subject: A Critical Analysis of Foucault - Is Knowledge Power? [print this page] A Critical Analysis of Foucault - Is Knowledge Power?
Paradoxically, Foucault, the author of several philosophical treatises on prisons and the penal system, was a firm believer in human liberty and the inherent right to freedom. While acknowledging that a select few possessed the power to limit the freedom of others, he perceived of limitations as temporary. Certainly, some had more power than others but, ultimately all had power given that its primary source was knowledge. Indeed, as Flyvbjerg (1998) explains, Foucault perceived of power as a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, dynamic phenomenon which, to all intents and purposes, belonged to no one and everyone. This essay will explore this notion in greater depth through the use of illustrative examples.
Knowledge is power and as a direct consequence of the correlation between the two, power is as fleeting as knowledge dynamic. As Fox (1998) argues, knowledge is, by its very nature, dynamic, mercurial and expansive. This means that not only is it constantly changing but it is constantly being added on to. The implication here is that one's possession of knowledge, hence, power, is not only confined to a specific domain but because knowledge changes and grows, to a specific time. For example, when one briefly considers the history of revolutions, with the French one being highly relevant to the discussion at hand, one finds that the shifting boundaries of knowledge were at the core of the change in the power structure. Quite simply stated, and as may be inferred from Love's (1989) analysis, its growing lack of knowledge of its contemporary societal context rendered the monarchy outdated and irrelevant. It is hardly coincidental that it was referred to as the ancient regime, denoting its outdated and irrelevant nature. As the identity of those who possesses knowledge changed, the new knowledge bearers resisted the monarchy and as they possessed contemporary, relevant knowledge, the revolutionaries emerged as the new power bearers (Love, 1989). The implication here is that power cannot be permanently monopolised by any single group but follows those who have knowledge.
Even within the context of our experiences as students, we constantly witness the shifting of power within the classroom setting. Generally speaking, the lecturer is the possessor of power as a direct consequence of his/her expansive knowledge on a particular subject. Sometimes, however, the discourse shifts to a different topic and it is not at all unusual for this to be accompanied by a shift in power-holders; from the lecturer to the students and students to lecturers depending on the topic and who possesses the greater knowledge.
Proceeding from the above stated, one can confirm that because power and knowledge are inextricably linked, power comes from everywhere and from anyone. The boundaries of power are constantly shifting in direct correlation with the dynamics of knowledge. Within the span of a single discourse (involving the exchange of knowledge) one witnesses and often experiences shifts in power. It is, thus, that Foucault's assessment accurately reflects the highly mobile nature of power.
Bibliography
Love, N.S. (1989) Foucault & Habermas on discourse and democracy. Polity, 22(2), 269-293.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? The British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210-233.
Fox, N.J. (1998) Foucault, Foucauldians and sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 49(3), 415-433.
