Power in the Eyes of Foucault
Needless to say, but one of my favorite things to do when I am in the office is when I was asked by the Lupon Tagapamayapa to review a surveillance footage, so as to settle the conflict brought upon the lupon. Designed to reassure the public about community safety, CCTVs institute public order, in way of preventing antisocial behavior and nuisance. While it is not my task to confer with barangay settlements, having to do so, gives me power — much more in resemblance of the overseer in Michel Foucault’s analysis of Bentham’s panopticon.
On the query of power relations, I am taken back to the Marxian scholarship — a classist concept operated in the context of dominance and subordination (power struggle). Concentrated from a macro level, power according to Marx is viewed as an institution a conventional political and economic context. Michel Foucault contended this approach as an oversimplification, and instead viewed power at every level of the society (from individuals, through groups, and organizations to society as a whole). Unlike Marx, Foucault conceives power as enacted rather possessed — something that is not simply wielded by one level of society over another but is present in every level (Ritzer, 2011). In emphasis, power is not a thing but a relation — something that is done to others, an action that affects the action of others (Thorpe et al, 2015).
By Foucault’s analysis, power can be categorized into either positive (normalizing) or negative (repressive) (Gijsbers, 2017). The latter reflects into the juridical type, a prohibitive function of a repressive state apparatus, law and police. Here power is seen as a possession, consciously exercised by agents to further their own interest over others. The other type of power is recognized as disciplinary and discursive. Disciplinary power infiltrates the very body and psyche of an individual and transform it into a malleable and obedient subject. Examples of which are detailed schedule and timetables, exercises and training, examinations, report-keeping, and probably isolation of inmates. In the image of modern society, correctional institutions (prison, psychiatric wards, schools, etc.) have the disciplinary power to regard everyone as “prisoner”. The system of internalization of rules inside these very institutions has been extended to the entire society, and therefore created a realm where individuals everywhere become individual’s guardian. The way power relations force individuals to conform to social norms (especially sexual norms) is no longer exercised by coercion but by mechanisms that ensure compliance, which is normalized through discourse (discursive power).
Following this premise, power is nevertheless, ‘everywhere’ and ‘comes from everywhere’, so in this sense, it is neither an agency nor a structure. In the perspective of political philosophy, Foucault regarded the “subject” as simply a social and historical construct — an object of analysis and entails the production of truth (Ritzer, 2011). Under Neitzsche’s influence, Foucault challenged the idea that “knowledge is power”, saying that the two are related more subtly; an “indivisible amalgam” which one is required and created one after the other. The two form a symbiotic relationship of which is facilitated by discourse — a precursor in understanding systems of representation (Hall, 1992). Physical things and actions exist in the social realm but it is only within discourse that they take on meaning and become objects of knowledge — how they are talked about and how they are put into practice and become institutionalized (Gijsbers, 2017). In the modern times, power is being exercised by controlling what forms of knowledge are acceptable, presenting them as truths and excluding other forms. To illustrate is the discourse on sexuality as contended by Foucault himself in his History of Sexuality where he argues that “censorship is not the primary form through which power is exercised; rather it is the incitement to speak about one’s sexuality, in order better to regulate it” (Felluga, 2002). The continual call to speak of sexuality in the present age (through media and education) is significant in regulating sexual-related issues such as teenage pregnancies and STDs. While discourse produce, transmit and reinforce power, it also undermines and exposes it. Truth isn’t outside power, but a thing of this world, produced by multiple forms of constraint. Truth is a subject and product of discourse.
While Foucault’s lasting contribution is essential in the viewpoint of history, many scholars contend his concepts as subtle, speculative and vague — and that is due to his convoluted prose style. Some academic historians also argue for his historical inaccuracy. (Thorpe et al, 2015). Despite of that, his ideas of power as described in his Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality gained acceptance in the mainstream sociology and eventually influenced the analysis of how discourse is used in society as an instrument of power in many different arenas — not less different from the power that the surveillance CCTV cameras (modern-day panopticon) have.
Word Count: 799
References
Felluga, D. (2002) “Modules on Foucault: On the Repressive Hypothesis.” Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Purdue U. http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/genderandsex/modules/foucaultrepressive.html
Foucault’s political philosophy: Key concepts. (2021, January 16). PHILO-notes. https://philonotes.com/index.php/2020/01/09/foucaults-political-philosophy/
Gjisbers, V. (2017). Michel Foucault, power. Leiden University — Faculty of Humanities. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLnKbmrW5g
Hall, S. (1992) “The West and the rest”, in S. Hall & B. Gieben, B. (eds), Formations of Modemity. Cambridge, Polity Press/The Open University.
Ritzer G. (2011). Sociological Theory. 8th edition. McGraw-Hill.
The School of Life. (2015, July 3). Philosophy — Michel Foucault. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJTeNTZtGU
Thorpe, C., Yuill, C., Hobbs, M., Todd, M., Tomley, S., & Weeks, M. (2015). The sociology book.
