10 ms·

Foucault’s work on power

83 points by Petiver 10y ago

macawfish 10y ago
Last night I had a dream that I was telling someone to check out Michel Foucault. I specifically remember spelling their name and telling them they should look him up.
lutusp 10y ago
Foucault? The physicist Foucault [1] responsible for the Foucault Pendulum and many other advances? Or the philosopher Foucault [2] responsible for some unfalsifiable fluff of great interest to philosophy department tea parties -- conversations that typically return to Jacques Derrida [3], the "show-stopper" who thought there was no basis for shared, objective truths, and whose views are regularly discussed as though their decoded meaning doesn't contradict the possibility of their productive discussion. It's a sign of the times that, in Web searches, Foucault the philosopher completely buries Foucault the physicist. (I got snookered into reading this because "power" has a meaning in physics apart from its meaning in philosophy -- the former of which actually means something.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida
- brudgers 10y ago
  Foucault is not Derrida and his writing is crisp and clear and contains examples and research that empirically support his observations (in sense of empirical support one often finds in the social sciences and history). He dominates web searches for 'Foucault' quite meritoriously as Discipline and Punish is far more relevant today than 19th century work on the speed of light -- which unless I've missed the removal of the photon from current scientific explanations did not nail the coffin lid on corpuscular models of light despite the claims of the Wikipedia. I won't make a similar claim regarding the reasons a google for "foucault's pendulum" turns up more related to an Italian than a French...though personally I think Eco's work is more interesting and entertaining and informative.
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > Foucault is not Derrida ... Yes, that seems to be true, but from the standpoint of falsifiability, of empirical testing, they're equal. The very fact that people feel compelled to draw a line between Foucault and Derrida, one that hasn't already been drawn by objective evidence, speaks for itself. > ... and contains examples and research that empirically support his observations (in sense of empirical support one often finds in the social sciences and history ... Please don't make this mistake. However strongly you feel about the present topic, don't try to fit philosophy into the science straitjacket. Philosophy's value lies elsewhere.
- cuspy 10y ago
  Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance, just the affect of smug certainty, is a perfect example of why the relationship between language and power deserves attention today. Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths", notions which no decent self-critical scientist would accept. Your post's voice assumes the appearance of a disciplinary authority without actually engaging substantively with the ideas under discussion. So, in effect you've provided the best possible support for the article's argument.
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance ... How much substance is required beyond the fact that these ideas are unfalsifiable? To a scientist like myself, saying that places the burden of evidence on the other party, who can only respond with a basis for empirical falsification. But that's not possible in philosophy, by definition. Am I obliged to prove that Bigfoot is a myth? No, I need only say there's no evidence. And I'm not under a burden to to prove a negative in such a discussion -- impossible in any case. That makes a statement about Bigfoot comparable to statements about philosophy -- it's unfalsifiable. > Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths" It didn't require many words for you to establish your post-modern credentials. From here, assuming I were inclined, we would have an inconclusive-by-definition debate about whether there are objective truths ... we would philosophize. Thanks ... I'll pass.
    - swift 10y ago
      You should read some philosophy of science. Start with Karl Popper. He's the person whose work you're referencing when you talk about falsifiability, and I think you'll relate to his writing, but he'll also challenge you to think a little more deeply about what science is - and indeed, what truth is.
      - 10y ago
- barce 10y ago
  Why wouldn't power in the non-physics sense not have meaning? Why are you restricting meaning, and thus truth, to just physics? In order to even participate in this forum doesn't meaning, and thus, truth, require a broader definition?
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > Why wouldn't power in the non-physics sense not have meaning? Well, I didn't say that. I said it was an unfalsifiable topic. > Why are you restricting meaning, and thus truth, to just physics? Didn't say that either, and just as well, since there are no truths in physics. In science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true. All legitimate scientific theories remain open to falsification by new empirical evidence, in perpetuity. Not so for philosophy, which was my point.
    - dang 10y ago
      Please don't keep making the same point over and over. It gets boring after a while and then crosses into harangue, like someone at a dinner party with an idée fixe. If you want to make the point once and move on, that's fine, but then please let people who are interested in Foucault discuss Foucault.
      - lutusp 10y ago
        > Please don't keep making the same point over and over. Sure, not problem. I'll stop pointing out that philosophy is a contentless debating society when the philosophers realize it, and when they stop treating it as though it constitutes an objective science (a point argued by others in this thread).
    - swift 10y ago
      Is an idea like "in science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true" falsifiable? If yes, what kind of experiment could be designed to test it? If no, does that mean it's of no value?
camdenlock 10y ago
It... it really doesn't, and this article makes that fact quite plain. Foucault's philosophies are nuggets of well-worn common sense extrapolated out into billowing collections of unnecessary text. I wonder if anyone has done the kind deed of whittling his most oft-cited gaseous emanations down to their core common sense origins. That'd save a lot of time for those of us not interested in a career in academia.
- barce 10y ago
  The first page of "Discipline and Punish" is a very clear description of the drawing and quartering of a regicide. I am not sure what nuggets you are referring to. Citations, please. I think he is arguing against "whittling... down to their core common sense origins," because such origins are illusory.
  - jseliger 10y ago
    Citations, please This is a hilarious comment, given that Foucault's History of Sexuality contains almost no citations! If you are interested in why Foucault ought to be a laughingstock, see Windshuttle's The Killing of History: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-History-Literary-Theorists-Murdering/dp/1893554120 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-History-Literary-Theorists-Mu... or the many essays Camille Paglia wrote on him. Her latest book has a reprint of "Review: Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf."
- norswap 10y ago
  Isn't that what most of philosophy is about? But of course, well-worn common sense is, and always has been, in perilous short supply.
  - lemonberry 10y ago
    I always hate appeals to commmon sense. Common sense is often wrong. It gives us things like "the world is flat".
    - 10y ago
benbreen 10y ago
I agree with John Searle on this one - it's unfair to Foucault (who despite his eccentricities is actually an engaging and lucid thinker IMO) to lump him together with obscurantists like Derrida: "With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, "He says so and so," he always says, "You misunderstood me." But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.” And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes. Foucault was often lumped with Derrida. That’s very unfair to Foucault. He was a different caliber of thinker altogether."
- brudgers 10y ago
  There's a bit of slight of hand in criticizing Derrida for not being clear. For example, computer science utilizes obscure notation and concepts and not understanding something is generally attributed to the mental acuity of the reader. http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Close_Encounters_of_the_Steve_Kind.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Close_Encounters_...
  - miceeatnicerice 10y ago
    Too right. And Foucault's conception of power allows this kind of non-scientific practice to be reasoned about.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - canjobear 10y ago
    The common response is that with computer science you can easily find an expert who can explain the uncontroversial consensus interpretation of some CS notation, whereas with Derrida et al. you'll just get more confusion.
golemotron 10y ago
The thing that Foucault's thought misses is that there are many ways of seeing the world. You can see it in terms of power, but then confirmation bias may lead you to a place of deep social distrust not unlike our current zeitgeist.
- barce 10y ago
  I think you misread the article. Foucault's point is that there are many ways of seeing power. "Foucault sought to unburden philosophy of its icy gaze of capturing essences."
  - golemotron 10y ago
    Enumerating ways of seeing power can lead to an obsession with it. The fact that he has been cited by so many underscores this. When people are preoccupied with whether they are one-down or one-up you end up with perpetual status seeking among individuals and groups, where one's worth is perceived as tied to that status. Does that seem familiar?
    - barce 10y ago
      For example?
    - brudgers 10y ago
      It's been a while since I read Foucault, but I don't recall him being much concerned with marginal and fleeting differences of power in the add-out/deuce/add-in spectrum. The differences I recall are more at the scale of rights to commit violence and obligations to receive it. Such differences of power are in part sustained by the idea that it is common sense that things are that way because that is the way things are naturally ordered.
    - miceeatnicerice 10y ago
      It does seem familiar, but it doesn't seem like Foucault. If power's everywhere, it can hardly be a bad thing in itself. The point isn't to oppose it, but to be cognizant of it, to play with it and to not get trapped in other people's usage of it.
woodandsteel 10y ago
Foucault has a lot of important insights. My problem with him is he seems to have no real idea of how things could ever be better, and hence no way to choose between the various available overall options. Society is just oppressive power, and the only course of action seems to just be endless vigilance and resistance.
- gumby 10y ago
  Consider him to be one of the "butterfly collectors" of this kind of social power analysis. Not everyone has to be able to develop a field; for that to happen someone has to recognize and try to catalogue it. If you're not familiar with the metaphor, it refers to one of the development phases of a scientific discipline: before there was a theory of physics, many people described and classified various phenomena. The term comes from biology; even before Linneus, people described and collected all sorts of species; then Linneus provided a taxonomy to fit them into; and now we have a theory of genetics.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  How is that worse than offering a way forward that isn't based on solid reasoning? The world isn't driven by people like Foucault who strive for a complete understanding; it's driven by people who use reductive worldviews to find the "clear" way forward. No, I much more trust and find value in world views that don't offer a clear prescription. Skeptics are the best critics of reality.
- stewbrew 10y ago
  I think the problem here (and many critics) is that you read Foucault without taking into account the context of his work. Foucault was an active/socially commited philosopher who actively tried to do something to make things better. And his work is part of that.
- thedailymail 10y ago
  Toward the end of his life, Foucault delivered a series of lectures in which he described the emergence of free-market/ neoliberal societies [1]. Many of his admirers are surprised when they learn that he seemed pretty enthusiastic about the prospects [2] (although he died too early to observe the power consequences of a highly marketized society, so we don't know what he would think today). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Biopolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Biopolitics [2] http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9781509501762 http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9781509501762
randomaxes 10y ago
My favorite introduction to Foucault is Hubert Dreyfus' essay on Being and Power: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_being.html http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_being.html The key insight for me is the discussion of "the clearing". The clearing opens the way for new opportunities while suppressing other possibilities in exchange. This concept can be used readily to analyze the durability of certain new technologies and their effect on society. For example, Facebook clearly creates a new way to communicate, but that channel then eliminates other forms of communication in exchange. The language of pervasive and hidden power is essential for a clear view of what the Silicon Valley is becoming.

83 points by Petiver 10y ago

Last night I had a dream that I was telling someone to check out Michel Foucault. I specifically remember spelling their name and telling them they should look him up.

lutusp 10y ago

Foucault? The physicist Foucault [1] responsible for the Foucault Pendulum and many other advances? Or the philosopher Foucault [2] responsible for some unfalsifiable fluff of great interest to philosophy department tea parties -- conversations that typically return to Jacques Derrida [3], the "show-stopper" who thought there was no basis for shared, objective truths, and whose views are regularly discussed as though their decoded meaning doesn't contradict the possibility of their productive discussion. It's a sign of the times that, in Web searches, Foucault the philosopher completely buries Foucault the physicist. (I got snookered into reading this because "power" has a meaning in physics apart from its meaning in philosophy -- the former of which actually means something.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

brudgers 10y ago
Foucault is not Derrida and his writing is crisp and clear and contains examples and research that empirically support his observations (in sense of empirical support one often finds in the social sciences and history). He dominates web searches for 'Foucault' quite meritoriously as Discipline and Punish is far more relevant today than 19th century work on the speed of light -- which unless I've missed the removal of the photon from current scientific explanations did not nail the coffin lid on corpuscular models of light despite the claims of the Wikipedia. I won't make a similar claim regarding the reasons a google for "foucault's pendulum" turns up more related to an Italian than a French...though personally I think Eco's work is more interesting and entertaining and informative.
- lutusp 10y ago
  > Foucault is not Derrida ... Yes, that seems to be true, but from the standpoint of falsifiability, of empirical testing, they're equal. The very fact that people feel compelled to draw a line between Foucault and Derrida, one that hasn't already been drawn by objective evidence, speaks for itself. > ... and contains examples and research that empirically support his observations (in sense of empirical support one often finds in the social sciences and history ... Please don't make this mistake. However strongly you feel about the present topic, don't try to fit philosophy into the science straitjacket. Philosophy's value lies elsewhere.
cuspy 10y ago
Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance, just the affect of smug certainty, is a perfect example of why the relationship between language and power deserves attention today. Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths", notions which no decent self-critical scientist would accept. Your post's voice assumes the appearance of a disciplinary authority without actually engaging substantively with the ideas under discussion. So, in effect you've provided the best possible support for the article's argument.
- lutusp 10y ago
  > Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance ... How much substance is required beyond the fact that these ideas are unfalsifiable? To a scientist like myself, saying that places the burden of evidence on the other party, who can only respond with a basis for empirical falsification. But that's not possible in philosophy, by definition. Am I obliged to prove that Bigfoot is a myth? No, I need only say there's no evidence. And I'm not under a burden to to prove a negative in such a discussion -- impossible in any case. That makes a statement about Bigfoot comparable to statements about philosophy -- it's unfalsifiable. > Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths" It didn't require many words for you to establish your post-modern credentials. From here, assuming I were inclined, we would have an inconclusive-by-definition debate about whether there are objective truths ... we would philosophize. Thanks ... I'll pass.
  - swift 10y ago
    You should read some philosophy of science. Start with Karl Popper. He's the person whose work you're referencing when you talk about falsifiability, and I think you'll relate to his writing, but he'll also challenge you to think a little more deeply about what science is - and indeed, what truth is.
    - 10y ago
barce 10y ago
Why wouldn't power in the non-physics sense not have meaning? Why are you restricting meaning, and thus truth, to just physics? In order to even participate in this forum doesn't meaning, and thus, truth, require a broader definition?
- lutusp 10y ago
  > Why wouldn't power in the non-physics sense not have meaning? Well, I didn't say that. I said it was an unfalsifiable topic. > Why are you restricting meaning, and thus truth, to just physics? Didn't say that either, and just as well, since there are no truths in physics. In science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true. All legitimate scientific theories remain open to falsification by new empirical evidence, in perpetuity. Not so for philosophy, which was my point.
  - dang 10y ago
    Please don't keep making the same point over and over. It gets boring after a while and then crosses into harangue, like someone at a dinner party with an idée fixe. If you want to make the point once and move on, that's fine, but then please let people who are interested in Foucault discuss Foucault.
    - lutusp 10y ago
      > Please don't keep making the same point over and over. Sure, not problem. I'll stop pointing out that philosophy is a contentless debating society when the philosophers realize it, and when they stop treating it as though it constitutes an objective science (a point argued by others in this thread).
  - swift 10y ago
    Is an idea like "in science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true" falsifiable? If yes, what kind of experiment could be designed to test it? If no, does that mean it's of no value?

camdenlock 10y ago

It... it really doesn't, and this article makes that fact quite plain. Foucault's philosophies are nuggets of well-worn common sense extrapolated out into billowing collections of unnecessary text. I wonder if anyone has done the kind deed of whittling his most oft-cited gaseous emanations down to their core common sense origins. That'd save a lot of time for those of us not interested in a career in academia.

barce 10y ago
The first page of "Discipline and Punish" is a very clear description of the drawing and quartering of a regicide. I am not sure what nuggets you are referring to. Citations, please. I think he is arguing against "whittling... down to their core common sense origins," because such origins are illusory.
- jseliger 10y ago
  Citations, please This is a hilarious comment, given that Foucault's History of Sexuality contains almost no citations! If you are interested in why Foucault ought to be a laughingstock, see Windshuttle's The Killing of History: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-History-Literary-Theorists-Murdering/dp/1893554120 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-History-Literary-Theorists-Mu... or the many essays Camille Paglia wrote on him. Her latest book has a reprint of "Review: Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf."
norswap 10y ago
Isn't that what most of philosophy is about? But of course, well-worn common sense is, and always has been, in perilous short supply.
- lemonberry 10y ago
  I always hate appeals to commmon sense. Common sense is often wrong. It gives us things like "the world is flat".
  - 10y ago

benbreen 10y ago

I agree with John Searle on this one - it's unfair to Foucault (who despite his eccentricities is actually an engaging and lucid thinker IMO) to lump him together with obscurantists like Derrida: "With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, "He says so and so," he always says, "You misunderstood me." But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.” And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes. Foucault was often lumped with Derrida. That’s very unfair to Foucault. He was a different caliber of thinker altogether."

brudgers 10y ago
There's a bit of slight of hand in criticizing Derrida for not being clear. For example, computer science utilizes obscure notation and concepts and not understanding something is generally attributed to the mental acuity of the reader. http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Close_Encounters_of_the_Steve_Kind.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Close_Encounters_...
- miceeatnicerice 10y ago
  Too right. And Foucault's conception of power allows this kind of non-scientific practice to be reasoned about.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- canjobear 10y ago
  The common response is that with computer science you can easily find an expert who can explain the uncontroversial consensus interpretation of some CS notation, whereas with Derrida et al. you'll just get more confusion.

golemotron 10y ago

The thing that Foucault's thought misses is that there are many ways of seeing the world. You can see it in terms of power, but then confirmation bias may lead you to a place of deep social distrust not unlike our current zeitgeist.

barce 10y ago
I think you misread the article. Foucault's point is that there are many ways of seeing power. "Foucault sought to unburden philosophy of its icy gaze of capturing essences."
- golemotron 10y ago
  Enumerating ways of seeing power can lead to an obsession with it. The fact that he has been cited by so many underscores this. When people are preoccupied with whether they are one-down or one-up you end up with perpetual status seeking among individuals and groups, where one's worth is perceived as tied to that status. Does that seem familiar?
  - barce 10y ago
    For example?
  - brudgers 10y ago
    It's been a while since I read Foucault, but I don't recall him being much concerned with marginal and fleeting differences of power in the add-out/deuce/add-in spectrum. The differences I recall are more at the scale of rights to commit violence and obligations to receive it. Such differences of power are in part sustained by the idea that it is common sense that things are that way because that is the way things are naturally ordered.
  - miceeatnicerice 10y ago
    It does seem familiar, but it doesn't seem like Foucault. If power's everywhere, it can hardly be a bad thing in itself. The point isn't to oppose it, but to be cognizant of it, to play with it and to not get trapped in other people's usage of it.

woodandsteel 10y ago

Foucault has a lot of important insights. My problem with him is he seems to have no real idea of how things could ever be better, and hence no way to choose between the various available overall options. Society is just oppressive power, and the only course of action seems to just be endless vigilance and resistance.

gumby 10y ago
Consider him to be one of the "butterfly collectors" of this kind of social power analysis. Not everyone has to be able to develop a field; for that to happen someone has to recognize and try to catalogue it. If you're not familiar with the metaphor, it refers to one of the development phases of a scientific discipline: before there was a theory of physics, many people described and classified various phenomena. The term comes from biology; even before Linneus, people described and collected all sorts of species; then Linneus provided a taxonomy to fit them into; and now we have a theory of genetics.
throwaway91111 10y ago
How is that worse than offering a way forward that isn't based on solid reasoning? The world isn't driven by people like Foucault who strive for a complete understanding; it's driven by people who use reductive worldviews to find the "clear" way forward. No, I much more trust and find value in world views that don't offer a clear prescription. Skeptics are the best critics of reality.
stewbrew 10y ago
I think the problem here (and many critics) is that you read Foucault without taking into account the context of his work. Foucault was an active/socially commited philosopher who actively tried to do something to make things better. And his work is part of that.
thedailymail 10y ago
Toward the end of his life, Foucault delivered a series of lectures in which he described the emergence of free-market/ neoliberal societies [1]. Many of his admirers are surprised when they learn that he seemed pretty enthusiastic about the prospects [2] (although he died too early to observe the power consequences of a highly marketized society, so we don't know what he would think today). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Biopolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Biopolitics [2] http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9781509501762 http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9781509501762

randomaxes 10y ago

My favorite introduction to Foucault is Hubert Dreyfus' essay on Being and Power: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_being.html http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_being.html The key insight for me is the discussion of "the clearing". The clearing opens the way for new opportunities while suppressing other possibilities in exchange. This concept can be used readily to analyze the durability of certain new technologies and their effect on society. For example, Facebook clearly creates a new way to communicate, but that channel then eliminates other forms of communication in exchange. The language of pervasive and hidden power is essential for a clear view of what the Silicon Valley is becoming.