Between Cause and Effect

Filozofija I Drustvo, 2023

This research proposes that Foucault's concepts of power/knowledge and genealogy constitute a significant turning point, not only in philosophical and historical terms but also in the research framework of the sociology of knowledge. The first level of Foucault's contribution to the sociology of knowledge is widely recognized through the concept of discourse and its dimensions of materiality, power and knowledge. The second level is the analytical grid of power/knowledge itself, which focuses on the relays established between them. The third level, which we consider a crucial area open to further interpretation, is the concept of the history of the present. Although Foucault's contribution has already been acknowledged in contemporary sociological research of knowledge, our objective is to expand on this recognition by highlighting the significance of genealogy's dimensions to existing approaches, namely the historical sociology of knowledge and sociology of knowledge approach to discourse.

This essay analyses Foucault's revolutionary thought on power and knowledge, and their relationship in society. It first ascertains what Foucault means by 'power', i.e. its un-objectivity as 'force relations', to then uncover power's intrinsic relationship with knowledge, or rather 'systems of knowledge' in the form of discourse. Due to Foucault's very atypical, unconventional view on society, and power itself, this essay first ascertains what Foucault does not mean by 'power', as a means of separating any personal preconception the reader may have with Foucault's vision.

In this essay, I attempt an interpretation of what Michel Foucault means by the term ’event’ in the period from The Archaeology of Knowledge until his death in 1984. The sense in which I propose to examine the role of ‘events’ in Foucault is a combination of the senses used by Gilles Deleuze in The Logic of Sense and Martin Heidegger’s understanding of ’event’ as Er-eignis in On Time and Being, Identity and Difference and “The Way to Language.” I show the ramifications of this understanding in terms of Foucault’s genealogy and the mechanics of force and power relationships. In doing so, I explicate an interpretation of Foucaultian genealogy and demonstrate how the notion of ‘event’ discussed herein may aid in reconciling genealogy with archaeology. Finally, I discuss the difference between relations of force and relations of power in terms of the ‘event’ and genealogy in order to show how genealogy can be a means of resistance to power and to demonstrate the operative mechanisms of power relation reversal. I demonstrate this by way of Friedrich Nietzche’s text “On Truth and Lie in a Non-Moral Sense.” This paper explores the construction of language and of power, knowledge and discourse as events in Foucault. Ultimately force relations are irreducible to power relations and vice versa. The persistence of force relations beneath the relations of power is precisely that which allows reversal and instability, and genealogy operates on the level of designating these points of confrontation or Emergences “Entstehung” in order to either create and appropriate a new form of knowledge, or to appropriate subjugated knowledges in order to bring them to light and make use of them in the reversal of the power relationship. In the course of this, a better understanding of the relation between knowledge and power is attempted in terms of the ‘event.’ This is an excerpt from a senior thesis project. Other sections examine in greater depth the relation between Foucault and Nietzsche as well as the relation between this interpretation of ‘event’ and Foucault’s archaeological concepts of the episteme and historical a priori. I show that these concepts are still operative after The Archaeology of Knowledge. The final chapter will discuss the mechanisms of interaction between power and positivity and the relation between strategy and power with the aim of explicating the mechanisms operative in an epistemic rupture. I will examine the particular case of the break that, according to Foucault, occurred between 1775 and 1825. This chapter has been slightly abridged for clarity of focus and for length.

2011

This paper attempts to study the nature and sig­<br> nificance of knowledge. He treats the subject from the per­<br> spectives of postmodern authors Foucault and Lyotard. The<br> paper discusses first the ideas of Foucault followed by<br> Lyotard's understanding of knowledge. Then it tries to show<br> how their perspectives on knowledge affect the information-<br> knowledge distinction and their relevance for contemporary<br> society. Foucault's and Lyotard's extensive treatment of knowl­<br> edge rests on a very important principle, that is, knowledge is<br> necessarily a matter of social relation. They differ in their<br> view of what type of social relations underlies knowledge.<br> While for Foucault, it is power and techniques associated with<br> power, for Lyotard, it is related to the shifting language games.<br> . However it is quite clear from their analysis that the distinc­<br>...

The recent surge in popularity of the notions of performance and performativity provides an incentive for examining their productivity for contemporary models of knowledge production. Drawing upon a host of conceptions from performance studies, philosophy of language, literary theory, gender studies as well as the postconstructivist science and technology studies, the Author proposes that we investigate knowledge in terms of its performativity. The concept of ‘knowledge as (a) performative’ draws attention to a specific, profoundly transformative, yet at the same time embedded character of knowledge, itself understood both as a product and a productive process. Such vision brings to focus its open-ended, non-linear, transient, and heterogeneous character, its active engagement with the world and within matrices of power, lack of clear-cut paths or easily measurable results. As a result, introducing the concept of knowledge as (a) performative entails a number of shifts in both language of description and issues at stake, concerning, above all, the character and spaces of knowledge production, questions of broadly understood effectiveness, a link to power and ethics, as well as a more general problem of delineating the role of science in today’s world.

A detailing of Foucault's notorious theory. Featuring the critique of both Žižek and Habermas.

POWER AND KNOWLEDGE: FOUCAULT'S DISCOURSE ON REGULATION AND RESISTANCES , 2024

Michel Foucault's exploration of power and knowledge is central to his philosophical framework. He argued that power is not simply a negative or repressive force but rather something that permeates all levels of society and is productive in nature. Foucault introduced the concept of "discourse" as systems of thought that produce knowledge and regulate social practices. Discourses are not just ways of speaking or writing but mechanisms through which power operates. They define what is considered true or false, normal or abnormal, thus shaping social norms and behaviours. Foucault's conception of power and knowledge offers a nuanced understanding of how social control operates through discourses and institutional practices, while also providing insights into strategies of resistance and the complexities of individual agency within power structures. His work like The Archaeology of Knowledge and Madness and Civilization continue to influence fields ranging from sociology and political theory to cultural studies and beyond. Discourses regulate knowledge by determining what counts as knowledge in a given context. They establish the boundaries of acceptable knowledge and exclude alternative perspectives or forms of knowledge. For example, scientific discourse defines what counts as valid scientific knowledge and excludes non-scientific ways of understanding the world. Foucault’s concept of discourse challenges to rethink how knowledge is produced, how power operates through knowledge, and how individuals are constituted within these processes. Foucault’s analysis of discourse encourages critical reflection on how knowledge and power are intertwined.