that power projection is a symptom or deployment of juridical power

However, given that this is the Foucault thread, I feel obligated to think through what his response might be. The short answer would be 'no'. The reason for this is that through much of his work, it is his task to show how the juridical model of power went out of style with the Enlightenment, and was then expidited by the Industrial Revolution. These two moments inverted the juridical model, so instead of having a 'head' of government, this head has been cut off and the 'source' of power now comes from below. Much of his work on governmentality attempts to address how a state lacking a head continues to operate as though there is one. In "The Subject and Power," he notes that:

"The relationship proper to power would not therefore be sought on the side of violence or of struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking (all of which can, at best, only be the instruments of power), but rather in the area of the singular mode of action, neither warlike nor juridical, which is government."

Point being, we don't get much of thinking about the state as juridical, as we are asking the wrong question. Instead we ought be interested in the ways in which the state manages populations, and at the micro-level. I think that it is in his essay "Two Lectures" (if it's not, it is in "Truth and Power," but in any case it is where he discussed 'subjugated knowledges') where Foucault observes that while critics are always pulled into analyzing macro problems and issues, that this is only the window dressing of power. Here he claims that power is only acceptable to us in so far that the majority of its effects remain hidden from view, with the task of the critic being to see these small and seemingly unimportant uses of power and to see whether or not they tend toward domination. The hegemonic interventions which you discuss could function as a siphon for our attention which allows other, far more insidious actions to go unnoticed. The last thing I'll say on this part of your question is to seriously consider the first few lines of the classic Foucault impact evidence, as it directly answers this question. "Wars are no longer waged in the name of the sovereign who must be defended, wars are waged on the behalf of the existence of everyone." This marks the transition from juridical sovereignty to biopolitical governance. And they're quite different, so make sure that you don't conflate the terms...

 

Do you know any authors who (1) point out that power projection is a form of juridical power or (2) criticize juridical power?

Thanks

... Unless you are doing so from an Agambenian perspective. Because if you want to argue that power projection is juridical, he is your guy. Both Foucault and Agamben are critical of juridical power, but come to fundamentally different answers about it. As discussed above, Foucault criticizes the concept, saying it is a relic of earlier forms of governance. I will trust that you are familiar enough with Foucault that I don't need to trace the whole history of sovereign power to biopower, but instead simply note that this happens alongside the Enlightenment, and that with the 'task' of governmentality being the care of the population, the original function of sovereignty erodes. However, Agamben offers a different genealogy of the inclusion of life in the law, and argues that even from Greek times life already has an indeterminate, yet inclusive place within politics (reading the opening pages of Homo Sacer, paying particular attention to the discussion of the "home" is useful). If this is true, there is no distinction between juridical power and biopower, because they have always been intertwined with one another. Some Foucualtians would argue that Agamben is conflating two different things, but this is only true if he were to accept Foucault's view of history. Given this, if you want to critique juridical power, Agamben (and his acolytes) is your guy, rather than the card-carrying Foucaultians who think that we should be much more concerned with uses of biopower.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Foucault's main argument within the debate realm?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Foucault's main argument within the debate realm?

i'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and say biopower?

 

i'm sure if you have a more specific question someone will be able to help but i don't think anyone knows how to answer such a generic question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and say biopower?

 

i'm sure if you have a more specific question someone will be able to help but i don't think anyone knows how to answer such a generic question.

 

Like in depth. What does he say about biopower? What are it's impacts? Links? Moreover, what alternatives does he use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like in depth. What does he say about biopower? What are it's impacts? Links? Moreover, what alternatives does he use?

 

That is literally the most non-specific question I've ever heard. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is literally the most non-specific question I've ever heard. lol

 

And? Why does it have to be specific. Can't someone tell me quickly what his arguments are? This thread doesn't HAVE to be uber specific questions. That's stupid. The fact you're insulting me for asking a generic question that's not found in this thread is fucking stupid. This is here to teach people and answer all questions, not to be a pretentious douche.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is literally the most non-specific question I've ever heard. lol

Very true. However if you are looking for just an "introduction" to Foucault, most of the times it is recommended to just start where you would for any other philosopher.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/foucault/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/foucault.htm

http://www.google.com/#q=michel+foucault

http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-fouc.htm

http://www.nndb.com/people/323/000095038/

 

Of course some of those are just links I grabbed off of google, that should give you a good background to his works.

 

Johnathon, what he is trying to say is that it is easier to help someone if they have something specific in mind. For example there is no answer to "how do I get good at debate?" or "what can i improve on?" - blanket questions like that are hard to answer. However "how did you feel about the arguments I extended in the 1AR on the SKFTA DA" are a lot easier to answer.

 

However, here is a very simple intro of Foucault.

 

Biopower literally means "control over life." It is inevitable and it exists in everyday life. Biopower is not good or bad according to Foucault. It can, like all things, be used in a good or bad way. He is known for the panopticon - a prison in which all the prisoners could never be sure if they were or were not being watched.

 

Jon Sharp made a lecture that is available on Planet Debate and Lazzaronne had some comments about it.

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/43722-jon-sharps-foucault-lecture/page__p__745915__hl__%2Bfoucault+%2Bintroduction__fromsearch__1#entry745915

 

Another introduction that is supposed to be OK according to the reviews is this one

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/42278-release-foucaults-askesis-an-introduction-to-the-philosophical-life/page__p__717987__hl__%2Bfoucault+%2Bintroduction__fromsearch__1#entry717987

 

if you use the search function you can probably find explanations made by other people on this site but I'll be honest, I didn't take the time to look through 50+ pages with the word "foucault" in the thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true. However if you are looking for just an "introduction" to Foucault, most of the times it is recommended to just start where you would for any other philosopher.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/foucault/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/foucault.htm

http://www.google.com/#q=michel+foucault

http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-fouc.htm

http://www.nndb.com/people/323/000095038/

 

Of course some of those are just links I grabbed off of google, that should give you a good background to his works.

 

Johnathon, what he is trying to say is that it is easier to help someone if they have something specific in mind. For example there is no answer to "how do I get good at debate?" or "what can i improve on?" - blanket questions like that are hard to answer. However "how did you feel about the arguments I extended in the 1AR on the SKFTA DA" are a lot easier to answer.

 

However, here is a very simple intro of Foucault.

 

Biopower literally means "control over life." It is inevitable and it exists in everyday life. Biopower is not good or bad according to Foucault. It can, like all things, be used in a good or bad way. He is known for the panopticon - a prison in which all the prisoners could never be sure if they were or were not being watched.

 

Jon Sharp made a lecture that is available on Planet Debate and Lazzaronne had some comments about it.

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/43722-jon-sharps-foucault-lecture/page__p__745915__hl__%2Bfoucault+%2Bintroduction__fromsearch__1#entry745915

 

Another introduction that is supposed to be OK according to the reviews is this one

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/42278-release-foucaults-askesis-an-introduction-to-the-philosophical-life/page__p__717987__hl__%2Bfoucault+%2Bintroduction__fromsearch__1#entry717987

 

if you use the search function you can probably find explanations made by other people on this site but I'll be honest, I didn't take the time to look through 50+ pages with the word "foucault" in the thread.

 

This is just what I was asking for. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't know if this thread is still alive, but I am interested in running Foucault next year (for the Latin America topic), and was wondering what he specifically has to say in terms of how the state uses sovereignty in economics to exert its biopower in a negative way. I understand that he thinks Biopower is not inherently good or bad, but is there anything about how Economic Biopower is bad? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think most of your cards next year will mention neo-liberalism (which is functionally free trade and trade agreements).

 

My problem though is that any system of economics that becomes dominant in a space is going to replicate the same problems you are critiquing.

It won't be successful if it isn't. Ideas compete for success and acceptance--and even a choice to attempt to step outside power or outside ideas or outside ideology

--is an acceptance of a certain status quo or power arrangement.

 

In fact, I think its only by an act of compassion or empathy (or ideology) which might re-align the space. If you don't change the will--I don't see how you

re-configure the space in a way which doesn't allow an inversion and/or replication of power structures.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I think most of your cards next year will mention neo-liberalism (which is functionally free trade and trade agreements).

 

My problem though is that any system of economics that becomes dominant in a space is going to replicate the same problems you are critiquing.

It won't be successful if it isn't. Ideas compete for success and acceptance--and even a choice to attempt to step outside power or outside ideas or outside ideology

--is an acceptance of a certain status quo or power arrangement.

 

In fact, I think its only by an act of compassion or empathy (or ideology) which might re-align the space. If you don't change the will--I don't see how you

re-configure the space in a way which doesn't allow an inversion and/or replication of power structures.

 

So, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that when arguing that the macro-political (in terms of neoliberalism bad), ultimately even stepping out and exposing that power structure by genealogy doesn't solve because the world of the alt just creates, pardon the pun, but an alternate power relation that does nothing to stop the impact. My general idea is something along the lines of separating truth from power and rejecting the aff to allow for a genealogy and then arguing that the K is a prerequisite to the aff. I'm currently reading Discipline and Punish and plan on reading more of his lit, but one more question if you don't mind, Does Foucault ever talk about how genealogy can allow that act of compassion/empathy (or even a change in ideology) that rearranges the space? I've heard he was a "principled anarchist", so could that work as alt solvency, like dismantling the state solves the replication of power structures? If micropolitics is good, how does micropolitics solve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...