Foucault On Power N Knowledge

Foucault's Concept of
"Power/Knowledge" Explained
One of Michel Foucault’s fundamental concepts is power/knowledge. We
normally think of power and knowledge as two separate concepts, one political
and one epistemological (having to do with truth for its own sake), or perhaps
pedagogical (having to do with teaching and education). Foucault, however,
argues that power and knowledge are inextricably linked, such that it doesn’t
make sense to speak of one without the other. Hence, power and knowledge
are conjoined into a single concept, which he calls “power/knowledge.”
According to Foucault, all knowledge is possible and takes place only within a
vast network or system of power relationships that allow that knowledge to
come to be, in order for statements accepted as “true” in any context to be
uttered, and in order for what counts as knowledge to be generated in the first
place. For example, scientific knowledge may be produced only as the result of
well-funded academic institutions, for-profit corporations, and/or
governments, each of which is rife with its own visible, and often invisible,
power relations, economies, and strata.
Think of the difference and relationship between upper management, middle

management, and lower-level employees, between various branches of
government in the American political system, or between faculty, students,
and administrators at a university. To a very large extent, these power
relationships define the agenda the organization will follow, whether a
research agenda or organizational agenda, what types of utterances and
viewpoints are accepted within the organization or messaged outward from
the organization, but, most importantly, which viewpoints, utterances, and
research agendas are included in or excluded from the domain of “truth” and
“knowledge” within a specific context.
The same is true for the relationship between power and knowledge ini the
other direction. Systems of power, whether governmental, academic, cultural,
corporate, or scientific, are all justified and upheld by a complex web of beliefs
generally accepted as “truth” or as “knowledge” by people of various ranks
and roles within any particular context, such that it’s not possible, even in
principle, to separate the vast web of power relationships from the vast web
of beliefs, each of which feeds off the other in a relationship that is deeper
than mere symbiosis or reciprocity. This, when we speak of either power or
knowledge, according to Foucault, we are really dealing with
power/knowledge as a single, vast web of power relationships and systems of
knowledge, the majority of which are implicit and not commonly called
attention to within any particular society, context, or institution.
To understand Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge, it’s important to

understand that Foucault does not mean merely top-down power
relationships such is seen in the relationship between a monarch—such as
king or queen—and his or her subjects. Power relationships, for Foucault, are
not always top-down; they can be bottom-up, lateral, overlapping, or even
bidirectional.
(Yale University—A typical American university where systems of knowledge are deeply intertwined
with networks of power relationships of all sorts, what Foucault referred to as “power/knowledge.”)
Think, for example, of the many power relationships present at a typical

American college or university. Yes, the teacher may have power over his or
her students, such as the ability to determine the students’ grades, to
influence their academic careers, to promote or hinder students’ future
success in the form of willingness or hesitancy to write letters of
recommendation, and so on. The students, however, also have power over the
instructors in the form of teaching evaluations, academic appeals, student
government, appeals to the college’s administration or governing bodies, and
so on.
These hierarchical relationships, however, don’t even begin to scratch the

surface of the many, many overlapping power relationships in all directions,
for Foucault. Think of the way in which the social relationships between peers,
even those in the same cohort of students, influence students’ success, whose
work is praised or ridiculed, which students are taken seriously and which are
overlooked, which students feel comfortable speaking in class and which feel
silenced because of those very social relationships, and so on. Think similarly
of the complex relationships between various faculty members or
administrators at any particular educational institution, with faculty and
administrators vying for positions of power within the institution, to get their
own proposals to be accepted and acted upon, to be seen as one of the insiders
of the institution instead of socially excluded, to be the most published or
publicly visible faculty member in one’s academic department, and so on.
These are examples of lateral power relationships that are not hierarchical
but nonetheless have a profound impact on what counts as truth or
knowledge both at the level of a particular educational institution and globally
in terms of cultural contexts in which the knowledge produced is either
accepted or rejected in the cultural context as a whole, whether locally,
nationally, internationally, or globally. Moreover, there are analogous power
relationships between institutions of all sorts, with institutions vying for
notoriety (and often funding!), with various branches of government
competing with one another for control or the final say-so on any particular
issue, and with the members of each of these organizations constrained and
influenced, but also powerfully enabled, by those very same power
relationships and the cultural systems of truth and knowledge that uphold
them.
(Power relationships are not always top-down. The social relationships between peers, between the
same cohort of students, or between faculty members are lateral power relationships that are just as
relevant to how knowledge is produced and what becomes accepted as “true.”)
Throughout the history of philosophy, political philosophers have recognized

a relationship between power and knowledge. Plato, for example, thought that
philosophers, who were best able to understand the concept of justice in itself,
would be the best rulers and should be entrusted with political power because
they alone would know how to wield that power justly. (See Plato’s Republic.)
Aristotle’s view of practical knowledge similarly influenced his view on the
nature of government and the correct use of political power as a form of
practical problem-solving. (See Aristotle’s Politics.) In the modern period,
political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (cf. Leviathan), John Locke (cf.
Second Treatise of Government), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (cf. The Social
Contract) actively sought to ground their political philosophies in human
rationality, natural history, etc. while using their influence as philosophers, for
political purposes, to mold the political reality of humankind using the tools of
human reason.
But while Foucault wasn’t the first philosopher to draw a connection between
power and knowledge, or between truth and influence, Foucault was the first
to argue that these concepts, because of the depth at which they are
intertwined, are not separable even in principle, that whenever one speaks of
knowledge, one is also ipso facto speaking of power, and whenever one speaks
of power, one is also speaking ipso facto of the systems of knowledge that
uphold and maintain the power relationships in question.
For Plato and Aristotle, and for Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, knowledge and
power were related but still separate in principle. For Foucault, however, one
can never speak merely of power without the systems of knowledge that
uphold that power, and one can never speak merely of knowledge without the
power relationships, both hierarchical and lateral, that allow that knowledge
to be produced in the first place and for it to be generally accepted within a
particular context. Thus, there is never mere power or mere knowledge; there
is only power/knowledge.
Those who generate knowledge can do so, and are accepted, only because
they have many overlapping forms of power. Similarly, those who wield
power of any form—political, social, economic, academic, etc,—do so only
because of of the underlying cultural views about knowledge, truth, politics,
human nature, education, etc. that allow those individuals to obtain those
many forms of power in the first place. But again, most importantly, often the
most influential power relationships are non-hierarchical—i.e. they are more
social than political in nature, having to do with as much with social capital as
economic or political capital.
So, when talking about Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and trying to

apply it to a particular context—whether academic, scientific, political,
religious, or otherwise—you must seek out and uncover the various hidden
and implicit (and often purposefully concealed) power relationships operating
at every level within that context itself, and even between neighboring
overlapping contexts, whether economic, social, political, or geopolitical, and
at every level, from the largest institution to between individuals at every
level of social and institutional hierarchy.
Those who are allowed to speak and have influence, as well as those who are
not, are governed by the very same network of power relationships and
systems of knowledge within their shared contexts, as anyone whose voice or
influence has even been silenced will know all too well, and as anyone with
the power to speak and to influence outcomes also knows and enjoys all to
well while wielding the influence that those very relationships of power and
knowledge make possible.
https://www.zacharyfruhling.com/philosophy-blog/foucaults-concept-of-power-knowledge-
explained

Foucault On Power N Knowledge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foucault On Power N Knowledge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foucault On Power N Knowledge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foucault's Concept of

Think of the difference and relationship between upper management, middle

To understand Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge, it’s important to

Think, for example, of the many power relationships present at a typical

These hierarchical relationships, however, don’t even begin to scratch the

relevant to how knowledge is produced and what becomes accepted as “true.”)

Throughout the history of philosophy, political philosophers have recognized

So, when talking about Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and trying to

You might also like