M. Foucault: History, Knowledge/Power, and Modernity

1
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Introduction
• The French Lieutenants Woman by John Fowles
  story, characters and alternate endings (True
  piety is acting on what we know) --- but what
  we know is only possible through the cultural
  representations available to us at a particular
  point in time (thus Victorian gentleman vs.
  (female) outcast, fossils classification tables
  vs. enigma evolutionary/predictable vs. the
  unpredictable/ spontaneous.
• Fs is a discursive theory of history.
• Discourses as bounded bodies of knowledge in
  history are often discontinuous in their
  development, but Fs concern is not on this
  history as such, but the history of the present,
  i.e., what are the historical conditions (that
  lead to) of the discursive systems in modern
  society.

2
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Discourse is knowledge, and in the emergence of
  modern society, such knowledge is increasingly
  dominated by the human sciences thus, the
  threshold of modern society is where man (and not
  God, kings, tradition) rationally takes charge of
  his affairs, and where his attention is drawn to
  himself as an object of (scientific) study.
• Knowledge, especially knowledge of man and his
  society, is not neutral, innocent or innocuous
  knowledge is power, and power is knowledge one
  is implied or necessitated or imbricated by the
  other.
• It is this kind of knowledge/power that F focuses
  on it is through this that he rethinks the
  historical path of modern society, the
  exigencies/requirements of modern capitalism, and
  the nature (and room for) of political resistance

3
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Fs main concerns and his methodology
• Unlike the classical thinkers, F is not
  interested in arriving at a grand schema/theory
  (Marxs logic of capitalism, Webers iron cage)
  that explained the whence (where it comes from)
  and whither (where it will lead to), and, of
  course, the why of modern society.
• History is much more discontinuous, and each form
  of society is a specific historical configuration
  that has its concrete conditions of existence.
  It is these conditions, and not the primary motor
  of change (capitalism, or great men, or
  evolution), that concern him. Indeed, F is
  interested in specific fields of such historical
  configurations, although these fields share the
  similarity that they are all about the body
  (broad sense), viz. life, death, health,
  sexuality, punishment

4
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• F is more interested in how we live than what
  we are instead of focusing on our inherent
  nature, attention is on the props of
  life/existence (language, knowledge/self-knowledge
  , ideas, concepts) ontology of the present.
• Fs methodology I archaeology and genealogy

• There is no self-evident area of enquiry in the
  history of ideas (systems of ideas and their
  changes) thus no constituent subject like
  madness or criminality there are different
  conceptions of insanity in different periods, and
  one conception in the 17th century may not be
  intelligible to one in the 19th century
  (discontinuities are more frequent than
  continuities)
• Within a historical framework, one finds
  different trajectories, levels, techniques and
  tactics, operations, practices that are related
  to bodies of thought/ideas

5
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Methodology I, contd
• the findings of these ideas and practices may
  not be regarded as proper or legitimate or
  scientific, because in different periods, society
  may have a different hierarchy of science or
  truth (the proper, positive codes for us to
  speak, write and understand things, including
  ourselves)
• in each society, thus, there could be knowledge
  that is marginalized and fragmented it is this
  subjugated knowledge that F wanted to uncover to
  F, the terrain of history of ideas in human
  society is not governed by a main trend, the
  inevitable victory of positive science (whether
  that trend evolves from mans intentions, or that
  trend serves some important functions)
• the historical changes in the ways (codes,
  concepts, categories) we represent and understand
  ourselves are like shifting relations between the
  thought-strata (some privileged and some
  subjugated) the method is to trace the ways
  they intersect, come together, and form a
  relational pattern (regardless of the original
  intentions and functions)

6
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity
Methodology I, contd

• this is the meaning of genealogy to trace
  links, to give names, with each part of the
  genealogical tree being a pattern/structure into
  itself
• doing genealogies is the tactic the overall
  method is to map out these sites of fragmented,
  discontinuous genealogies mapping out means
  attending to these sites as local discursive
  structures/patterns excavating them and reveal
  them in broad day light this is the meaning of
  archaeology of knowledge

• Methodology II Documents vs. Monuments

• in attending to the different thought-patterns
  of different periods, F made the distinction
  between documents and monuments

7
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity
Methodology II, contd

• Documents when using documents to study the
  prevailing thought-patterns of a period, one is
  drawn to the intentions of the author one is
  interested also in the origins of the product,
  and the consequences (example an official
  document in colonial Hong Kong)
• Monuments F suggested that one should treat it
  as a monument, i.e. what it symbolizes, and, more
  important, what underlying rules, perceptions,
  codes enter in the way the monument is written
  (thus document in colonial Hong Kong is a
  product/site where, e.g., Foreign Office
  thought-pattern, colonial rule in a Chinese
  society, Hong Kong in the teeth of communist
  China, Chinese cultural traditions, etc. come
  together the monument is one where all these
  thought/ideas/knowledge/concepts/codes (i.e.
  discursive practices) are inscribed

8
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity
Methodology II, contd

• Fs interest is in these fundamental codes that
  define or delimit the limits and forms of what
  are expressed
• the set of rules that define the limits for any
  given period is the archive an archive is a
  collection of statements, and statements are the
  elementary units of discourse (bodies of thought
  as social practice)
• two important reminders before moving on to
  substantive issues and Fs insights-------

9
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• F is not interested in history per se (what
  happened in the past, and even so, he has a
  distinct philosophy of history) he is always
  concerned about the predicament of the present,
  i.e. what are the historical conditions of the
  present (or crudely, if our 20th century
  sexuality --- its knowledge and its practices ---
  is unintelligible to 17th century people (as
  there are different discourses/knowledge systems
  in the two periods), and vice versa, are we now
  happier?)
• F takes seriously the fact that we could only
  understand reality in terms of the concepts,
  etc., we find prevalent in that reality but he
  also reverses the relation in each historical
  period, bodies of knowledge produce a particular
  kind of social subject he then builds his theory
  of power on this basis.

10
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Discourse, Knowledge and Power
• Elements or levels of discourse
• Discourse is language it uses signs to denote
  things, uses concepts to create representations
  but discourse is more than just denoting thing
• Discourse as social practice it is the means by
  which one expresses oneself or accomplishes
  something speaking (with its rules and
  criteria) is creating by speaking, new social
  space/positions and new subjects can be created
• Discourse as bounded bodies of knowledge the
  idea of discipline (sociology as a discipline and
  disciplinary practices such as school, prison,
  clinic, etc.) Fs use of discourse is to trace
  the relations between discourse/discipline as
  knowledge and discourse/discipline as practices
• Discourse as part of social technologies e.g.,
  writer and reader share something that makes
  writing and reading possible what is shared and
  used in uttering, exchanging, etc. (example
  Chinese mandarin and colonial mandarin)

11
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Fs analysis of discourse in operation

• how do we order things (illustration from the
  imaginary, alien pattern of categorization to the
  traditional Chinese notions of hot and cold
  to the modern mans train schedule) the borders
  we set for our thinking reveal episteme thought
  system characteristic of a period, of a society
• Renaissance thought system people think in
  terms of similitudes (resembling, contiguous,
  analogous, and sympathy (cosmic conception of
  man and nature) sympathy and antipathy (yin and
  yang in Chinese culture?), or the cosmic meanings
  of the four elements
• Knowing in that system is not about observing
  and documenting and demonstrating, but more about
  interpreting (divination as interpretation, as
  one could find resemblances in most diverse
  objects) the orientation in knowing is thus not
  objectifying all things, but of finding signs

12
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Classical period (from the 17th century) a new
  episteme replaced the old one the orientation
  in knowing is to establish separate identities
  for things (not drawing them together, finding
  resemblances among them) thus analysis, and
  representations
• this is an objectifying trend, and is
  reflected/illustrated in three empirical domains
  life, labour and language
• life as natural history all living things are
  categorized, catalogued and classified in tables
  of life-forms labour is more about the exchange
  of goods language is about classification in
  terms of types
• in all three domains, the discourse F found
  there does not place Man at the centre
• it is only with the emergence of modern society
  (and modern human sciences) in the 19th century
  that Man occupies the limelight of attention

13
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Modern thought form life now becomes biology,
  language philology, and labour political economy
  origins of biological forms replaced simple
  classifications of natural history historical
  use of language is now central concern, and
  production and mans place in it replaced
  exchange
• this process (seismic change in
  thought-stratum) is not continuous, evolutionary,
  developmental, but a rupture epistemes are not
  commensurable
• this process signifies that not only does Man
  know (search of knowledge, take charge of life,
  etc.), but he himself is the subject, centre of
  attraction, of this new thought-form the modern
  episteme is invariably focused on the individual,
  the self, the body

14
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• the discourse in human sciences thus affirms
  that man knows, but man is also the area or
  object to which knowledge should be applied now
  psychology applies the discourse to human life,
  sociology to human labour, and literature to
  human signification
• the disciplines developed and diversified, and
  man as the object of study is under greater
  scrutiny there is no aspect of human social life
  that is not a rightful topic for scientific
  study
• then in 20th century structuralist thought
  forms, Man recedes to the background universal
  structural patterns took centre-stage psychology
  is usurped by psychoanalysis, which posits a
  universal unconscious, in all of us mans
  behaviour is just responses to the strings and
  bows of the unconscious
• Fs attempt is thus to relativize
  thought-forms each epoch has its own dominant
  thought-forms or discourse, and the conditions
  for their dominance no one discourse could claim
  as truth

15
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Knowledge/Power

• What power is not not overt rule, not
  prohibition (laws saying NO!), thus not
  oppression, but domination as repression
• Power is not a thing, given to, consciously
  wielded by, and ultimately alienable, some
  people
• Power is not rule by ideology it is rule by
  knowledge
• Power is not about sovereign power (king or
  constitution as enjoying the sovereign right to
  rule, and obedience is the rightful duty), but
  disciplinary power (obeying to no one but ones
  self demands)
• F contrasted the juridical/legal conception of
  power and the modern discursive conception of
  power in the former, power is in fact weaker for
  always saying NO! to F (citation follows---)

16
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity
what makes power hold good, and what makes it
accepted, is simply the fact that it doesnt only
weight upon us as a force that says no, but that
it traverses and produces things, it induces
pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourses.
It needs to be considered as a productive network
which runs through the whole social body, much
more than a negative instance whose function is
repression. (Two Lectures)

• In this sense, knowledge in modern society is
  power, because it traverses and produces
  things, is a productive network.

17
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• F compared the traditional form of power with
  the modern power the former extracts taxes,
  levies and labour from the people it extracts
  obligations and obedience often by brute force
  the technologies and the economy of power in
  traditional society are thus costly, inefficient,
  and discontinuous (during warfare, rituals,
  harvests, etc.) it is power exerted from the
  outside
• then from the 17th century, a form of power
  came into being that begins to exercise itself
  through social production and social services it
  generated an incorporation of power into the
  concrete lives of individuals in other words,
  this new power must gain access to the bodies,
  the views, attitudes, acts of individuals at
  school or at work, disciplinary power was
  emerging
• this power is thus more all-embracing, more
  continuous (covering everyday behaviour), more
  efficient, and, most importantly, more
  individualized it worked through internal
  training of the individual

18
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• this new power is thus derived from, and worked
  through, knowledge it derived authority from
  science (pedagogy as science of education,
  psychology of work motivations, science of mental
  illness, etc.)
• knowledge is power, not just in the sense that
  it serves the interests of the powerful (e.g.,
  the factory boss, the school principal, etc.),
  but because knowledge itself proclaims the truth
  about human nature, human potential, and so on to
  the reasons for insanity, for criminal behaviour,
  etc. etc. by this truth production, knowledge
  constitutes individuals (us!) in specific ways,
  and to F, this is control, this is also power
• this brings the discussion back to Fs
  discursive theory of history and society.

19
M. Foucault History, Knowledge/Power, and
Modernity

• Fs theory of power summarized
• Power does not need a concrete agent (despot or
  class)
• Power is thus not some conscious device it is
  more a state of affairs
• Power is relational, but power/knowledge works
  on, and through, the individual
• Power is exercised in any chosen field on an
  everyday life basis it is there even when there
  is no conflict or struggle
• To understand power in modern society, one should
  not begin at the top (the so-called centres of
  authority) one should begin at the local, from
  the bottom levels, the places where no overt
  (legal) power is present it is because sciences
  reach each and every domain, and because the
  individual is the vehicle and effect of power.