Reason is not subject to power although is influenced by it, without one's own reason knowledge" wouldn't be as certain, if absolute certainty was even possible......
In Foucault’s view, power comes from relationships. Power is a natural byproduct of the social. Also, crucially, power isn’t necessarily bad. It’s not simply coercion. The writing he did later in life is particularly illuminating as he talked about some of the more positive aspects of power such teacher student relationships. I hope this clarifies some of your misunderstandings of Foucault.
For me, the answer to many of the questions about Foucault, such as those raised at the end of this video, were anticipated and answered by John Dewey decades before him. Dewey is a seriously underrated philosopher- and I don’t know why.
Hello, I'm a PhD student in my qualifying exam phase so I have been pondering Foucault a lot lately. Thanks for this video. It is very helpful. I saved it to be able to return to. I understand Foucault to say that power is not a top down approach, as you state, but that power is in all. With that premise, I am encouraged that everyone has power. Some people have more power (particularly when acquired through the use of weapons) and some have less, depending on the context. No one is sovereign, in this case. I find this as a hopeful insight, particularly for marginalized and oppressed people groups because they actually have more power than they know. They give more power to those in leadership by placing them in power, for instance. So I believe that it is important to embed into the psychology of the oppressed that they are not power-less but powerful. Furthermore, if we all have power, we all produce knowledge. I am seeing more that particularly in the academy, there is a desire for the acknowledgment of the epistemologies of subaltern voices. Regardless of our sociopolitical status, we all have power and the ability to use and validate our sources of knowledge. Again, thanks for this video.
Hi Myron, Thanks for your very thoughtful comment. It's always very hard to locate the source or origin of power in Foucault's account -- for me at least! I agree with you that this might suggest that power is diffused throughout communities. All of us might have power, or maybe it's more accurate to say we "participate" in power. My understanding is that Foucault was somewhat frustrating for 20th century revolutionaries because he was skeptical that revolutionary (particularly Marxist) political movements would solve the problems associated with power. My sense is he thinks that power keeps reproducing itself in different formations, which threatens to make social justice initiatives somewhat pointless. I don't think he thinks that's ultimately the case, but I think it's a worry or problem in his thought. The point you raise about knowledge, however, might suggest a real opportunity for positive political change. I agree with you there. If we can pluralize and promulgate alternate epistemologies and disrupt dominant modes of thought -- racist and colonial ways of categorizing the world, etc. -- then we might be able to change the power structures too. Thanks for watching. I'm glad you found the video helpful! Good luck on your qualifying exams. I remember how stressful those can be!
@@GreatBooksProf This is such a healthy response and gives insight to me, someone trying to learn the fundamentals. I also cannot say how rare it is to see a professor being humble and informative in the same paragraph, damn. Thanks!
@@GreatBooksProfHello, I'm currently writing my undergraduate dissertation on: room for liberation in Foucaults work on sex and the body (I'm still working on the actual title lol) so this is quite topical. I definitely think it's valid to critique Foucault on his description of power, particularly if we want to view him as a figurehead for positive change. For me the most puzzling thing about his reading is how absent it is of ethical judgements. Not only does he tell us how we are oppressed, and how we are the oppressors, but also how we can never know the "multiplicity" of power structures in which we are involved. Anyway, I don't think power is bottom up nor top down for Foucault in the sense that it occurs spontaneously and without purpose. It is something that we can't get rid of. It feels like something we cannot control. Regardless, I'm working on the suspicion that a proper Foucauldian 'logic' is self-defeating in one way or another. That being said I find him to be brilliant and one of the most interesting people I've read during my (philosophy) BA.
@@danielnaylor7737 Hi Daniel, Thanks for your comment. I think you're right about this. This aligns closely with the way I tend to think about Foucault. On the one hand, I think he is an amazing diagnostician, and I can appreciate how complex power (in his estimation) really is; I find his argument mostly persuasive on that front. But, like you, I can't shake the ethical problems. How ought we to live? That seems like an urgent question, and I'm not sure we find satisfactory answers in Foucault. It certainly doesn't mean he's useless or bad, just an important limitation, I think.
Such an amazing person and eloquent professor. So lucky to have found this channel. Thank you, sir, for helping us understand without making us feel stupid. Top notch!😊
Round 9 minutes you make an extremely interesting point and I think it is critical to think about. The point, on which I refer to is when you said, " when we study power, wouldn't it just be the way power wants us to?" To answer your question I would say yes. I think the problem Foucault presents is an extremely depressing but necessary one to ponder. Essentially Foucault is claiming the epistemology(the ways of knowing)are embedded within power and those who wield power. Black Feminist traditions acknowledge a similar point to the one Foucault does and attempts to provide a solution. They (Audre Lorde, Combahee River Collective, Patrica Hill Collins, Beverly Guy-Sheftall, and others) have attempted and have made a Black Feminist epistemology to disrupt power because if they can learn the world and themselves differently, they can understand the power that rules them differently. Again, this can be disputed due to the question of can you develop new ways of knowing when existing in the old ways. However, I think these thinkers serve as an attempt at an solution and progression towards unpacking the flaw of Foucault that you have raised within this video.
Hey Christian, Thank you so much for this comment. It’s such a great illustration of the idea and its implications! I’ve taught Angela Davis’s “Are Prisons Obsolete?” a few times; one can really see in her work how Foucault can be used to make the case for things like prison abolition. She does a really great job, I find, of illustrating how prisons don’t just punish, but also give shape to our communities and create categories. Thanks again for taking the time. It’s a fascinating subject.
Hello. I wonder if there is answer in the question of whether "power" is necessarily bad or if the relationships that power generates can be utilized for equity and equality? The relation between power and knowledge sounds dynamic. The relationship of who has what power and what knowledge shifts with time. How knowledge and power are utilized also shift with time and circumstances! So, by approaching the question from another angle might serve capital P Power, but it also serves to rectify injustice in the medium term. The question of why does Foucault study Power if that only serves to create Power is that passive application and active application of Power can have different meanings and outcomes. By studying that black women are ignored by their doctors more than white men then we can at least attempt to fix the systemic injustice. Power may prevail, but application has real functional impact on the lives of humans in the systems. Even if we can't fix the issue, I think there is a moral imperative to try.
Hey Lars, Thanks for this comment! I’m so happy your students found the video helpful. And I’m impressed they’re studying Foucault in high school! That’s some high-level work. Are they studying Foucault in a philosophy class? Political science?
@@GreatBooksProf Philosophy class. It's an elective subject in many Dutch high schools. We're discussing social philosophy this period and your video showed up in the exact week we're talking about Foucault. Last period we dedicated to reading Plato's Gorgias. Pupils enjoyed your video on this topic as well!
Thanks for this, Mike. I’m glad you found the video useful. I’ve always found Foucault very challenging to study. This sounds like a really interesting class! What else have you been studying this year?
A little late on my reading schedule at my uni, so I've decided to binge Foucault by watching some videos on YT. And I have to say, you did not dissapoint. Very straightforward and to the point. I am surprised that this channel has such a small following, because this is some high quality content right here!
Knowledge is only subjected to power because power limits knowledge. If you want to be power you'll have to find new knowledge in order to overcome present power then you will be the power limiting your knowledge because you don't want knowledge to catch up.
I get dragged deeper and deeper down these philosophical rabbit holes from time to time (usually after i've been stuck down a physics rabbit hole). See you in a week or two, more books to read. Thanks for the videos
Thank you, this is the second video I've watched of yours on Foucault. Thank you so much. I really love that you also question Foucault. Resistance! haha. Seems like no one questions Foucault's ideas for even half a second in my school. And if I questioned them, I feel like I would be shunned forever lol.
Fascinated by the image here given by the professor--power "circulates." Sounds like the THAT "in which, and through which we move and have our being." Indeed power appears to be the relations between individuals. Rather, this Geist, as it were, might be prior to "individuals" and "subjectivity." Or it might just be another word for the Cartesian "subject" or Fichte's "Ego." Yet another analogy: intentionality. Fascinated also by the notion that F. "turns everything upside down," so to speak. The body is not the prison of the soul; rather, the soul is the prison of the body.
I understand Foucalt perfectly. Philosophy is wordy but it ain't difficult to understand. Prejudice ,any difference is a matter of perspective and interest. Equality is impossible. Delegating enforcement doesn't diminish the inherent disdain for control and power over the individual or group. Structure is a given. Foucalt is a deconstructionist with no alternative except a different leader.
Thank you very much for explaining something that up until now, for me has been very hard to grasp. I also would like to say that the combination of your explanation along with the visual additions (animations, pictures) were really helping. Great video!
I think that the first problem you talked about Foucault's theory was the main reason for Baudrillard's book "Forget Foucault". He mentioned that Foucault's thinking represented capitalism but instead of talking about "Capitalism" that control everything, he is using the term power. So, according to Baudrillard, Foucault is mirroring capitalism and not actually explaining something new
Interesting video. In response to your first critique of MF, Foucault always stressed that where there is power there is resistance. Power never exists in a vacuum.
I too find the claim Foucault doesn't explain power pretty grating. What about the humanists of the enlightenment and their discursive formations to produce docile bodies, the dispositif etc. There's a huge load of philosophy youtubers out there, lots of interpretations of MF. I'll go elsewhere. Cheers though.
thanks for the explanation. The last take on power is something I've come to believe myself, that power changes when the situation arises. We end up being proactive as influenced by power. It's hard for me to imagine that there is any internal locus of power, power looks more like an endless web of relationships that we have no control over and that molds existence in real time. Basically no free will, no agency, just a big chain reaction going on that we're witnessing / partaking in. (Not saying my way of seeing things is healthy, I spend hours every day trying to get out of bed, no job no income no gf no nada)
My friend from far away, I think there is great value in studying power and social conditioning and such in how we should build or rebuild social institutions but it's not useful for your day to day life. From a scientific perspective, we have no proof that everything is determined or if free will can enter the picture. And, even if everything is predetermined, it's too complex to be predictable. What happens today is necessarily different than what happened yesterday! On the personal level, I think you gain a locus of control in sitting between the two. I think therapeutic treatment is the same whether we have free will or just the illusion of free will. If it is just stimulus and response, set yourself up to be stimulated with positive and negative situations and rewards. Then be mindful and aware of your responses. If there is freewill, then take control by adjusting your environment to give you more chances to exercise your freewill to the person you want to be. Either way, take time to accept and understand what you cannot control but also what is nearby you can shift and change to put the odds in your favor. For actionable advice there are two things: first make two small changes a day for a week at time. Shower every day and make your bed every morning. (It's okay if you only get 2 days out of 7, because then it's a new week and you start afresh) It's silly, but it's also shows you there is something you can do. Second, remember you aren't alone and you don't have to face it alone. You can seek institutional help like doctors, community help like friends and family, societal help from strangers on the internet. Remember how people out there want you to feel better. And when it's your turn, you can make someone else feel better too. Good luck.
@@simonw560 Thanks brother, I teach piano to a few kids (didn't consider it a job cuz it's like 4 people but it's much much better than NOTHING which had been the case for years prior). The best most effective way to learn a new song is to take it SLOW, and comming back every day as you make big progress while sleeping. If you can take it slow (aka enjoy playing real slow and being meticulous about it) then the piano journey is not hard, does not require "patience" "dedication" etc it's just plain fun So I guess it should be the same for daily habits, adding a few slowly but surely. Thanks for your long text. Whatever depths philosophy gets me too there's a constant fact that can't be unseen is that we're in this together, howerver meaningless cruel or weird life can be
Thank you! A great video and dissection of Foucault's work- straight forward and to the point- perfect for my pragmatic brain. I would love it if you did a video on Frantz Fanon's work. Kind regards, Danielle from New Zealand. 🙂
This was it! This finally made Foucault make sense. Thank you...seems too small a thing to say. You didn't need to produce this in the quality and clarity that you did, but I (we?) are so grateful that you did!
I know this is years behind the posted date, but I hope my question finds a place. With the notion that power dynamics are everything important, how is this not a myopic point of view? I struggle to find answers that are not subjective.
Beautiful summary. Great examples. His is a sophisticated application of the hermeneutics of suspicion, to use Ricoeur's term. Much of his analysis of knowledge seems to turn on the idea that knowledge can be measured and quantified, and whether he agrees that it can or is saying that this (problematically) is built into all power structures.
@@GreatBooksProf Yes, this semester we were given material on him and tasked to write a portfolio that assesses his discourse theories using power and knowledge. Had some challenges understanding what I was reading but jotted down notes, now some of the notes are useful after watching this video.
Hi Suzenna, I’m glad to hear you found it helpful! I’ve always found Foucault pretty dense. But, as I said, his work is very influential. Are you reading him presently?
@@GreatBooksProf Yes, I'm doing my undergrad thesis on Foucault's Panopticon & Power structure. I checked out many video lectures but wasn't quite satisfied. Glad I found this ☺
I'm glad you found it helpful! I struggle to understand this relationship too. I think Foucault struggled to understand it! My understanding of it is always in flux. I find Discipline and Punish is both difficult and good. The point he makes early about the historical shift from physical torture to forcing prisoners to live by a strict schedule is what made things click for me. The change in punishment methods reveals a shift in priorities and power's penetration into our souls. Maybe even the invention of our souls?
Seems like _Power_ is being postulated through a lens of energy relationship. As in, kinetic vs potential and the steamroller affect of Power when executed kinetically?
Hello! Thank you for this video, it was truly fascinating! I am an A-Level student studying media studies and I was thinking based on Foucalt's point of view, 'Once we become objects of knowledge, we become subject to power.' could I argue in a media sense that when we consume information from newspapers and film, we then become subject to the content producer's power (therefore for newspapers, most likely the government's power)? Then in some ways, we could link this to Curran and Seaton, looking at the benefits of having more media institutions rather than a few conglomerates dominating the market so the content produced has more of a variety and creativity, providing audiences with a more wholesome outlook on life as we are very much influenced by media. But then debating from a Baudrillard perspective, in a postmodern society, audience's identities are fluid and we are able to consider and view critically what information/knowledge we absorb, hence, we are not truly subject to power?
@GreatBooksProf - great summary. Can you recommend any authors who have done a credible job of addressing the flaws and gaps in Foucault's arguments around the nature of power and its "wants?"
Really helpful summation of Foucault's work, but I think you missed the critically important element of his orientation to anarchism in your final "problem."
Thanks Joe! I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Is this the first time the study of Foucault has been described as a "treat"? 😄 When I teach him in class, students are not always enthusiastic. They'd probably liken reading him to eating a raw potato.
Great video, thanks. So, Foucault claimed that individuals or groups with more power will claim to know something about the thing they want to control (and will indoctrinate you to agree with their theories). If I know X then I can identify "problems" with X and impose my "solutions". "Knowledge" is used to increase power by offering justification for your policies (or by making them more attractive). My perspective privileges me. If I get others to take on my perspective then I will be in a more privileged position. So if I convince society of the narrative that I am a victim (and should have access to all the privileges and help that comes with that) then I am expanding or consolidating my influence. Have I got this right??
Surely if you argue that there is a straight line between knowledge and power then it is difficult to describe what power is - but it isn’t a straight line but a triangle where the third point is ‘language’ - we exercise power through language everyday , the baby exerts power over the mother with a single utterance ‘mama’- how does the baby know it’s place within this power structure - through language? Through exchanging utterances/language with it’s mother has it established the power relationship and understood that it has the power in that relationship?
Thank you for a great video! Liked and subscribed 😊 However to have a basic understanding of Foucault's power/knowledge I think it's necessary to mention Foucault's concept of discourse. I just want to point out that "truth" is created when knowledge is elevated by power and reproduced through discourse. Knowledge can exist with a minimum of power (for example only in my head) but "truth" experienced as some kind of transcendental knowledge can not be established without vast amounts of power. It's a common misconception that for Foucault all knowledge is equal (and therefore all knowledge equals significant power) but it's not that simple. It can be really hard to understand the differences because he often uses words like knowledge, truth etc interchangeably but actually mean different things depending on the context. Additionally (and famously), especially when discussing the concept of discourse, he uses two different and distinct French words for knowledge that are difficult to translate into English which must have contributed to some reductionist interpretations.
Thanks for this great addition! Really helpful. Question: since a lot of the people finding this video are encountering Foucault for the first time, are there particular selections you'd recommend they read to grapple with this knowledge / truth / discourse question?
Good analysis and insight. It appears to me that Foucault's theory on power-knowledge relationship is not complete and not multi-dimensionally representative of reality.
“Second problem” with Foucault’s argument is not really a problem. Let’s paraphrase the First law of thermodynamics: “energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form”. The power can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. It is totally in sync with nature :-) Foucault is not talking about it, he is enacting it in his works.
This was such a helpful video! Foucault is our focus of study this week in my Sociology degree, the philosophical level of it all has been extremely hard to grasp but the breakdown in this video made it so much more easier, thank you!
Thanks very much! This is, I take it, a pretty active debate among readers of Foucault. If truth or knowledge is subject to power then nothing can be true. But that would lead to total absurdity and Foucault’s work would make no sense - nothing would make sense! So, my sense is that Foucault is not at the core a relativist but this is a problem in his thought. Also he was VERY reluctant to make any claims about political programs. He does not often say that certain political formations would be better than others for example.
@@GreatBooksProf hmmm I take Foucault to simply mean we can’t ever know what is objective truth is subjective and contextual to time, culture and power. Foucault never wanted to weigh in on what was good or bad, rejecting the false dichotomy and the construction of human nature. I feel that Foucault would welcome the skepticism of his ideas on power but that doesn’t mean they are not useful- Foucault would agree he also has no access to truth either but his thesis does help me in my work as a social worker to critique grand narratives that hold humans back from flourishing in thier lives in thier own ways
Power is possession. "In the beginning was the word." Fair enough. "And the word was with god." Still okay. The word is with me too. "And the word was god." I no longer possess the word. I have no power.
I come away from all this being very impressed with Aristotle and at loss as to what Foucault is trying to say (beyond the observation that no sovereign is absolute, and that laws are embedded in customs which can be more powerful than the law, but how did we not know this already?)
Yeah I am, currently I'm finishing an essay that's applying his theories of biopower and biopolitics to Roe v Wade. Writing it has felt like mental gymnastics
@@GreatBooksProf i was having hard time for understanding foucault perspective about power and knowledge :") then i found your video that really helps me a lot! thanks~
I’m not sure I agree with your redux on what Foucault believes power to be. Foucault sees power as Benjaminic force exerted, so to understand Foucault we must wrestle with Critique of Violence.
@@GreatBooksProf Actually, I am a Ph.D scholar from Amity University, India. I was looking for a video that would help me understand it better. You analyzed it very well. It was very helpful.
@@GreatBooksProf Thanks! Yes, very true. I am studying Foucault as a part of my coursework in English Literature. Plus, the topic that I am researching is "Dalit Discourse" where I can use this as one of the references.
I LOVE these kinds of precis, especially of these kinds of French or German philosophers who write (or are translated) in a super opaque way. So I'm no philosopher, and don't really read this stuff, but I think I understand the extent to which Foucault has been so influential. In the popular imagination I think there is a dawning understanding of our entire culture and society as an organism, and that those in power are mostly just fulfilling the roles that are required of the moment. Culture is power. Culture is not your friend. Culture provides a framework within which you are defined, and through which you define yourself. For example, there is a changing perception of people who are trans. This change isn't because some white men at the top decided being trans is OK, it's a cultural moment in which trans is shifting it's role and meaning to us. Our assumptions and predilections towards trans, is just fully implicit in all our language, literally how our cities are set up... it's impossible to point at exactly where the definition of the role begins. Obviously laws go a long way to legitimizing certain concepts, but they never happen until a deeper shift has occurred amongst the population at large. Or for instance, this is the confusion around racism. Racism isn't when an individual says something racist to someone. In America, the culture of black vs white is inseparable from the entire organism. It's just as embedded in black as white culture, it's in how our cities are organized, it's in our very language, all of this in very subtle ways that are hard to detect. And I fully agree that the goal of moving towards an explicitly "more just" power structure is actually suspect. Throughout history, all "isms" and protracted ideas for political organization that are put in place most usually cause massive suffering. Rather, those big changes have to happen organically, and the end of a shift in meaning on the cultural level. OK, so I'm blabbing like I actually know what I'm talking about, but it would seem that what Foucault is doing is the right approach: to critique examples of societal/cultural forms that create inequality and injustice. By evolving the conversation and... well, complaining a lot about stuff like racism and how trans gender folks need to be given a serious break, eventually, the change occurs organically... There's never some utopic societal rainbow at the end of the journey, just some better eras than others. It will never stop evolving. Even if you have a despot in power who prevents these shifting cultural norms to be reflected in the lives of people, the power relationship has actually shifted, but people are now aware of these forms in a different way...
Hey Rolf, Thanks for this great comment! I’m glad you enjoyed the video. I think your point about culture is a good one. In a simple way I think Foucault is trying to understand how power circulates, recognizing that power is not ONLY invested in the person who rules. For example, we would say that celebrities have a certain amount of “power” or that TV commercials and movies shape the way we think and behave. In that way power seems to be kind of decentralized. One cautionary note that Foucault might hit is that things don’t necessarily progress. And things that seem like progress are not necessarily liberating! Very tricky business.
Power enables grouping and structuring society in order to produce knowledge like Elon Musk managing his team. The origin of power though can be very complex and majorly interesting(Education and ability, Economics, Politics etc)- in short and simply put. The team or working class can return organized resistance power through action knowledge. Sorry just learning/thinking.
Well, that's sort of the typical way we think about power -- and it may be true! Traditionally we imagine an adversarial relationship between knowledge and power, or we imagine that wielding power depends on knowledge. Or... as you say, we imagine that power, especially tyrannical power, works to limit or conceal knowledge among the oppressed (because knowledge is the true source of power). Foucault suggests something more radical though. He troubles the idea that there is a knowledge "outside" of power that could be used to "overturn" power. That "overturning" process, Foucault says, would just be power reconstituting itself in another form. We *may* temporarily be able to outwit power, but power always seems to catch up. So we might protest about some issue -- climate change or gender issues, for example. Power will respond by holding conferences, and town halls, and then creating a government office in charge of climate issues. Power will absorb the resistance, in a way. It will turn resistance into a field of study and then it can be controlled. This is why Foucault was even skeptical that a Communist revolution or the overthrow of capitalism would lead to liberation. He suspected, again, we would just see power reconstituting itself in a different form. The oppressive structures would just have different names and slightly different shapes.
Good video! I feel like I've heard that point about power in the school system before by someone else, probably more recent, though I don't remember who (an American psychologist, maybe?). His power/knowledge thing definitely sounds very Marxist in that power relationships and structures exist everywhere, although I guess Marx would believe that it is more hierarchical, with there always being someone who has more power than the other person although even Marx I think would acknowledge the complexity of determining that. I am curious as to why he was so actively politically engaged if he really believed that regimes can't be overthrown or changed effectively. Foucault's idea reminds me of the first law of thermodynamics. But it seems to me that though power always exists in some form, less awful (perhaps less powerful) forms of it could be preferred over tyrannical powers, such as not having a government and fragmenting and reducing power to solely what can be contained within one individual. Your two "problems" you mention with Foucault would definitely be questions I would have if I were reading him, but questions I would either expect to be answered in other books, or that already were answered and I was just not smart enough to understand the answers. I would probably try to construct answers that would end up being pretty shallow and gelatinous based off the small amount I did know of Foucault without realizing that maybe he just never answered them. So, it seems your position is that his ideas just remained incomplete?
To add to what I was saying about his stance on power, it does look like he was very practically and politically motivated in this, and also like you were saying, he definitely wanted to be very clear that power exists all around us and in every aspect of society, not just government. In his famous debate with Chomsky, he said, "It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticize and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." The neutral institutions are of course family and medicine and whatnot. I thought Chomsky's response was interesting and kinda fit with what I was saying. He was like yeah, you're right, but like the power of government and capitalism is a lot worse than the power within a single family, so we should kinda focus on that. Thoughts?
Super interesting video. The last part of the video doesn't sit quite right with me though. You keep on talking about how Foucault doesn't clearly define power or where it comes from, and you keep referring to power as some type of "force", a thing that is just out there. But in fact, Foucault does define power, and power is not a "thing" that spreads, it is always a relation between individuals. It's a relation which can direct or determine people's behavior. While this is still very abstract, I believe it is wrong to refer to power as "the force" or "something that is out there", as this what Foucault says it is precisely not.
His ideas are tackling something vaste, which allows others to have our bits and pieces of ideas to flow... We have history of colonial rules, dictators, revolutions and brutal suppressions even in small unkown places. Humanity survived.. power mostly is to solidify once presence in other bodies, while both are mortals it complicates matters. Here comes to bound labours and their offsprings to( continues flow) generations of servitude to normalize slavery.always to pay less and expect more in future.
When intellectuals study power or economics the intellectuals themselves always ends up beeing the key to it all. I think the intellectuals should study the intellectuals tendency to be self absorbed - I'm not even beeing ironic.
Hello Dear Prof . U are with a great thinker & philosopher & psychoanalyst, as u said . But u are so fast to follow ur explanations of power & knowledge . Dear Prof. Please know that ur followers of ur lecture are not only native speakers z language u use. But , there are a great number of followers for whom English is their second language . This is thus to kindly ask u to make ur z speed of utterances a bit slow. Thank u
Foucault claimed to expose unequal power dynamics. He also promoted that small children should be groomed by predators (go look up his wikipedia page if you don't believe me). His fans don't seem to find any problems / hypocrisy with this. Ditto with Hakim Bey.
The critique is flawed . Power has a similar dynamic to gravity. Asking where does gravity come from to a physicist is not a gotcha question its a stupid question. But it can be answered in both cases. It comes on from the instinct of survival which is hard wired in our DNA everything comes from that. Gravity in physics comes from Highs boson particle which gives weight to the other particles.
WATCH NEXT 👉Foucault's DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH 📚 ruclips.net/video/lRBXIgXHA90/видео.html
Reason is not subject to power although is influenced by it, without one's own reason knowledge" wouldn't be as certain, if absolute certainty was even possible......
In Foucault’s view, power comes from relationships. Power is a natural byproduct of the social. Also, crucially, power isn’t necessarily bad. It’s not simply coercion. The writing he did later in life is particularly illuminating as he talked about some of the more positive aspects of power such teacher student relationships.
I hope this clarifies some of your misunderstandings of Foucault.
For me, the answer to many of the questions about Foucault, such as those raised at the end of this video, were anticipated and answered by John Dewey decades before him. Dewey is a seriously underrated philosopher- and I don’t know why.
Chomsky talks about Dewey quite a bit.
Hello, I'm a PhD student in my qualifying exam phase so I have been pondering Foucault a lot lately. Thanks for this video. It is very helpful. I saved it to be able to return to. I understand Foucault to say that power is not a top down approach, as you state, but that power is in all. With that premise, I am encouraged that everyone has power. Some people have more power (particularly when acquired through the use of weapons) and some have less, depending on the context. No one is sovereign, in this case. I find this as a hopeful insight, particularly for marginalized and oppressed people groups because they actually have more power than they know. They give more power to those in leadership by placing them in power, for instance. So I believe that it is important to embed into the psychology of the oppressed that they are not power-less but powerful. Furthermore, if we all have power, we all produce knowledge. I am seeing more that particularly in the academy, there is a desire for the acknowledgment of the epistemologies of subaltern voices. Regardless of our sociopolitical status, we all have power and the ability to use and validate our sources of knowledge. Again, thanks for this video.
Hi Myron,
Thanks for your very thoughtful comment. It's always very hard to locate the source or origin of power in Foucault's account -- for me at least! I agree with you that this might suggest that power is diffused throughout communities. All of us might have power, or maybe it's more accurate to say we "participate" in power. My understanding is that Foucault was somewhat frustrating for 20th century revolutionaries because he was skeptical that revolutionary (particularly Marxist) political movements would solve the problems associated with power. My sense is he thinks that power keeps reproducing itself in different formations, which threatens to make social justice initiatives somewhat pointless. I don't think he thinks that's ultimately the case, but I think it's a worry or problem in his thought.
The point you raise about knowledge, however, might suggest a real opportunity for positive political change. I agree with you there. If we can pluralize and promulgate alternate epistemologies and disrupt dominant modes of thought -- racist and colonial ways of categorizing the world, etc. -- then we might be able to change the power structures too.
Thanks for watching. I'm glad you found the video helpful! Good luck on your qualifying exams. I remember how stressful those can be!
@@GreatBooksProf This is such a healthy response and gives insight to me, someone trying to learn the fundamentals. I also cannot say how rare it is to see a professor being humble and informative in the same paragraph, damn. Thanks!
@@melasonos6132 Thanks Melas, that’s very kind of you to say!
@@GreatBooksProfHello, I'm currently writing my undergraduate dissertation on: room for liberation in Foucaults work on sex and the body (I'm still working on the actual title lol) so this is quite topical. I definitely think it's valid to critique Foucault on his description of power, particularly if we want to view him as a figurehead for positive change. For me the most puzzling thing about his reading is how absent it is of ethical judgements. Not only does he tell us how we are oppressed, and how we are the oppressors, but also how we can never know the "multiplicity" of power structures in which we are involved.
Anyway, I don't think power is bottom up nor top down for Foucault in the sense that it occurs spontaneously and without purpose. It is something that we can't get rid of. It feels like something we cannot control. Regardless, I'm working on the suspicion that a proper Foucauldian 'logic' is self-defeating in one way or another. That being said I find him to be brilliant and one of the most interesting people I've read during my (philosophy) BA.
@@danielnaylor7737 Hi Daniel, Thanks for your comment. I think you're right about this. This aligns closely with the way I tend to think about Foucault. On the one hand, I think he is an amazing diagnostician, and I can appreciate how complex power (in his estimation) really is; I find his argument mostly persuasive on that front. But, like you, I can't shake the ethical problems. How ought we to live? That seems like an urgent question, and I'm not sure we find satisfactory answers in Foucault. It certainly doesn't mean he's useless or bad, just an important limitation, I think.
One of the best videos that I watched even I, who is a non-native English speaker, could understand. Thank you, teacher.
I’m glad it was helpful. It’s complicated material!
Such an amazing person and eloquent professor. So lucky to have found this channel. Thank you, sir, for helping us understand without making us feel stupid. Top notch!😊
Round 9 minutes you make an extremely interesting point and I think it is critical to think about. The point, on which I refer to is when you said, " when we study power, wouldn't it just be the way power wants us to?" To answer your question I would say yes. I think the problem Foucault presents is an extremely depressing but necessary one to ponder. Essentially Foucault is claiming the epistemology(the ways of knowing)are embedded within power and those who wield power. Black Feminist traditions acknowledge a similar point to the one Foucault does and attempts to provide a solution. They (Audre Lorde, Combahee River Collective, Patrica Hill Collins, Beverly Guy-Sheftall, and others) have attempted and have made a Black Feminist epistemology to disrupt power because if they can learn the world and themselves differently, they can understand the power that rules them differently. Again, this can be disputed due to the question of can you develop new ways of knowing when existing in the old ways. However, I think these thinkers serve as an attempt at an solution and progression towards unpacking the flaw of Foucault that you have raised within this video.
Hey Christian,
Thank you so much for this comment. It’s such a great illustration of the idea and its implications! I’ve taught Angela Davis’s “Are Prisons Obsolete?” a few times; one can really see in her work how Foucault can be used to make the case for things like prison abolition. She does a really great job, I find, of illustrating how prisons don’t just punish, but also give shape to our communities and create categories.
Thanks again for taking the time. It’s a fascinating subject.
Hello. I wonder if there is answer in the question of whether "power" is necessarily bad or if the relationships that power generates can be utilized for equity and equality?
The relation between power and knowledge sounds dynamic. The relationship of who has what power and what knowledge shifts with time. How knowledge and power are utilized also shift with time and circumstances! So, by approaching the question from another angle might serve capital P Power, but it also serves to rectify injustice in the medium term. The question of why does Foucault study Power if that only serves to create Power is that passive application and active application of Power can have different meanings and outcomes. By studying that black women are ignored by their doctors more than white men then we can at least attempt to fix the systemic injustice. Power may prevail, but application has real functional impact on the lives of humans in the systems. Even if we can't fix the issue, I think there is a moral imperative to try.
Great work, you made Foucault understandable for my pupils at high school level. This channel deserves a bigger following!
Hey Lars, Thanks for this comment! I’m so happy your students found the video helpful. And I’m impressed they’re studying Foucault in high school! That’s some high-level work. Are they studying Foucault in a philosophy class? Political science?
@@GreatBooksProf Philosophy class. It's an elective subject in many Dutch high schools. We're discussing social philosophy this period and your video showed up in the exact week we're talking about Foucault. Last period we dedicated to reading Plato's Gorgias. Pupils enjoyed your video on this topic as well!
@@larsadams824 Good timing! That’s terrific. Glad they’re enjoying the videos!
Thanks for this, Mike. I’m glad you found the video useful. I’ve always found Foucault very challenging to study. This sounds like a really interesting class! What else have you been studying this year?
@@GreatBooksProf I am studying about him in the political science class
A little late on my reading schedule at my uni, so I've decided to binge Foucault by watching some videos on YT. And I have to say, you did not dissapoint. Very straightforward and to the point. I am surprised that this channel has such a small following, because this is some high quality content right here!
Thanks Emil. Happy to help. Good luck with your studies!
Knowledge is only subjected to power because power limits knowledge. If you want to be power you'll have to find new knowledge in order to overcome present power then you will be the power limiting your knowledge because you don't want knowledge to catch up.
I get dragged deeper and deeper down these philosophical rabbit holes from time to time (usually after i've been stuck down a physics rabbit hole). See you in a week or two, more books to read.
Thanks for the videos
See you then! 😄Thanks for stopping by!
Thank you - I am attempting to use the theory of power with the emergence of the institutional ethics creep !! .. wish me luck !!
@@IiDocherty good luck
Thank you, this is the second video I've watched of yours on Foucault. Thank you so much. I really love that you also question Foucault. Resistance! haha. Seems like no one questions Foucault's ideas for even half a second in my school. And if I questioned them, I feel like I would be shunned forever lol.
I'm glad you've found the videos helpful! Thanks for watching.
These short episodes that you do are wonderful distillations of ideas. Keep it up!
Thank you! More to come!
I always just remember it as Power/Knowledge, with the "/" being the key there.
Fascinated by the image here given by the professor--power "circulates." Sounds like the THAT "in which, and through which we move and have our being." Indeed power appears to be the relations between individuals. Rather, this Geist, as it were, might be prior to "individuals" and "subjectivity." Or it might just be another word for the Cartesian "subject" or Fichte's "Ego." Yet another analogy: intentionality. Fascinated also by the notion that F. "turns everything upside down," so to speak. The body is not the prison of the soul; rather, the soul is the prison of the body.
I understand Foucalt perfectly. Philosophy is wordy but it ain't difficult to understand. Prejudice ,any difference is a matter of perspective and interest. Equality is impossible. Delegating enforcement doesn't diminish the inherent disdain for control and power over the individual or group. Structure is a given. Foucalt is a deconstructionist with no alternative except a different leader.
Powerful people's implementation of knowledge proves powerful.
Colonizers were powerful their ideas seemed powerful for colonized
Thank you very much for explaining something that up until now, for me has been very hard to grasp. I also would like to say that the combination of your explanation along with the visual additions (animations, pictures) were really helping. Great video!
Thanks very much for this! I try hard to make difficult ideas easier to understand. So, I’m happy to hear you found the video helpful.
Very precise content on Foucault. Thanks for sharing
You’re welcome.
I think that the first problem you talked about Foucault's theory was the main reason for Baudrillard's book "Forget Foucault". He mentioned that Foucault's thinking represented capitalism but instead of talking about "Capitalism" that control everything, he is using the term power. So, according to Baudrillard, Foucault is mirroring capitalism and not actually explaining something new
Interesting video. In response to your first critique of MF, Foucault always stressed that where there is power there is resistance. Power never exists in a vacuum.
I too find the claim Foucault doesn't explain power pretty grating. What about the humanists of the enlightenment and their discursive formations to produce docile bodies, the dispositif etc. There's a huge load of philosophy youtubers out there, lots of interpretations of MF. I'll go elsewhere. Cheers though.
Thanks for being alive. What a great explanation with touches of Greeks and relating it to Foucault.
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed it.
@@GreatBooksProf Yes indeed! Make one on Nietzsche
thanks for the explanation. The last take on power is something I've come to believe myself, that power changes when the situation arises. We end up being proactive as influenced by power. It's hard for me to imagine that there is any internal locus of power, power looks more like an endless web of relationships that we have no control over and that molds existence in real time.
Basically no free will, no agency, just a big chain reaction going on that we're witnessing / partaking in.
(Not saying my way of seeing things is healthy, I spend hours every day trying to get out of bed, no job no income no gf no nada)
My friend from far away, I think there is great value in studying power and social conditioning and such in how we should build or rebuild social institutions but it's not useful for your day to day life. From a scientific perspective, we have no proof that everything is determined or if free will can enter the picture. And, even if everything is predetermined, it's too complex to be predictable. What happens today is necessarily different than what happened yesterday!
On the personal level, I think you gain a locus of control in sitting between the two. I think therapeutic treatment is the same whether we have free will or just the illusion of free will. If it is just stimulus and response, set yourself up to be stimulated with positive and negative situations and rewards. Then be mindful and aware of your responses.
If there is freewill, then take control by adjusting your environment to give you more chances to exercise your freewill to the person you want to be.
Either way, take time to accept and understand what you cannot control but also what is nearby you can shift and change to put the odds in your favor.
For actionable advice there are two things: first make two small changes a day for a week at time. Shower every day and make your bed every morning. (It's okay if you only get 2 days out of 7, because then it's a new week and you start afresh) It's silly, but it's also shows you there is something you can do. Second, remember you aren't alone and you don't have to face it alone. You can seek institutional help like doctors, community help like friends and family, societal help from strangers on the internet. Remember how people out there want you to feel better. And when it's your turn, you can make someone else feel better too.
Good luck.
@@simonw560 Thanks brother, I teach piano to a few kids (didn't consider it a job cuz it's like 4 people but it's much much better than NOTHING which had been the case for years prior). The best most effective way to learn a new song is to take it SLOW, and comming back every day as you make big progress while sleeping. If you can take it slow (aka enjoy playing real slow and being meticulous about it) then the piano journey is not hard, does not require "patience" "dedication" etc it's just plain fun
So I guess it should be the same for daily habits, adding a few slowly but surely.
Thanks for your long text. Whatever depths philosophy gets me too there's a constant fact that can't be unseen is that we're in this together, howerver meaningless cruel or weird life can be
❤ your comments about learning the piano.
From India....
Good to learn with such liquidity. Looking forward to learn from you more.
Thanks for watching.
Thank you! A great video and dissection of Foucault's work- straight forward and to the point- perfect for my pragmatic brain. I would love it if you did a video on Frantz Fanon's work. Kind regards, Danielle from New Zealand. 🙂
good explanations
This was it! This finally made Foucault make sense. Thank you...seems too small a thing to say. You didn't need to produce this in the quality and clarity that you did, but I (we?) are so grateful that you did!
Wow, thanks so much, Katharine. That’s very kind of you! I’m glad this video helped you finally make sense of Foucault.
This is the fastest ive ever learnt sthng soo difficult to understand under ten minutes 🥰🥰💫💫
That’s high praise! Thanks Gabriella! I really appreciate that.
Great work indeed sir for simplifying Foucault’s concept of knowledge and power.
Thank you so much! This helped a lot write my midterm paper !
Glad it was helpful!
A very Tony Romoesque delivery.
Speaking as an Eagles fan, how dare you! 🦅😄
Great presentation. Thank you!
My pleasure! So glad you enjoyed it.
I know this is years behind the posted date, but I hope my question finds a place. With the notion that power dynamics are everything important, how is this not a myopic point of view? I struggle to find answers that are not subjective.
fantastic work
Thanks!
Thank you! This was so helpful
You’re welcome. Glad you found the video useful!
Beautiful summary. Great examples. His is a sophisticated application of the hermeneutics of suspicion, to use Ricoeur's term. Much of his analysis of knowledge seems to turn on the idea that knowledge can be measured and quantified, and whether he agrees that it can or is saying that this (problematically) is built into all power structures.
Thanks Tim. I appreciate that!
All the way from South Africa 🇿🇦, this made so much sense than the textbook compiled for us! Thank you.
Hi Angela, Thank you for the comment! I’m glad you found the video helpful. Are you studying Foucault in a university class?
@@GreatBooksProf Yes, this semester we were given material on him and tasked to write a portfolio that assesses his discourse theories using power and knowledge. Had some challenges understanding what I was reading but jotted down notes, now some of the notes are useful after watching this video.
@@angelamzalisi2102 Happy to hear that. His writing can be very difficult to understand. Best of luck on your assignment!
Great lesson. Thank you!
You’re welcome. Thanks for watching!
Wow! This is an amazing Lecture. Well presented, Precise and Clear. Thanks ✨
Hi Suzenna, I’m glad to hear you found it helpful! I’ve always found Foucault pretty dense. But, as I said, his work is very influential. Are you reading him presently?
@@GreatBooksProf Yes, I'm doing my undergrad thesis on Foucault's Panopticon & Power structure. I checked out many video lectures but wasn't quite satisfied. Glad I found this ☺
@@suzennapoothuran798 Awesome! Good luck with your thesis!
Well honestly without exagération this channel is underated, i hope this wouldn't affect the content on the near future
Thanks for watching!
Thank you so much for the video. I'm reading Discipline and Punish and struggling to understand the relation between power an knowledge :D
I'm glad you found it helpful! I struggle to understand this relationship too. I think Foucault struggled to understand it! My understanding of it is always in flux.
I find Discipline and Punish is both difficult and good. The point he makes early about the historical shift from physical torture to forcing prisoners to live by a strict schedule is what made things click for me. The change in punishment methods reveals a shift in priorities and power's penetration into our souls. Maybe even the invention of our souls?
Thanks a lot. I just read twenty pages about his work and this was way more helpful
So glad you found it helpful! Thanks for watching.
great explanation!!
Thanks!
Thanks!!! Very clear and interesting presentation.
Thank you Alison! I’m glad you liked the video. Hopefully it made things a little clearer!
Seems like _Power_ is being postulated through a lens of energy relationship. As in, kinetic vs potential and the steamroller affect of Power when executed kinetically?
Power = Displacement / Time
The physics definition applies here.
Thanks for this!
You're welcome! Happy that you found it helpful.
Hello! Thank you for this video, it was truly fascinating! I am an A-Level student studying media studies and I was thinking based on Foucalt's point of view, 'Once we become objects of knowledge, we become subject to power.' could I argue in a media sense that when we consume information from newspapers and film, we then become subject to the content producer's power (therefore for newspapers, most likely the government's power)? Then in some ways, we could link this to Curran and Seaton, looking at the benefits of having more media institutions rather than a few conglomerates dominating the market so the content produced has more of a variety and creativity, providing audiences with a more wholesome outlook on life as we are very much influenced by media. But then debating from a Baudrillard perspective, in a postmodern society, audience's identities are fluid and we are able to consider and view critically what information/knowledge we absorb, hence, we are not truly subject to power?
Thank you so much !!!
Great video!
Thank you so much!💜💙🧡
You’re very welcome!
@GreatBooksProf - great summary. Can you recommend any authors who have done a credible job of addressing the flaws and gaps in Foucault's arguments around the nature of power and its "wants?"
Really helpful summation of Foucault's work, but I think you missed the critically important element of his orientation to anarchism in your final "problem."
Thanks! That’s a really helpful addition. I’ll have to think more about that.
Thanks!
Hi Jaime, You’re welcome! Thanks for watching.
Great video!! I am secretly hoping you delve further into post-structuralism.... maybe some Derrida, even Butler? These videos are a treat :)
Thanks Joe! I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Is this the first time the study of Foucault has been described as a "treat"? 😄 When I teach him in class, students are not always enthusiastic. They'd probably liken reading him to eating a raw potato.
@@GreatBooksProf The nerds can congregate here eating the delicious french fries that are your videos. Keep it up!
Great video, thanks.
So, Foucault claimed that individuals or groups with more power will claim to know something about the thing they want to control (and will indoctrinate you to agree with their theories).
If I know X then I can identify "problems" with X and impose my "solutions".
"Knowledge" is used to increase power by offering justification for your policies (or by making them more attractive).
My perspective privileges me. If I get others to take on my perspective then I will be in a more privileged position.
So if I convince society of the narrative that I am a victim (and should have access to all the privileges and help that comes with that) then I am expanding or consolidating my influence.
Have I got this right??
Surely if you argue that there is a straight line between knowledge and power then it is difficult to describe what power is - but it isn’t a straight line but a triangle where the third point is ‘language’ - we exercise power through language everyday , the baby exerts power over the mother with a single utterance ‘mama’- how does the baby know it’s place within this power structure - through language? Through exchanging utterances/language with it’s mother has it established the power relationship and understood that it has the power in that relationship?
Thank you for a great video! Liked and subscribed 😊
However to have a basic understanding of Foucault's power/knowledge I think it's necessary to mention Foucault's concept of discourse. I just want to point out that "truth" is created when knowledge is elevated by power and reproduced through discourse. Knowledge can exist with a minimum of power (for example only in my head) but "truth" experienced as some kind of transcendental knowledge can not be established without vast amounts of power. It's a common misconception that for Foucault all knowledge is equal (and therefore all knowledge equals significant power) but it's not that simple. It can be really hard to understand the differences because he often uses words like knowledge, truth etc interchangeably but actually mean different things depending on the context. Additionally (and famously), especially when discussing the concept of discourse, he uses two different and distinct French words for knowledge that are difficult to translate into English which must have contributed to some reductionist interpretations.
Thanks for this great addition! Really helpful. Question: since a lot of the people finding this video are encountering Foucault for the first time, are there particular selections you'd recommend they read to grapple with this knowledge / truth / discourse question?
cool video! thank you.
You’re welcome! Thanks.
Is Foucault's use of Bentham’s Panopticon a useful metaphor for understanding the effects of modern surveillance?
Absolutely.
Think about cancer research and the value of it as oppose to the cure
Very well explained , i have an exam tomorrow.
Hope it helps! Good luck on your exam! 👍
Good analysis and insight. It appears to me that Foucault's theory on power-knowledge relationship is not complete and not multi-dimensionally representative of reality.
Thanks Vanessa. There are definitely some gaps in the argument.
“Second problem” with Foucault’s argument is not really a problem. Let’s paraphrase the First law of thermodynamics: “energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form”. The power can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. It is totally in sync with nature :-) Foucault is not talking about it, he is enacting it in his works.
This was such a helpful video! Foucault is our focus of study this week in my Sociology degree, the philosophical level of it all has been extremely hard to grasp but the breakdown in this video made it so much more easier, thank you!
Thanks for this kind comment. I'm glad you found the video useful!
I feel like that at the end your almost implying that Foucault is a moral relativist which I’m not clear if he is… amazing video thanks so much
Thanks very much! This is, I take it, a pretty active debate among readers of Foucault. If truth or knowledge is subject to power then nothing can be true. But that would lead to total absurdity and Foucault’s work would make no sense - nothing would make sense! So, my sense is that Foucault is not at the core a relativist but this is a problem in his thought. Also he was VERY reluctant to make any claims about political programs. He does not often say that certain political formations would be better than others for example.
@@GreatBooksProf hmmm
I take Foucault to simply mean we can’t ever know what is objective truth is subjective and contextual to time, culture and power. Foucault never wanted to weigh in on what was good or bad, rejecting the false dichotomy and the construction of human nature. I feel that Foucault would welcome the skepticism of his ideas on power but that doesn’t mean they are not useful- Foucault would agree he also has no access to truth either but his thesis does help me in my work as a social worker to critique grand narratives that hold humans back from flourishing in thier lives in thier own ways
As I understood it, Chomsky and him had a debate. And he appeared to be somewhst of a relativist.
i liked your mint wall paint
Thanks! I think it's called "Palladian Blue" 😀
www.benjaminmoore.com/en-us/color-overview/find-your-color/color/hc-144/palladian-blue?color=HC-144
@@GreatBooksProf wow thanks, great narration by the way. it helped a lot :)
@@denizyalcn4759 Thanks so much! I'm glad you found it useful.
What irony that this was released *after* I escaped from both jail and the mental hospital.
Power is possession. "In the beginning was the word." Fair enough. "And the word was with god." Still okay. The word is with me too. "And the word was god." I no longer possess the word. I have no power.
Thank you, so helpful!
Glad you found it useful!
I come away from all this being very impressed with Aristotle and at loss as to what Foucault is trying to say (beyond the observation that no sovereign is absolute, and that laws are embedded in customs which can be more powerful than the law, but how did we not know this already?)
People are usually most blind to what is most obvious.
hi! what is Foucault's theory of truth? and what is Foucault's point in his theory of truth?
Thank GOD for this video. I have been at my wits end trying to decipher Foucault and your explanation was a massive help. Thank you!
You’re welcome, Naomi! Are you studying Foucault in school? He can be a pain!
Yeah I am, currently I'm finishing an essay that's applying his theories of biopower and biopolitics to Roe v Wade. Writing it has felt like mental gymnastics
@@naomi3418 Sounds tricky! But definitely a good application of his theory. Good luck on your paper!
You cant have the power, without people giving it to you
subscribed
Welcome!
thank you for helping me understanding this theory :")
That’s what I’m here for! Thanks for watching.
@@GreatBooksProf i was having hard time for understanding foucault perspective about power and knowledge :") then i found your video that really helps me a lot! thanks~
@@imrichandcool8696 Happy to hear that. Foucault’s work can be very difficult. I’m glad you found the video helpful!
Foucault is power trying to understand itself.
I’m not sure I agree with your redux on what Foucault believes power to be. Foucault sees power as Benjaminic force exerted, so to understand Foucault we must wrestle with Critique of Violence.
This is interesting. If you have a free minute sometime, could you say a little more?
Great video sir! You are doing a certain dead god's work
Thanks!
Re: Gods. Think I read somewhere that they don’t always stay dead. 😄
I'm looking at the comments to see if any of my students watched this video instead of doing the reading.
Haha. My hope is that it helps them do the reading! 😂 There's no substitute for engaging directly with the source material!
Very helpful video. Thanks for it :)
Very welcome! Are you studying Foucault in school?
@@GreatBooksProf Actually, I am a Ph.D scholar from Amity University, India. I was looking for a video that would help me understand it better. You analyzed it very well. It was very helpful.
@@PriyaVerma-nu7mh Very cool! Are you studying Political Science, or Sociology, or something else? Foucault seems to be all over the place these days.
@@GreatBooksProf Thanks! Yes, very true. I am studying Foucault as a part of my coursework in English Literature. Plus, the topic that I am researching is "Dalit Discourse" where I can use this as one of the references.
In the end, what he said is common sense.
I LOVE these kinds of precis, especially of these kinds of French or German philosophers who write (or are translated) in a super opaque way. So I'm no philosopher, and don't really read this stuff, but I think I understand the extent to which Foucault has been so influential. In the popular imagination I think there is a dawning understanding of our entire culture and society as an organism, and that those in power are mostly just fulfilling the roles that are required of the moment. Culture is power. Culture is not your friend. Culture provides a framework within which you are defined, and through which you define yourself.
For example, there is a changing perception of people who are trans. This change isn't because some white men at the top decided being trans is OK, it's a cultural moment in which trans is shifting it's role and meaning to us. Our assumptions and predilections towards trans, is just fully implicit in all our language, literally how our cities are set up... it's impossible to point at exactly where the definition of the role begins. Obviously laws go a long way to legitimizing certain concepts, but they never happen until a deeper shift has occurred amongst the population at large.
Or for instance, this is the confusion around racism. Racism isn't when an individual says something racist to someone. In America, the culture of black vs white is inseparable from the entire organism. It's just as embedded in black as white culture, it's in how our cities are organized, it's in our very language, all of this in very subtle ways that are hard to detect.
And I fully agree that the goal of moving towards an explicitly "more just" power structure is actually suspect. Throughout history, all "isms" and protracted ideas for political organization that are put in place most usually cause massive suffering. Rather, those big changes have to happen organically, and the end of a shift in meaning on the cultural level. OK, so I'm blabbing like I actually know what I'm talking about, but it would seem that what Foucault is doing is the right approach: to critique examples of societal/cultural forms that create inequality and injustice. By evolving the conversation and... well, complaining a lot about stuff like racism and how trans gender folks need to be given a serious break, eventually, the change occurs organically... There's never some utopic societal rainbow at the end of the journey, just some better eras than others. It will never stop evolving.
Even if you have a despot in power who prevents these shifting cultural norms to be reflected in the lives of people, the power relationship has actually shifted, but people are now aware of these forms in a different way...
Hey Rolf,
Thanks for this great comment! I’m glad you enjoyed the video. I think your point about culture is a good one. In a simple way I think Foucault is trying to understand how power circulates, recognizing that power is not ONLY invested in the person who rules.
For example, we would say that celebrities have a certain amount of “power” or that TV commercials and movies shape the way we think and behave. In that way power seems to be kind of decentralized.
One cautionary note that Foucault might hit is that things don’t necessarily progress. And things that seem like progress are not necessarily liberating! Very tricky business.
Power enables grouping and structuring society in order to produce knowledge like Elon Musk managing his team. The origin of power though can be very complex and majorly interesting(Education and ability, Economics, Politics etc)- in short and simply put. The team or working class can return organized resistance power through action knowledge. Sorry just learning/thinking.
Knowledge isn't given a chance to overturn power because power limits knowledge.
Well, that's sort of the typical way we think about power -- and it may be true! Traditionally we imagine an adversarial relationship between knowledge and power, or we imagine that wielding power depends on knowledge. Or... as you say, we imagine that power, especially tyrannical power, works to limit or conceal knowledge among the oppressed (because knowledge is the true source of power).
Foucault suggests something more radical though. He troubles the idea that there is a knowledge "outside" of power that could be used to "overturn" power. That "overturning" process, Foucault says, would just be power reconstituting itself in another form. We *may* temporarily be able to outwit power, but power always seems to catch up.
So we might protest about some issue -- climate change or gender issues, for example. Power will respond by holding conferences, and town halls, and then creating a government office in charge of climate issues. Power will absorb the resistance, in a way. It will turn resistance into a field of study and then it can be controlled.
This is why Foucault was even skeptical that a Communist revolution or the overthrow of capitalism would lead to liberation. He suspected, again, we would just see power reconstituting itself in a different form. The oppressive structures would just have different names and slightly different shapes.
@@GreatBooksProf can you reply to my other comment iwanna know your thoughts it was before I did this comment.
So focaults resolution is takeaway human brains and no one will find out, If power is knowledge or knowledge is power 🤣🤣 pretty much.
And I get a wellness ad after watching this 😂
Hilarious!
Good video! I feel like I've heard that point about power in the school system before by someone else, probably more recent, though I don't remember who (an American psychologist, maybe?). His power/knowledge thing definitely sounds very Marxist in that power relationships and structures exist everywhere, although I guess Marx would believe that it is more hierarchical, with there always being someone who has more power than the other person although even Marx I think would acknowledge the complexity of determining that. I am curious as to why he was so actively politically engaged if he really believed that regimes can't be overthrown or changed effectively.
Foucault's idea reminds me of the first law of thermodynamics. But it seems to me that though power always exists in some form, less awful (perhaps less powerful) forms of it could be preferred over tyrannical powers, such as not having a government and fragmenting and reducing power to solely what can be contained within one individual.
Your two "problems" you mention with Foucault would definitely be questions I would have if I were reading him, but questions I would either expect to be answered in other books, or that already were answered and I was just not smart enough to understand the answers. I would probably try to construct answers that would end up being pretty shallow and gelatinous based off the small amount I did know of Foucault without realizing that maybe he just never answered them. So, it seems your position is that his ideas just remained incomplete?
To add to what I was saying about his stance on power, it does look like he was very practically and politically motivated in this, and also like you were saying, he definitely wanted to be very clear that power exists all around us and in every aspect of society, not just government. In his famous debate with Chomsky, he said, "It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticize and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." The neutral institutions are of course family and medicine and whatnot. I thought Chomsky's response was interesting and kinda fit with what I was saying. He was like yeah, you're right, but like the power of government and capitalism is a lot worse than the power within a single family, so we should kinda focus on that. Thoughts?
Well done and balanced on the man Noam Chomsky called, "the most immoral person I ever met".
Great quote. Haven't heard that before!
I think Foucault has Neitchzes power underpinned into his philosophy
Super interesting video. The last part of the video doesn't sit quite right with me though. You keep on talking about how Foucault doesn't clearly define power or where it comes from, and you keep referring to power as some type of "force", a thing that is just out there.
But in fact, Foucault does define power, and power is not a "thing" that spreads, it is always a relation between individuals. It's a relation which can direct or determine people's behavior. While this is still very abstract, I believe it is wrong to refer to power as "the force" or "something that is out there", as this what Foucault says it is precisely not.
Thanks for this Leonie. Very helpful. I’ll think about this some more.
His ideas are tackling something vaste, which allows others to have our bits and pieces of ideas to flow... We have history of colonial rules, dictators, revolutions and brutal suppressions even in small unkown places. Humanity survived.. power mostly is to solidify once presence in other bodies, while both are mortals it complicates matters. Here comes to bound labours and their offsprings to( continues flow) generations of servitude to normalize slavery.always to pay less and expect more in future.
When intellectuals study power or economics the intellectuals themselves always ends up beeing the key to it all. I think the intellectuals should study the intellectuals tendency to be self absorbed - I'm not even beeing ironic.
By the way, you are a great professor, Foucault is a dwarf compared with yourself.
Power is strength, mainly from money, which give you control and agency over others.
Hello Dear Prof . U are with a great thinker & philosopher & psychoanalyst, as u said . But u are so fast to follow ur explanations of power & knowledge . Dear Prof. Please know that ur followers of ur lecture are not only native speakers z language u use. But , there are a great number of followers for whom English is their second language . This is thus to kindly ask u to make ur z speed of utterances a bit slow. Thank u
I struggle to understand foucault. That's me who struggles with that
I understand a bit better now, good vid
This one’s dedicated to you, Tom!
“He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” Gandalf to Saruman.
Foucault claimed to expose unequal power dynamics. He also promoted that small children should be groomed by predators (go look up his wikipedia page if you don't believe me). His fans don't seem to find any problems / hypocrisy with this. Ditto with Hakim Bey.
Voluntarism
I think you should read more Foucault tbh, preferably in French
The critique is flawed .
Power has a similar dynamic to gravity.
Asking where does gravity come from to a physicist is not a gotcha question its a stupid question.
But it can be answered in both cases.
It comes on from the instinct of survival which is hard wired in our DNA everything comes from that.
Gravity in physics comes from Highs boson particle which gives weight to the other particles.