Love the channel? Love supporting things? Check out the Patreon page: 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 0:59 Empirical vs Theoretical 1:57 What Power Isn't 3:32 What is Power? 4:12 Traits of Power: Immanence 5:04 Traits of Power: Intentional and Non-Subjective 6:19 Traits of Power: Resistance 7:35 Force Relations 9:23 Dynamism of Force Relations 11:52 The Alliance of Force Relations
@@ivankomadanvonrakovac8415 You can ask but I'm afraid I don't have a particularly short answer to offer. I guess it is simple since I don't follow any religion but as for my views about the transcendental and the metaphysical it's really not easy to answer. I don't know I guess would be the easiest way to put it
the joy on your face in exploring connections in Jung and Foucault is gold. I love how much this interests you, because it's exactly the sort of thing that brought me here. That underlying feeling of interconnection within different schools of thought feels like uncovering ancient knowledge. I love it. Thanks for another great video. Looking forward to you exploring Jung/Foucault. It'll be awesome to see how someone who was so driven to concrete explanations like Foucault will mesh with someone like Jung who tried to realate/sciencify (not sure of the word to use there) mysticism and spirituality.
Haha yeah I got very excited there. That's the real nectar for me - the cross-pollination between great systems of thought that usually aren't cross-pollinated. It's very exciting to see what new combinations of insight they can bring together. I'm delighted to have found people who share that joy in exploring these thoughts
Have you seen much of John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis? I'd be interested in your thoughts relating to his attempt to bring together realms of cognitive science, as I think one area he could explore further is the impact on power politics
This theory is central to my coursework and it has been confusing me so much. This video is so good, it has alleviated so much of my stress. The analogies were so good.
Great video, you splendidly and succintly presented Foucault's theory of power. I'd like to suggest Bertrand De Jouvenel's "On Power", he focuses more on institutions but it is a masterpiece in the study of power, its genealogy and evolution
Real. I was lost on some concepts till he explained it with a boy preparing for school and I was like, "Woah, and there are people who hate Foucault, I think that's a cool way of seeing power".
Awesome stuff as usual! Thanks for making such great content! Have you ever looked into American pragmatism? Thinkers like John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and especially William James seem right up your alley.
Thanks Anders! I did a bit of delving into Peirce during the Semiotics study of Saussure but never went too deep. William James however is someone that I've been wanting to read for well over a decade now. I really think he'll be a big one for me. Seems to have a similar portfolio of interesting and yet I know so little about him
As an american only now discovering that her democracy is in fact an oligarchy, i'd like to know if Foucault ever positied how his theory of power might be used practically. (I'm a first time viewer and new subscriber, btw.) Thank you for this great content.
Hello Jayanti and a very good question. It's something that Foucault gets a lot of hassle for since most of his work is descriptive rather than prescriptive (he was a reader of Wittgenstein so I wonder whether that might have been some element of influence in that). But his 1980s work takes a turn towards the care of the self and this is very much a practical application grounded in ancient philosophy and so will definitely be a theme we'll be returning to in future
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I will greately appreciate any of your content on this topic -- theories of power, systems, change. It honestly never occurred to me (until watching your video) to try to conceptualize power itself in "new" and fresh ways -- and to stop letting the powerful themselves to dictate to us where the levers of power are. If we are going to dismantle the entrenched structures at the heart of everything from homelessness to endless war to environmental collapse -- we will have to dismantle our own utterly useless worldview, first and foremost. Thanks again.
I’m a complete amateur but the idea of force relations really reminds me of the Hegel dialectic. Is there any connection? The constant thesis, antithesis, synthesis idea. I’ll refer to the four quadrants video to try and position myself here. These videos are awesome, amazing work man.
Foucault with Deleuze for me are two exceptional modern investigators of the psyche. When I disagree with something they wrote I realise it's a boundary of for ignorance, only to find an opening into another maze. Thinking sight isn't the same as inner sight and society is completely blind.
@@jaylinn416 Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."
@@the_famous_reply_guy Well, if Foucault teaching helps you to lead a better life, there may be some value in it. I remain very skeptical. I would not waste my time trying to understand what he is talking about. I am not sure that even the living philosophy guy can explain.
@@jaylinn416 the debated with Chomsky was the moment I saw Foucault desire to explore all dimensions where Chomsky was fixed in all his linear philosophical positions. Foucault asked difficult questions of himself and gave interesting replies at the least, who amongst us can say this sincerely.
@@the_famous_reply_guy I can agree on the incessant need of insight that Focault and his philosophical theories seem to give off, but, at the same time, I do not understand how one could consider them anything rather than mere poetry. A description of the world which is unverifiable is, to me, nothing more than a narration. Those theories hold no predictive power, they seek some kind of insight over phenomena, and try to give us some "sensation" about the world, but this is all mystical, artistic. In truth, nothing which he says can be considered "true". By studying such matters, I believe, you condition yourself to have a more articulated, complex viewpoint: but, still, it can't be verified.
I feel like many people want to believe they are powerless because it takes away responsibility. I assume this belief is being subconsciously promoted by well established people. Because if other people can't do what they do, come as far as they came, it means they themselves are very special and talented and hardworking or whatever they want to believe themselves to be. It would make sense if people in positions high up a hierarchy aren't eager to promote the idea that actual power is formed by the opinions and choices of anyone anywhere on that hierarchy... the poorest 50% of people collectively considered money valueless... the power yielded over them would dissappear like snow before sun... Thanks for another great video :)
From the first minute of your perfect analysis I had Jung in my mind. When in the 14th minute of your video you said about the relativity of theories between Foucault and Jung made my dopamine release like a rocket. I feel so lucky and honored to find you in utube❤❤❤❤❤
The problem with Foucault is that it seems to follow from his analysis of power that power and truth are coterminous. The journey of the individual in pursuit of truth is therefore a deconstruction of power relations which is nevertheless, self defeating, unless it constructs a new system of power which can only be done socially. There is no individual liberation. This was the heart of the debate with Chomsky. IMO this view is both depressing and wrong. It is at the heart of so much that is wrong with the modern left, which seems contemptuous of progress that is not collective. And so we get identity politics which contains the core nihilism for which Foucault is criticised. The more affirming approach is that power operates through the manipulation of fear and desire, and liberation is for the individual, an engagement with the world which progressively masters this problem. Only the individual can pursue this within their own psyche. As an individual pursuit, there is a ray of hope that political action cannot provide, valid though such action may be for other reaons.
Good and it comes down to whether the sufferers really believe they have a choice. Otherwise, we would all be living in little Empirical vision quest Capitals of our own gated community personhoods by our own selves interred in almost a mortuary style of disinterested relationships, but who wants it to be that specific?
I feel like what Foucault is talking about is way more general than that - it’s like calling CERN and standard-model-breaking-physics “woke” compared to the “golden age,” of Newton. You’re mapping your conception of western politics onto something that says nothing of the root of human experience, value, or ethics. It’s just some terms of the human condition that are inescapable. Nothing has been said in this video regarding liberation of the individual or engineering alternate structures of collective power. Those are concepts to be built on top of, and through the constraints of, power as a universal force. If you believe power is secured only through “manipulation of fear and desire,” than you’re missing the point entirely and haven’t changed your internal definition of the word power. The creator here mistakenly calls power akin to a force of nature, which is incorrect. Forces of nature, and human beings, all have power over their environment, it’s an intrinsic property baked into everything that happens. Power can be exercised without fear, without cynical manipulation, without hedonistic desire. Trust, love, fraternity, respect, and friendship are themselves a medium for power. One who trusts their spouse to make financial decisions on their behalf cedes power. One who trusts you in regards to life advice is ceding to you the ability to shape their future. Healthy children ultimately cede power to their parents out of a feeling of safety and fostered ambition. Power is simply a measure of how quickly you can perform a set amount of work, how quickly can you change things. The more someone loves and trusts you, the more people respect you, the more people listen to you, the more you can change in your environment and the faster you can do it. Individuals are liberated from the power in their environment acting on them to a variable extent due to an incomprehensible amount of factors, not all of which come from the individual’s perception and will. What you are describing as an individual pursuit is the drive to godhood, in which one, through their own free will, separates from their environmental influence to such an extreme degree that it is negligible. But that is impossible, everyone will always be dependent upon their upbringing and environment to form their identity and to enjoy life. There is a finite limit to what your will can do, human beings are fundamentally collective, social creatures who use communication to sort roles for each other and create structures larger than anyone human, regardless of the will to power of the strongest individual. Nothing about this is nihilistic. There is a balance to be struck in the mind of each individual, decided at each moment, a decision that impacts everyone around them. This has nothing to do with the left or the right, both of which are incomprehensible and philosophically incoherent. Neither are built out of philosophy, they are social, animalistic constructions like all human power structures. They are organic hodge podges of reactionary rhetoric and emotion. Some ideas are better, some worlds are better to live in than others, but hegemonic politics are incomprehensible if you try to make them internally consistent. If you end up believing something along those lines, you’ve yet to escape personal confirmation bias. The irony, of course, being that most people who believe exclusively in an individualist framework don’t realize how much their beliefs are simply a testament to the incomprehensible power of the hegemonic politics they have been exposed to during their development. Both the left and the right of Western politics, as well as every mass political movement in global history, is deeply nihilistic in this way. We’re all sheep to varying extents, doomed to betray our beliefs within every moment in at least one way with no awareness of doing so. Both the individual and the collective are inseparable. There is no collective unscarred by the strongest individuals, and no individuals yet to be molded by the collective. It is symbiotic. The only true life affirming aspect, is that most human beings will grow to decide what it is that’s important to them by middle age, and exert their power to shape their own individual environment over time, and allow themselves to only be shaped by others whom they love and trust, in so far as all existential threats have been accounted for and placated (pay your taxes, avoid dangerous locations/people/situations in general). You decide upon a framework of ethics, you do your best to abide. You expand and exercise your will at times, you cede willingly to the will of others at other times, yet you act on instinct or at the behest of a larger power structure most of the time. This is to say, human will is ultimately always finite, which is what defines the human individual’s metaphysical condition. We always rest between object and god, zero will and infinite will, no matter how clever or how powerful we grow to become. This is simply an unavoidable reality, not a political statement. Individual focused people will always be blind to the power that compels them, collective focused people will always be blind to the power they possess in the moment to resist their environment. Thus, like a debate between two religious beliefs, nothing about western politics could be called postmodern or relevant to truth itself, in fact there has yet to be a society or political ideology with any substantial cultural hegemony which can be called postmodern. Left vs Right can only be argued on a practical, outcome oriented level, not an ideological one. Both the study of the environment and collective structure as well as the will of the individual are valuable studies and are inseparable.
There is an inherent presumption and arrogance whenever proposing individual solutions to collective problems, though. Why shouldn't I be just as suspicious that you choosing the individual as thd fundamental unit of analysis is an excuse to abdicate your social duty?
I don't get the feeling the application of his manner of thinking fails to entail liberation of the individual at all. See "the lost interview of Foucalt" youtube vid.
You are a very sofisicated thinker and a joy to listen to. It's a treat to hear your work in an accent the same as my own. Brilliant densely packed videos. 👏
I love how your channel has grown, congrats, I know it's a lot of work. I'm interested to see if you also dive into discussing the overlap between this theory and that of Dawkin's memetics theory from The Selfish Gene.
Thanks Drew! The Selfish Gene is very high on the reading list and there's a lot to tie it in with so hopefully we'll get to it in the next few months I suspect it'll be one of those cornerstone ideas
Please don’t forget to give a detail video on a the sorcerer’s explanation of power, how one must learn to “see” the invisible threshold of power to understand the totality of ourselves
while you were telling about the external pressure for decision making I really start feeling that it is mathematically possible to model it, and perhaps it is quite similar to what Facebook and digital marketing does, quite interesting
I'm surprised that Foucault's theory of power is seen as 'ground breaking'. In early secondary school in the UK we're taught about the definition of power and energy in physics as Energy = Force multiplied by Distance moved, and Power = how quickly energy changes over time = dE/dt. So in a vague way, power is the name given to that quality that expresses how quickly change takes place in the world we live in, and will be confused with force by some philosophers. Note that the sciences evolved from philosophy.
6:36 "Where there is power there is resistance and resistance is never in the position of exteriority in relation to power" also according to foucault resistance is internal to power. (1)Does that mean to stay in power, resistance is important?and resistance only makes Power grow instead of weakening it,as in "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"? (2)Can those in power grow more powerful by creating (faking)resistance on purpose? I don't know if I constructed those questions accurately since English is not my first language.Looking forward to the next video.
I wonder also what Foucault’s position would be. In response to your second point, it certainly seems in everyday life as though systems of power construct formal opposition to themselves as a way of channeling resistance into manageable forms. The opposition political party performs the valuable function of keeping most resistance within the political system where it can be contained.
@@MrStevemur Thankyou for the response.Yes,and I wonder if we are seeing the same with modern day activism as well;If the Activism is Corporate sponsored,and controlled and contained ,doesn't that make the corporations more powerful?In short,power exists with those who have the power to corrupt.
@@finpro942sometimes I'm sure that does happen. We even have a word for it, "astroturfing," meaning something which looks like a "grass roots" movement but which is actually fake. Personally though, I try to assume good faith on the part of activist groups, unless there's a compelling reason not to. The danger of being immobilised by suspicion seems greater to me than the danger of being deceived.
@@MrStevemur I never knew there was a word for it!Astroturfing is definitely bad.I think the only way to figure it out is by observing whether the Activists actions match with their words consistently regardless of circumstances.But why should Suspicion be the reason to be immobilised,rather it should make one more mobile in pursuit of truth without fear.?
Thanks for the video. I always found descriptions fo Foucault's work very confusing, but your summary is very good. I found that the argument about power (given the specific definition given by Foucault) is a interesting argument about certain aspects of social interactions. I am usually a bit biased against Foucault, in the sense of taking his a ideas with a "pinch of salt". Mainly due to some commentaries regarding his ideas about science. It would be nice if you could comment more about Foucault's ideas about science. Disclaimer: I am scientist, and I might fall in scientism sometimes :) . But I genually think science and empirical based fields are the best way to know about the world. Mainly because I think deductive reasoning is flawed as you need to start from general principles or core ideas, that are usually assumed. Most of the issues in human ideologies and sciences are mainly a conflict of different principles or ideas pushed forward by different groups. The power of science is the constant testing of the core principles. We have the test of external reality. Nature decides who is more right. But we know we are never completely right. But we know what ideas are wrong. You don't have that in some fields.
@@jonsegerrosSeveral leftists signed petition in France to remove the age of consent. Among them not only Foucault but also prominent feminist Simone de Beauvoir and her simp Jean Paul Sartre.
I found the video leaning more to social power and social constructs that either advance or inhibit the extent of power. I think the element of personal power beyond social constructs, and how that is a subject worth a deeper look . As an example finding power by limiting the way society creates conformity in an individual and how that offers a freedom to operate in the world without being bound by traditional lore.
Fascinating analysis of a distillation of power. it feels like he is saying we are free agents but are driven by elements that are not free) (bound in a manner) to offer self-freedom. The joining together and dissolution of power, in this analysis feels like fractals of chaos that collect or are in the end an apparent, unexamined movement into a decision. Did he believe that power was in essence outside of human conscious action?
Hi mates! In my experience, it seems as though the less power individuals have over their own existence in the modern era, they intrinsically feel the need to instill their own ideals or beliefs of power upon others (which they were more than likely brought up or raised with, and thus truely think they are doing the right thing etc). 🤔 Incredible, thought provoking content as usual bro. nicely done! You deserve far more subscriptions in my opinion! This content is gold 👍
I ignore how sofisticated the theory actually is, but it feels like talking about power as we talk about clasical conceptions of partículas in physics. Imagine when modern physical analogies were to be understood by most academics... I have always wondered how different disciplines interact with each other. Ps: I didn't watch the entire video and didn't realize that the analogy was in the video, jeje.
For a long time I've seen life as an interconnected web of centers of power - physical, vital, personal, social, legal, political, cultural, natural and even planetary and universal. Every stone thrown ripples in a nearly infinite number of ponds.
A fascinating discourse - one can also liken the idea of force relations to the function of the superego in psychology. This is building on top of Freud's interpretation of the superego with Anna Freud, Jung, Rank and Reich.
Hey so I’ve been thinking about this video a lot lately. Touching on what you said about Force Relations. I think this is best illustrated by the phenomenon of fields in physics. Think of the electric and gravitational fields and how they interact with charges/masses in space resulting in forces. These fields are everywhere, they emanate from different sources and interfere with each other. Their magnitudes diminish and increase as a function of measures like distance, permeability of space, etc. They are continuous and present at every point in space. These fields don’t act on everything universally, electrical fields do not act on mass and gravitational fields do not act on charge, yet things are capable of having both properties with various magnitudes. Lastly they have direction which influences the resulting direction of the force acted upon the thing they interact with. But to Foucault, these fields emanate from people, institutions, culture, media, etc and operate on people much like the electric field acts on charges. The interaction of force relations on people results in the decisions we make and arguably our thoughts too. Like masses/charges people are influenced, acted upon to move, think, do in certain “directions”, and our intrinsic properties as individuals provide us a means to resist these forces while also influencing how we interact with them.
I suggest a very useful collaborative work on this topic, namely "Michel Foucault-Key Concepts" (Edited by Dianna Taylor, Routledge 2014). I think this video probably draws upon that work.
I'm so glad the algorithm delivered me you! 🙏🏼❤️ Fortuitously, or perhaps the heuristic algorithms do work 😅, you came along and dissect and analyse in precisely the way I didnt know I needed until hearing you. An open mind coupled with erudite humility - golden. Thanks mate 🙏🏼🇦🇺🖖🏼
@@TheLivingPhilosophy mate, and so you have bought a smile to mine. I'm a biochemist/structural biologist and busy jazz/classical guitarist. I wish I had more time to read and learn further. So when I get the opportunity to digest the gift of great thinking and concise synopsis I'll eat it 🤣
@@justinludeman8424 Well now that's an interesting combo! I'd love to a better classical guitarist (never mind jazz) practice practice practice I guess. Anyway I'm happy to throw some extra ingredients in the the mixing pot of your psyche!
It's interesting to read the current culture wars here in the US with regard to power. I'm sure there is no shortage of thesis/ dissertation proposals coming from grad students on the microphysics of "cancel culture" and the "war on wokeness" with regard to social media, and the relation to the macrophysics of state and national politics (book bans, anti-trans laws, etc.) in the struggle to shape our institutions.
5:30 “we have intentions but these intentions are steered by non subjective forces”. Repeatedly in the examples you talk about the “opinions” of friends and family. Are those “opinions” intentional or non subjective? If everything is power then are the actions of individuals like the motion of matter in physics, being the net result of all the underlying forces involved. The notion of “intentionality” and “free agents” seems incoherent within Foucault’s framework, especially given “resistance” is contained within power. Is “free choice” an expression of “self power”? What is the “self”? It has never made sense to me and this video just reconfirms the contradictions that had struck me before.
Hello! One addendum to your video essay, the part with "Greta Thunberg" lacks a bit of critical information. Her being coming into "the non subjective ocean of Power" from a "local tactical action" is all but organic and neither is the effect, her mother is a famous individual with a lot of "local (influence) power" (local meaning Swedish mainstream media) her name is Malena Ernman. Applying some Marxist thought you can see the causal links on why Gretas protest overshadowed any of the countless other protests about climate change. Her symbolic position isn't by chance, the causal links are clear on "the local level", but the phenomenon mirrors that of the upper class taking advantage of the exploitation of the working class by leveraging their Power (both influence and capital gained) to come into prominence. This is of course not a claim for conspiracy and "climate change denial" rather a pointing out that the phenomenon we view needs dialectic materialism when we're critical of Power. "Gretas cause" most probably is a ultimately good, but her rise to prominence is not innocent or organic, the Swedish medias signal boosting was indeed coordinated. For a good cause, but again shows how institutions of Power (in this case the Swedish media) can dictate whatever narrative they wish in our postmodern neo-liberalist reality. Loved the video as usual!
Beautyfull, really Beautyful. That offert such a great view of the power and offert à far more coherent power definition with some historical events. Thank you
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"....knowledge is bottled by those who have the means to allow or deny its dissemination. Foucault loved to talk in riddles, take from it what you will!
Does Foucault ever write anything about how the individual makes decisions based on this model? Are the individuals decisions just a reflection of the strongest string of force relations? Really curious to know what exactly Foucault though of the person’s role in regards to his theory of power. If anyone has any knowledge on that it’d be greatly appreciated.
It could be that those who do not have power will resist and force the powerful to carry out their power in a different way with the use of knowledge. For example, the cruel treatment of the insane during industrialization led those in mental institutions to act out in fear and rage. This led to modern psychiatric facilities that take a more humane approach to treating the mentally ill.
Not done with the video yet, but I wanna put down a thought about the force relations. The psychological tugs (or violent pulls) that are force relations -- I don't think they necessarily are force relations (if I'm understanding it correctly). I imagine hunger and thirst could be considered force relations, especially if access to these things are restricted by a tyrant (I suppose I'm falling into the trap of that top-down model of power, aren't I?). But I don't know if it's right to think of these things as inherently force relations. They're psychological needs and urges and such that can be exploited for power, but is it so right to say they are innately the units of power? Actually, perhaps they are -- the psychological needs and desires and fantasies and such, perhaps they are what they are, but they are also innately the constituents of power.
Great question tree. I've thought a lot about this. I've not come across Foucault saying anything to do with the internal needs and drives as force relations but to me they must be. They are forces that pull upon us as well. I think of the multiplicity of the internal world - the various subpersonalities that we have and Nietzsche of course would say that these drives steer our conscious thinking into certain canals of thought without us knowing about it and that every philosopher's oeuvre is a drive doing philosophy. And so I feel that hunger - not by being manipulated by a tyrant through scarcity or as in Ancient Rome through distribution but just by its nature itself - is a force relation. Maybe I'm holding the definition of force relations looser but i don't think so. I think we need to take these extra conscious psychological elements seriously as shapers of our behaviour and as such they are certainly force relations no? What do you think?
He took a microscope to cultural motion, which I suppose is revolutionary for those that thought it was static, or at least, moving according to top-down dynamics only (deific or otherwise), which is pretty knuckleheaded. People have long known that the dictator, for instance, sleeps with one eye open - that the view of politics, even authoritarian, as absolutely authoritarian, is cartoonish. I'm not seeing how this is profound. Certainly, seeing the arbitrary and chaotic in moral truth formation is amazing, as well as the ways the moral dynamic is commandeered, and in ways having nothing to do with conscious plotting, but rather the power shifts that cause power to fall into the laps of demographic groups (with some help from conscious plotting, although with often bizarre and convoluted results from the perspective of the intentions of the originators of said plots/ideologies/revolutions) is all great stuff. Maybe that's the revolutionary aspect ?
In the question of whether or not you can trust any idea due to it being produced by a structure, doesn't the philosophy(ers) of postmodernism also get included in this? "Everything is just an interpretation, except for this statement!"
I struggle to see how it isn't common sense that different players in this game have different levels of influence and different intentions and that what really happens is somehow a crystallised outcome of these forces.
I listened to this hoping to gather Foucault's DEFINITION of power and am amazed that no definition was given here. I suspect Foucault never gave one. My training is in mathematics, where we do define concepts before working with them. In a PhD level class our assignment was to write two proofs of the type, "Prove or disprove..." The professor said some people turned in whole pages of hand-waving about what was known (not proofs), while I proved each in 2-4 statements. A proof should use strict logic, based on definitions and what has already been proven. The hand-waving en lieu of proof is analogous to your--and Foucault's?--talking all around the subject of power, never having defined it. That is not logically nor academically correct.
The talk in this video speaks all around the concept of power, describing all manner of applications, results, and concepts related to power, which are for the most part, obvious. It gets pretty close to the definition of power when it says that resistance is always associated with power. Of COURSE, since power may be DEFINED as the extent to which a force is able to overcome the resistance of other forces.
So "power" is just any interactions between individuals in a society. We can zoom in or zoom out to see the local or the overall picture. I guess at this point, to investigate power, we should consult sociology people.
Machiavellian techniques do not imply power is top down so this makes sense. But to think that power is bottom up seems to be wrong as well. Power seems to be like water in the Taoist sense anyone can use it and anyone can suffer from it but those at the top of the social structures are able to use tidal wave levels of power that the bottom users would not have access to. The Greta Thurnberg example was a great one but the wave she triggered was amplified by those that are at the top of the social structure. Without them exerting and amplifying no one would of ever heard of her. Seems like a unified theory of power that combines Machiavelli Sun Tzu and Foucault would be a fun project.
Is there some part of force relations that are kept or held in the collective unconscious since everyone must be born with the ability to recognize and process force relations? Tom Sisson
I was interested by your take on Foucault - I always thought he was widely misunderstood - although I may have been party to that....my reading of his method and key aspects of his philosophy came from an article he wrote called "Nietzche, Genealogy and History" took me a long time to get to grips with it when I studied it....but it is how I have always understood his work...
Hello, can you eloborate on these power of force relations in what we see in the polarization of the left/woke idealogy becomming more extreme, in relation with the uprise of the LGBT+ community together, against the right wing. These changes in discourses are changing the power dynamics between the genders, sexual diversities etc. It would be interested to hear your take on it, in a foucauldian discourse analysis.
That would be an interesting one to explore Sara. Off the top of my head it seems that we have strategic forces that have formed on either side that are vying for control but it would be interesting to do a deeper dive
@@TheLivingPhilosophy it sure would. Its also interesting to see how you have vowen Carl Jung into the mix aswell. Want to see you talk more about him (if you havent already!)
great video as always... when u explain things it feels lyk one knows them subconsciously but need u to bring them to the conscious... if I am to say that puts u in a very powerful position in one's life
Foucault's work is a good example of why philosophy needs to more fully embrace science in order to make substantive progress. Your example of choosing what to wear to school is a perfect case in point. Foucault points to hidden power structures that ultimately lie with the State and other institutions (parents, culture, etc.) and these are "force relations," and they affect each other as well as the individual. What modern biology will tell you is that in that same instance, deciding what to wear to school, myriad factors are in play--the sensual nature of the environment (is it cold, dark? a bleak early Monday morning light in a musty bedroom?); did the student have breakfast? (running late, no time); what are the individual's hormone levels; what happened five minutes before the choice; a day before the choice; a year before; what is the individual's genetic makeup (and, what of the parents); what happened to this individual in the third trimester of pregnancy; what characterizes the individual's culture (is it a violent one, like America's?); what was the make-up of the individual's grandparents, and back to the beginning of the species. There are innumerable prior causes that impinge on every "decision" we make, obviating any possibility of agency. Foucault, while clearly a smart guy, cast a tight net around power as the Prime Mover. It's not. Neither is it measurable, that's simply false (measure it in what? pounds? meters? what?). Neither is it quantifiable. If we, the lovers of ideas, work to include what is actually measurable (and verifiable, and replicable), we may legitimately set aside the more romantic missteps of folks like Foucault, and carry forward the more workable aspects (there are forces acting on us that we are not conscious of; indeed, most cognition is unknown to us---look inside, all you see are neurons firing, and they tell a fascinating, but limited, for now, story). The macro realm is not culture, it is life, and life is biological. We need not give up philosophical maneuvers to gain greater insights, but we do ourselves a disservice by not incorporating the radical advances happening in other fields. Foucault's theory of power is fascinating mainly in that he intuited a lot more was going on behind the scenes in the shaping of so-called choices, but his focus on the State and its discontents is a typical heir to Marxism, however removed.
What you are referring to is a mixture of decision theory, chaos theory and causal determinism. Laplace’s demon or what not. However, your hormone levels, what you ate for breakfast, the weather affecting the mood, your genetic makeup, etc don’t necessarily contribute to the perception/sensemaking of everyday. They are mere nudges, to borrow a term from behavioural economics. Sensing one sort of stimuli will make one prefer to wear a different clothe, but wouldn’t you think that the prioritisation of wearing clothes based on comfort rather than fashion is more than just organisms responding to physical changes? We are beings whose world is defined through cognition, so the realm of ideas certainly play a bigger role than you give it credit. I may get black out drunk one day, but how I respond depends on which time period I live and my environment broadly. And within the background of this environment, all the biological factors create potentialities of outcome, and yet, it will be the cultural factors that create the most prominent paradigm of influences, such as between being a greek drunk at a dionysian festival or a christian during the reformation. I agree that philosophers should incorporate better understanding of science, however, what you suggested is what I take issue with. Yes, there are an infinitely limitless factor that potentially affects one’s decision. Factors that’s outside of our control. After all, we are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. So, following this lane of thought leads almost to nowhere, but the truisms regarding human limitations and epistemological uncertainty. P.s. marxism isn’t the only framework that is critical of the state. Even between the left and the right outside of marxist thought, the state is criticised. Heck, you can clearly see how foucault departs from marxist form of analysis.
@@art-ificialblon-die7013 On the biology of free will (or, the lack of, you might enjoy Robert Sapolsky's "Behave." It's thick, but breezily written and he provides an exhaustive (for the layman) overview of genes, hormones, sensual environment, and why all of that matters completely, and collectively overrides the notion of choice. He has a new book coming out, the title is something like "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will." There are more of us all the time (which sounds like a line from a creepy movie) that accept the total lack of free will, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow. That said, my thinking is coming straight out of biology.
@@wrsouth so, yeah. I guess I just straight up disagree with you Ted. I do believe it’s more than just biology and can suggest countless texts as well that would counter the ones you present. That’s not what this discussion or channel is about. It’s almost like you’re saying your religion is the correct one and all the others are false gods. While this may be true for you this is hardly how you foster the discussion and sharing of ideas. I always think of this channel as the meeting of the minds not the controlling of others’.
@@OneConsciousnessWithAaron Thanks for your note. When you have a moment, send me a link to the guidelines for "what this channel is about." If those guidelines include freely expressing your thoughts, I'll most likely continue to do that. (PS: you can't possibly suggest countless texts, or any, to counter a book that isn't even published yet: Determined.)
@@wrsouth I think you purposely misinterpreted my meaning and intention. But thanks for the Rorschach. Happy to refrain from any further comments on your posts. But do, and I mean this sincerely, feel free to comment on mine. Thanks
Great people are helping individuals. Loved. I am Indian just touched Mumbai where the mighty magical mystics practiced. Pray the Indian Armed forces realise that might is not right. Love you all specially the followers of Jesus Christ and stop the mis use to prove that their God is the mightiest and power full.
Any philosophical reasoning in relation to truth is subject to logic in that it begins with a premise. And that premise must not only be in truth. But every step of the way must continue in conceivable truth. And all this without bias or ulterior motive. The problem with Foucault is that too many assumptions were made from the start. He already has his mind made up about "this" or "that" and he set out to prove it. Well, one can prove anything someway somehow. And they can construct a long line of rhyme or reason get the result they so desire. And many will gladly find appeal and jump aboard. I find Foucault's work "entertaining". But that is all. Why? Because his work on "Power", especially in regards to prisons is one example of misinterpretation on his part. Nevertheless, his motive is to free everyone from the clutches of life while keeping them alive in the end. Foucault was an atheist, which tells me that he didn't see as deeply as one thinks. Life has taught me that all that has been created could not be without an intelligence that humans will likely never fully perceive. A Creator. We cannot characterize or define the Creator(s). But something or someone did it. And Reality itself has proven to be a largely complex mathematical equation running a course. All things have a beginning and an end. Life is the very beginning. And it must continue at any cost. Man was created and inherently given the desire and ability to dominate the world and the women in it. That power has never been taken away. And its not likely to be as we see it. The idea of "freeing all people from power" is another left wing produced naive ideology that is bound for nowhere. Because anything that challenges the process of Reality is going to be utterly destroyed. Feminism is a similar process that will vanish in due time. It does not matter if you recognize something that challenges your own unmitigated freedom, and then label it as something to change or destroy. You have no chance against the power of Reality which controls us all. We are mere variables in a very large equation. And with limited choices or abilities. If we challenge reality, reality will destroy us in any number of possible ways. We are always at the mercy of consequence no matter what we do. We would be wise to see Reality more deeply and align ourselves with it. Respecting the design of all things that the Present demonstrates as Nature. Not what man says or thinks about. But from the forces that are greater than any man or thought. Ever try to stop an earthquake?
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the channel? Love supporting things? Check out the Patreon page:
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:59 Empirical vs Theoretical
1:57 What Power Isn't
3:32 What is Power?
4:12 Traits of Power: Immanence
5:04 Traits of Power: Intentional and Non-Subjective
6:19 Traits of Power: Resistance
7:35 Force Relations
9:23 Dynamism of Force Relations
11:52 The Alliance of Force Relations
Can I ask about your religious views. What religion do you follow?
@@ivankomadanvonrakovac8415 You can ask but I'm afraid I don't have a particularly short answer to offer. I guess it is simple since I don't follow any religion but as for my views about the transcendental and the metaphysical it's really not easy to answer. I don't know I guess would be the easiest way to put it
I love supporting things, big supporting fan
the joy on your face in exploring connections in Jung and Foucault is gold. I love how much this interests you, because it's exactly the sort of thing that brought me here. That underlying feeling of interconnection within different schools of thought feels like uncovering ancient knowledge. I love it. Thanks for another great video. Looking forward to you exploring Jung/Foucault. It'll be awesome to see how someone who was so driven to concrete explanations like Foucault will mesh with someone like Jung who tried to realate/sciencify (not sure of the word to use there) mysticism and spirituality.
Haha yeah I got very excited there. That's the real nectar for me - the cross-pollination between great systems of thought that usually aren't cross-pollinated. It's very exciting to see what new combinations of insight they can bring together. I'm delighted to have found people who share that joy in exploring these thoughts
Foucault copies and twists jung to his purpose….how are u impressed by that?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy yes! ill wait for the jungian video approach
Waiting for that video!
Have you seen much of John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis? I'd be interested in your thoughts relating to his attempt to bring together realms of cognitive science, as I think one area he could explore further is the impact on power politics
This theory is central to my coursework and it has been confusing me so much. This video is so good, it has alleviated so much of my stress. The analogies were so good.
Interconnection within different philosophy feels like uncovering ancient knowledge. I love it. Thanks for another great video.
My pleasure!
Thank you for another wonderful video. The panopticon is everywhere and most are largely unaware. Again, thank you for what you do.
Thanks a million Dennis!
Great video, you splendidly and succintly presented Foucault's theory of power.
I'd like to suggest Bertrand De Jouvenel's "On Power", he focuses more on institutions but it is a masterpiece in the study of power, its genealogy and evolution
People with too much focus on power usually suffer from a severe lack of it. A bit like the 'lady' who's focused on projecting an image of chastity.
Concise, clear and stimulating. Great presentation.
Thanks Louise!
the examples and analogies that you use are so helpful to understand the bigger theories
Real. I was lost on some concepts till he explained it with a boy preparing for school and I was like, "Woah, and there are people who hate Foucault, I think that's a cool way of seeing power".
I don't know why but I was so taken aback when you with your gorgeous locks entered the frame. Rock on.
Haha beyond the power of the locks 😆
Awesome stuff as usual! Thanks for making such great content! Have you ever looked into American pragmatism? Thinkers like John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and especially William James seem right up your alley.
Thanks Anders! I did a bit of delving into Peirce during the Semiotics study of Saussure but never went too deep. William James however is someone that I've been wanting to read for well over a decade now. I really think he'll be a big one for me. Seems to have a similar portfolio of interesting and yet I know so little about him
Really fantastic stuff, James.
Thank you for all your effort. I'm super keen to explore the quadrants with you and look forward to future videos 🙏✨
Thanks Kaleb!
As an american only now discovering that her democracy is in fact an oligarchy, i'd like to know if Foucault ever positied how his theory of power might be used practically.
(I'm a first time viewer and new subscriber, btw.) Thank you for this great content.
Hello Jayanti and a very good question. It's something that Foucault gets a lot of hassle for since most of his work is descriptive rather than prescriptive (he was a reader of Wittgenstein so I wonder whether that might have been some element of influence in that). But his 1980s work takes a turn towards the care of the self and this is very much a practical application grounded in ancient philosophy and so will definitely be a theme we'll be returning to in future
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I will greately appreciate any of your content on this topic -- theories of power, systems, change.
It honestly never occurred to me (until watching your video) to try to conceptualize power itself in "new" and fresh ways -- and to stop letting the powerful themselves to dictate to us where the levers of power are. If we are going to dismantle the entrenched structures at the heart of everything from homelessness to endless war to environmental collapse -- we will have to dismantle our own utterly useless worldview, first and foremost. Thanks again.
I’m a complete amateur but the idea of force relations really reminds me of the Hegel dialectic. Is there any connection? The constant thesis, antithesis, synthesis idea. I’ll refer to the four quadrants video to try and position myself here. These videos are awesome, amazing work man.
Foucault with Deleuze for me are two exceptional modern investigators of the psyche. When I disagree with something they wrote I realise it's a boundary of for ignorance, only to find an opening into another maze. Thinking sight isn't the same as inner sight and society is completely blind.
I think this is called obscurantism.
@@jaylinn416 Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."
@@the_famous_reply_guy Well, if Foucault teaching helps you to lead a better life, there may be some value in it. I remain very skeptical. I would not waste my time trying to understand what he is talking about. I am not sure that even the living philosophy guy can explain.
@@jaylinn416 the debated with Chomsky was the moment I saw Foucault desire to explore all dimensions where Chomsky was fixed in all his linear philosophical positions. Foucault asked difficult questions of himself and gave interesting replies at the least, who amongst us can say this sincerely.
@@the_famous_reply_guy I can agree on the incessant need of insight that Focault and his philosophical theories seem to give off, but, at the same time, I do not understand how one could consider them anything rather than mere poetry.
A description of the world which is unverifiable is, to me, nothing more than a narration.
Those theories hold no predictive power, they seek some kind of insight over phenomena, and try to give us some "sensation" about the world, but this is all mystical, artistic.
In truth, nothing which he says can be considered "true".
By studying such matters, I believe, you condition yourself to have a more articulated, complex viewpoint: but, still, it can't be verified.
I feel like many people want to believe they are powerless because it takes away responsibility. I assume this belief is being subconsciously promoted by well established people. Because if other people can't do what they do, come as far as they came, it means they themselves are very special and talented and hardworking or whatever they want to believe themselves to be. It would make sense if people in positions high up a hierarchy aren't eager to promote the idea that actual power is formed by the opinions and choices of anyone anywhere on that hierarchy... the poorest 50% of people collectively considered money valueless... the power yielded over them would dissappear like snow before sun... Thanks for another great video :)
The analogies in your teaching are great!
I learned something here. Foucault has been on my bookshelf for a while. Now you've given me a doorway into that writer. Unexpected. Cool. Peace.
Delighted to hear it Oswald!
From the first minute of your perfect analysis I had Jung in my mind. When in the 14th minute of your video you said about the relativity of theories between Foucault and Jung made my dopamine release like a rocket. I feel so lucky and honored to find you in utube❤❤❤❤❤
The problem with Foucault is that it seems to follow from his analysis of power that power and truth are coterminous. The journey of the individual in pursuit of truth is therefore a deconstruction of power relations which is nevertheless, self defeating, unless it constructs a new system of power which can only be done socially. There is no individual liberation. This was the heart of the debate with Chomsky. IMO this view is both depressing and wrong. It is at the heart of so much that is wrong with the modern left, which seems contemptuous of progress that is not collective. And so we get identity politics which contains the core nihilism for which Foucault is criticised.
The more affirming approach is that power operates through the manipulation of fear and desire, and liberation is for the individual, an engagement with the world which progressively masters this problem. Only the individual can pursue this within their own psyche. As an individual pursuit, there is a ray of hope that political action cannot provide, valid though such action may be for other reaons.
Exactly right. This goes back to Schopenhaur's dispute with Hegelianism too.
Good and it comes down to whether the sufferers really believe they have a choice. Otherwise, we would all be living in little Empirical vision quest Capitals of our own gated community personhoods by our own selves interred in almost a mortuary style of disinterested relationships, but who wants it to be that specific?
I feel like what Foucault is talking about is way more general than that - it’s like calling CERN and standard-model-breaking-physics “woke” compared to the “golden age,” of Newton. You’re mapping your conception of western politics onto something that says nothing of the root of human experience, value, or ethics. It’s just some terms of the human condition that are inescapable. Nothing has been said in this video regarding liberation of the individual or engineering alternate structures of collective power. Those are concepts to be built on top of, and through the constraints of, power as a universal force. If you believe power is secured only through “manipulation of fear and desire,” than you’re missing the point entirely and haven’t changed your internal definition of the word power. The creator here mistakenly calls power akin to a force of nature, which is incorrect. Forces of nature, and human beings, all have power over their environment, it’s an intrinsic property baked into everything that happens. Power can be exercised without fear, without cynical manipulation, without hedonistic desire. Trust, love, fraternity, respect, and friendship are themselves a medium for power. One who trusts their spouse to make financial decisions on their behalf cedes power. One who trusts you in regards to life advice is ceding to you the ability to shape their future. Healthy children ultimately cede power to their parents out of a feeling of safety and fostered ambition. Power is simply a measure of how quickly you can perform a set amount of work, how quickly can you change things. The more someone loves and trusts you, the more people respect you, the more people listen to you, the more you can change in your environment and the faster you can do it.
Individuals are liberated from the power in their environment acting on them to a variable extent due to an incomprehensible amount of factors, not all of which come from the individual’s perception and will. What you are describing as an individual pursuit is the drive to godhood, in which one, through their own free will, separates from their environmental influence to such an extreme degree that it is negligible. But that is impossible, everyone will always be dependent upon their upbringing and environment to form their identity and to enjoy life. There is a finite limit to what your will can do, human beings are fundamentally collective, social creatures who use communication to sort roles for each other and create structures larger than anyone human, regardless of the will to power of the strongest individual. Nothing about this is nihilistic. There is a balance to be struck in the mind of each individual, decided at each moment, a decision that impacts everyone around them. This has nothing to do with the left or the right, both of which are incomprehensible and philosophically incoherent. Neither are built out of philosophy, they are social, animalistic constructions like all human power structures. They are organic hodge podges of reactionary rhetoric and emotion. Some ideas are better, some worlds are better to live in than others, but hegemonic politics are incomprehensible if you try to make them internally consistent. If you end up believing something along those lines, you’ve yet to escape personal confirmation bias. The irony, of course, being that most people who believe exclusively in an individualist framework don’t realize how much their beliefs are simply a testament to the incomprehensible power of the hegemonic politics they have been exposed to during their development. Both the left and the right of Western politics, as well as every mass political movement in global history, is deeply nihilistic in this way. We’re all sheep to varying extents, doomed to betray our beliefs within every moment in at least one way with no awareness of doing so. Both the individual and the collective are inseparable. There is no collective unscarred by the strongest individuals, and no individuals yet to be molded by the collective. It is symbiotic. The only true life affirming aspect, is that most human beings will grow to decide what it is that’s important to them by middle age, and exert their power to shape their own individual environment over time, and allow themselves to only be shaped by others whom they love and trust, in so far as all existential threats have been accounted for and placated (pay your taxes, avoid dangerous locations/people/situations in general). You decide upon a framework of ethics, you do your best to abide. You expand and exercise your will at times, you cede willingly to the will of others at other times, yet you act on instinct or at the behest of a larger power structure most of the time. This is to say, human will is ultimately always finite, which is what defines the human individual’s metaphysical condition. We always rest between object and god, zero will and infinite will, no matter how clever or how powerful we grow to become. This is simply an unavoidable reality, not a political statement. Individual focused people will always be blind to the power that compels them, collective focused people will always be blind to the power they possess in the moment to resist their environment. Thus, like a debate between two religious beliefs, nothing about western politics could be called postmodern or relevant to truth itself, in fact there has yet to be a society or political ideology with any substantial cultural hegemony which can be called postmodern. Left vs Right can only be argued on a practical, outcome oriented level, not an ideological one. Both the study of the environment and collective structure as well as the will of the individual are valuable studies and are inseparable.
There is an inherent presumption and arrogance whenever proposing individual solutions to collective problems, though.
Why shouldn't I be just as suspicious that you choosing the individual as thd fundamental unit of analysis is an excuse to abdicate your social duty?
I don't get the feeling the application of his manner of thinking fails to entail liberation of the individual at all. See "the lost interview of Foucalt" youtube vid.
You are a very sofisicated thinker and a joy to listen to. It's a treat to hear your work in an accent the same as my own. Brilliant densely packed videos. 👏
Thanks for the kind words Richard it means a lot
I love how your channel has grown, congrats, I know it's a lot of work.
I'm interested to see if you also dive into discussing the overlap between this theory and that of Dawkin's memetics theory from The Selfish Gene.
Thanks Drew! The Selfish Gene is very high on the reading list and there's a lot to tie it in with so hopefully we'll get to it in the next few months I suspect it'll be one of those cornerstone ideas
Can you do seperate videos on the empiricists? locke, hume, Berkeley.
Damn bro your voice narration is so soothing, absolutely perfect for narrating philosophy
Thank you so much that's so nice to hear (I hear plenty to the contrary so it's always nice to hear some positive ones!)
Please don’t forget to give a detail video on a the sorcerer’s explanation of power, how one must learn to “see” the invisible threshold of power to understand the totality of ourselves
while you were telling about the external pressure for decision making I really start feeling that it is mathematically possible to model it, and perhaps it is quite similar to what Facebook and digital marketing does, quite interesting
I'm surprised that Foucault's theory of power is seen as 'ground breaking'. In early secondary school in the UK we're taught about the definition of power and energy in physics as Energy = Force multiplied by Distance moved, and Power = how quickly energy changes over time = dE/dt. So in a vague way, power is the name given to that quality that expresses how quickly change takes place in the world we live in, and will be confused with force by some philosophers. Note that the sciences evolved from philosophy.
You actually forgot per unit time , what you gave is called work
@@pulkitgupta4927 edited in, thanks
@@pulkitgupta4927 And, unfortunately, energy is alienated from it's product under late capitalism.
You must be smoking some socks. What are you talking about 🤣
Lol what
6:36 "Where there is power there is resistance and resistance is never in the position of exteriority in relation to power" also according to foucault resistance is internal to power.
(1)Does that mean to stay in power, resistance is important?and resistance only makes Power grow instead of weakening it,as in "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"?
(2)Can those in power grow more powerful by creating (faking)resistance on purpose?
I don't know if I constructed those questions accurately since English is not my first language.Looking forward to the next video.
I wonder also what Foucault’s position would be. In response to your second point, it certainly seems in everyday life as though systems of power construct formal opposition to themselves as a way of channeling resistance into manageable forms. The opposition political party performs the valuable function of keeping most resistance within the political system where it can be contained.
@@MrStevemur Thankyou for the response.Yes,and I wonder if we are seeing the same with modern day activism as well;If the Activism is Corporate sponsored,and controlled and contained ,doesn't that make the corporations more powerful?In short,power exists with those who have the power to corrupt.
@@finpro942sometimes I'm sure that does happen. We even have a word for it, "astroturfing," meaning something which looks like a "grass roots" movement but which is actually fake. Personally though, I try to assume good faith on the part of activist groups, unless there's a compelling reason not to. The danger of being immobilised by suspicion seems greater to me than the danger of being deceived.
@@MrStevemur I never knew there was a word for it!Astroturfing is definitely bad.I think the only way to figure it out is by observing whether the Activists actions match with their words consistently regardless of circumstances.But why should Suspicion be the reason to be immobilised,rather it should make one more mobile in pursuit of truth without fear.?
What is power? Foucault should know, he 'applied' it for most of his life.
I can finally explain to my roommates why I take so long to pick out an outfit
And ain't that what philosophy is all about!
Thanks for the video. I always found descriptions fo Foucault's work very confusing, but your summary is very good. I found that the argument about power (given the specific definition given by Foucault) is a interesting argument about certain aspects of social interactions. I am usually a bit biased against Foucault, in the sense of taking his a ideas with a "pinch of salt". Mainly due to some commentaries regarding his ideas about science. It would be nice if you could comment more about Foucault's ideas about science.
Disclaimer: I am scientist, and I might fall in scientism sometimes :) . But I genually think science and empirical based fields are the best way to know about the world. Mainly because I think deductive reasoning is flawed as you need to start from general principles or core ideas, that are usually assumed. Most of the issues in human ideologies and sciences are mainly a conflict of different principles or ideas pushed forward by different groups. The power of science is the constant testing of the core principles. We have the test of external reality. Nature decides who is more right. But we know we are never completely right. But we know what ideas are wrong. You don't have that in some fields.
Amazing how different things look from a bottom up perspective.
Power is the ability to effect change. The competition for power comes the fact that we are all different and we all want different changes
He certainly loved the power dynamic between men and little boys.
Leftists/postmodernists don't wanna talk about this
@@jonsegerrosSeveral leftists signed petition in France to remove the age of consent.
Among them not only Foucault but also prominent feminist Simone de Beauvoir and her simp Jean Paul Sartre.
I found the video leaning more to social power and social constructs that either advance or inhibit the extent of power.
I think the element of personal power beyond social constructs, and how that is a subject worth a deeper look . As an example finding power by limiting the way society creates conformity in an individual and how that offers a freedom to operate in the world without being bound by traditional lore.
Fascinating analysis of a distillation of power. it feels like he is saying we are free agents but are driven by elements that are not free) (bound in a manner) to offer self-freedom. The joining together and dissolution of power, in this analysis feels like fractals of chaos that collect or are in the end an apparent, unexamined movement into a decision. Did he believe that power was in essence outside of human conscious action?
Hi mates!
In my experience, it seems as though the less power individuals have over their own existence in the modern era, they intrinsically feel the need to instill their own ideals or beliefs of power upon others (which they were more than likely brought up or raised with, and thus truely think they are doing the right thing etc). 🤔
Incredible, thought provoking content as usual bro. nicely done!
You deserve far more subscriptions in my opinion! This content is gold 👍
I ignore how sofisticated the theory actually is, but it feels like talking about power as we talk about clasical conceptions of partículas in physics.
Imagine when modern physical analogies were to be understood by most academics...
I have always wondered how different disciplines interact with each other.
Ps: I didn't watch the entire video and didn't realize that the analogy was in the video, jeje.
For a long time I've seen life as an interconnected web of centers of power - physical, vital, personal, social, legal, political, cultural, natural and even planetary and universal. Every stone thrown ripples in a nearly infinite number of ponds.
Gave the video a like mostly because of the last idea of making a video about the connection between Focault and Jung. I really look foward for that!
Thank you! I look forward to making it!
A fascinating discourse - one can also liken the idea of force relations to the function of the superego in psychology. This is building on top of Freud's interpretation of the superego with Anna Freud, Jung, Rank and Reich.
Great video. definitely will help for my midterm !
Thanks so much.
You're welcome!
Great presentation. Big thanks to the YT Algo for sending you my way. Got my sub. Thanks for the great work!
Fantastic. Btw it's Sophocles' plays about Oedipus, not Aeschylus (3.20).
yes more Foucault please
Excellent video on Foucault. Thank you for this.
Hey so I’ve been thinking about this video a lot lately.
Touching on what you said about Force Relations. I think this is best illustrated by the phenomenon of fields in physics. Think of the electric and gravitational fields and how they interact with charges/masses in space resulting in forces. These fields are everywhere, they emanate from different sources and interfere with each other. Their magnitudes diminish and increase as a function of measures like distance, permeability of space, etc. They are continuous and present at every point in space. These fields don’t act on everything universally, electrical fields do not act on mass and gravitational fields do not act on charge, yet things are capable of having both properties with various magnitudes. Lastly they have direction which influences the resulting direction of the force acted upon the thing they interact with.
But to Foucault, these fields emanate from people, institutions, culture, media, etc and operate on people much like the electric field acts on charges. The interaction of force relations on people results in the decisions we make and arguably our thoughts too. Like masses/charges people are influenced, acted upon to move, think, do in certain “directions”, and our intrinsic properties as individuals provide us a means to resist these forces while also influencing how we interact with them.
I was thinking Jung durn this episode. I see them put together in one episode. I loved you put Nietzche in there too. Nicely done and Thank you. 🔥💖
6:35 "This resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power". What does this mean??
You're absolutely correct re-KMS; Fu-Gee-La is demonstrably the very essence of The Will To Party.
I suggest a very useful collaborative work on this topic, namely "Michel Foucault-Key Concepts" (Edited by Dianna Taylor, Routledge 2014). I think this video probably draws upon that work.
great video dude, thx so much, any video on jung is great and I'm sure foucault thrown in there would be uber spicy, nice
I'm so glad the algorithm delivered me you! 🙏🏼❤️
Fortuitously, or perhaps the heuristic algorithms do work 😅, you came along and dissect and analyse in precisely the way I didnt know I needed until hearing you.
An open mind coupled with erudite humility - golden.
Thanks mate 🙏🏼🇦🇺🖖🏼
This brought a smile to my face Justin so thank you!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy mate, and so you have bought a smile to mine. I'm a biochemist/structural biologist and busy jazz/classical guitarist. I wish I had more time to read and learn further.
So when I get the opportunity to digest the gift of great thinking and concise synopsis I'll eat it 🤣
@@justinludeman8424 Well now that's an interesting combo! I'd love to a better classical guitarist (never mind jazz) practice practice practice I guess. Anyway I'm happy to throw some extra ingredients in the the mixing pot of your psyche!
Come on brah. Foucalt is just footnotes to Will To Power - the book and idea, as Ive begun to explain in my channel.
It seems perplexing that he defines social actions in terms of power and control, rather than of socialisation.
It's interesting to read the current culture wars here in the US with regard to power. I'm sure there is no shortage of thesis/ dissertation proposals coming from grad students on the microphysics of "cancel culture" and the "war on wokeness" with regard to social media, and the relation to the macrophysics of state and national politics (book bans, anti-trans laws, etc.) in the struggle to shape our institutions.
5:30 “we have intentions but these intentions are steered by non subjective forces”.
Repeatedly in the examples you talk about the “opinions” of friends and family. Are those “opinions” intentional or non subjective? If everything is power then are the actions of individuals like the motion of matter in physics, being the net result of all the underlying forces involved.
The notion of “intentionality” and “free agents” seems incoherent within Foucault’s framework, especially given “resistance” is contained within power. Is “free choice” an expression of “self power”? What is the “self”?
It has never made sense to me and this video just reconfirms the contradictions that had struck me before.
Power is the harnessing on energy.
So basically cause and effect.
Hello!
One addendum to your video essay, the part with "Greta Thunberg" lacks a bit of critical information. Her being coming into "the non subjective ocean of Power" from a "local tactical action" is all but organic and neither is the effect, her mother is a famous individual with a lot of "local (influence) power" (local meaning Swedish mainstream media) her name is Malena Ernman. Applying some Marxist thought you can see the causal links on why Gretas protest overshadowed any of the countless other protests about climate change. Her symbolic position isn't by chance, the causal links are clear on "the local level", but the phenomenon mirrors that of the upper class taking advantage of the exploitation of the working class by leveraging their Power (both influence and capital gained) to come into prominence.
This is of course not a claim for conspiracy and "climate change denial" rather a pointing out that the phenomenon we view needs dialectic materialism when we're critical of Power. "Gretas cause" most probably is a ultimately good, but her rise to prominence is not innocent or organic, the Swedish medias signal boosting was indeed coordinated. For a good cause, but again shows how institutions of Power (in this case the Swedish media) can dictate whatever narrative they wish in our postmodern neo-liberalist reality.
Loved the video as usual!
'Power relations are everywhere;
We are all serving power.'
Beautyfull, really Beautyful. That offert such a great view of the power and offert à far more coherent power definition with some historical events. Thank you
Thanks a million Antoine!
Thank you RUclips for bringing me here
Multiplicity is a cop out for true detail
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"....knowledge is bottled by those who have the means to allow or deny its dissemination. Foucault loved to talk in riddles, take from it what you will!
Does Foucault ever write anything about how the individual makes decisions based on this model? Are the individuals decisions just a reflection of the strongest string of force relations? Really curious to know what exactly Foucault though of the person’s role in regards to his theory of power. If anyone has any knowledge on that it’d be greatly appreciated.
It could be that those who do not have power will resist and force the powerful to carry out their power in a different way with the use of knowledge. For example, the cruel treatment of the insane during industrialization led those in mental institutions to act out in fear and rage. This led to modern psychiatric facilities that take a more humane approach to treating the mentally ill.
wow, gave me an excuse to re watch the matrix. great video, thank you ‼️
Not done with the video yet, but I wanna put down a thought about the force relations. The psychological tugs (or violent pulls) that are force relations -- I don't think they necessarily are force relations (if I'm understanding it correctly). I imagine hunger and thirst could be considered force relations, especially if access to these things are restricted by a tyrant (I suppose I'm falling into the trap of that top-down model of power, aren't I?). But I don't know if it's right to think of these things as inherently force relations. They're psychological needs and urges and such that can be exploited for power, but is it so right to say they are innately the units of power? Actually, perhaps they are -- the psychological needs and desires and fantasies and such, perhaps they are what they are, but they are also innately the constituents of power.
Great question tree. I've thought a lot about this. I've not come across Foucault saying anything to do with the internal needs and drives as force relations but to me they must be. They are forces that pull upon us as well. I think of the multiplicity of the internal world - the various subpersonalities that we have and Nietzsche of course would say that these drives steer our conscious thinking into certain canals of thought without us knowing about it and that every philosopher's oeuvre is a drive doing philosophy. And so I feel that hunger - not by being manipulated by a tyrant through scarcity or as in Ancient Rome through distribution but just by its nature itself - is a force relation. Maybe I'm holding the definition of force relations looser but i don't think so. I think we need to take these extra conscious psychological elements seriously as shapers of our behaviour and as such they are certainly force relations no? What do you think?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy It's gotta be something like that!
Subscribed, thanks for the great content
He took a microscope to cultural motion, which I suppose is revolutionary for those that thought it was static, or at least, moving according to top-down dynamics only (deific or otherwise), which is pretty knuckleheaded. People have long known that the dictator, for instance, sleeps with one eye open - that the view of politics, even authoritarian, as absolutely authoritarian, is cartoonish. I'm not seeing how this is profound. Certainly, seeing the arbitrary and chaotic in moral truth formation is amazing, as well as the ways the moral dynamic is commandeered, and in ways having nothing to do with conscious plotting, but rather the power shifts that cause power to fall into the laps of demographic groups (with some help from conscious plotting, although with often bizarre and convoluted results from the perspective of the intentions of the originators of said plots/ideologies/revolutions) is all great stuff. Maybe that's the revolutionary aspect ?
BRILLIANT
This is similar to the theory of Intention and Pendulums, presented by Vadim Zeland.
Interesting stuff Joseph I've never heard of him. Another one to check out!
Fascinating stream of thought.
In the question of whether or not you can trust any idea due to it being produced by a structure, doesn't the philosophy(ers) of postmodernism also get included in this?
"Everything is just an interpretation, except for this statement!"
Foucault, the patron saint of kiddy fiddlers.
I struggle to see how it isn't common sense that different players in this game have different levels of influence and different intentions and that what really happens is somehow a crystallised outcome of these forces.
I listened to this hoping to gather Foucault's DEFINITION of power and am amazed that no definition was given here. I suspect Foucault never gave one. My training is in mathematics, where we do define concepts before working with them. In a PhD level class our assignment was to write two proofs of the type, "Prove or disprove..." The professor said some people turned in whole pages of hand-waving about what was known (not proofs), while I proved each in 2-4 statements. A proof should use strict logic, based on definitions and what has already been proven. The hand-waving en lieu of proof is analogous to your--and Foucault's?--talking all around the subject of power, never having defined it. That is not logically nor academically correct.
The talk in this video speaks all around the concept of power, describing all manner of applications, results, and concepts related to power, which are for the most part, obvious. It gets pretty close to the definition of power when it says that resistance is always associated with power. Of COURSE, since power may be DEFINED as the extent to which a force is able to overcome the resistance of other forces.
So "power" is just any interactions between individuals in a society. We can zoom in or zoom out to see the local or the overall picture. I guess at this point, to investigate power, we should consult sociology people.
This video is very good
thank you, very insightful.
Playing “Killing Me Softly” by the Fugees is the best use of power
Based power
Thanks, it really helped a lot....
Machiavellian techniques do not imply power is top down so this makes sense. But to think that power is bottom up seems to be wrong as well. Power seems to be like water in the Taoist sense anyone can use it and anyone can suffer from it but those at the top of the social structures are able to use tidal wave levels of power that the bottom users would not have access to. The Greta Thurnberg example was a great one but the wave she triggered was amplified by those that are at the top of the social structure. Without them exerting and amplifying no one would of ever heard of her. Seems like a unified theory of power that combines Machiavelli Sun Tzu and Foucault would be a fun project.
Very good - ❤
what,s more important PRIMARY IMPRINTING OR SECONDARY SOCIALISATION
Is there some part of force relations that are kept or held in the collective unconscious since everyone must be born with the ability to recognize and process force relations?
Tom Sisson
Informative. Thanks.
Awesome, thank you!
Thanks for this video.
Oh wow thank you for your generosity 🙏
I was interested by your take on Foucault - I always thought he was widely misunderstood - although I may have been party to that....my reading of his method and key aspects of his philosophy came from an article he wrote called "Nietzche, Genealogy and History" took me a long time to get to grips with it when I studied it....but it is how I have always understood his work...
It's hard to pop on Instagram. -Foucault
Such wisdom
Hello, can you eloborate on these power of force relations in what we see in the polarization of the left/woke idealogy becomming more extreme, in relation with the uprise of the LGBT+ community together, against the right wing. These changes in discourses are changing the power dynamics between the genders, sexual diversities etc. It would be interested to hear your take on it, in a foucauldian discourse analysis.
That would be an interesting one to explore Sara. Off the top of my head it seems that we have strategic forces that have formed on either side that are vying for control but it would be interesting to do a deeper dive
@@TheLivingPhilosophy it sure would. Its also interesting to see how you have vowen Carl Jung into the mix aswell. Want to see you talk more about him (if you havent already!)
great video as always... when u explain things it feels lyk one knows them subconsciously but need u to bring them to the conscious... if I am to say that puts u in a very powerful position in one's life
Haha amazing! I'll try not to abuse that power Khan
Foucault's work is a good example of why philosophy needs to more fully embrace science in order to make substantive progress. Your example of choosing what to wear to school is a perfect case in point. Foucault points to hidden power structures that ultimately lie with the State and other institutions (parents, culture, etc.) and these are "force relations," and they affect each other as well as the individual. What modern biology will tell you is that in that same instance, deciding what to wear to school, myriad factors are in play--the sensual nature of the environment (is it cold, dark? a bleak early Monday morning light in a musty bedroom?); did the student have breakfast? (running late, no time); what are the individual's hormone levels; what happened five minutes before the choice; a day before the choice; a year before; what is the individual's genetic makeup (and, what of the parents); what happened to this individual in the third trimester of pregnancy; what characterizes the individual's culture (is it a violent one, like America's?); what was the make-up of the individual's grandparents, and back to the beginning of the species. There are innumerable prior causes that impinge on every "decision" we make, obviating any possibility of agency. Foucault, while clearly a smart guy, cast a tight net around power as the Prime Mover. It's not. Neither is it measurable, that's simply false (measure it in what? pounds? meters? what?). Neither is it quantifiable. If we, the lovers of ideas, work to include what is actually measurable (and verifiable, and replicable), we may legitimately set aside the more romantic missteps of folks like Foucault, and carry forward the more workable aspects (there are forces acting on us that we are not conscious of; indeed, most cognition is unknown to us---look inside, all you see are neurons firing, and they tell a fascinating, but limited, for now, story). The macro realm is not culture, it is life, and life is biological. We need not give up philosophical maneuvers to gain greater insights, but we do ourselves a disservice by not incorporating the radical advances happening in other fields. Foucault's theory of power is fascinating mainly in that he intuited a lot more was going on behind the scenes in the shaping of so-called choices, but his focus on the State and its discontents is a typical heir to Marxism, however removed.
What you are referring to is a mixture of decision theory, chaos theory and causal determinism. Laplace’s demon or what not. However, your hormone levels, what you ate for breakfast, the weather affecting the mood, your genetic makeup, etc don’t necessarily contribute to the perception/sensemaking of everyday. They are mere nudges, to borrow a term from behavioural economics. Sensing one sort of stimuli will make one prefer to wear a different clothe, but wouldn’t you think that the prioritisation of wearing clothes based on comfort rather than fashion is more than just organisms responding to physical changes? We are beings whose world is defined through cognition, so the realm of ideas certainly play a bigger role than you give it credit. I may get black out drunk one day, but how I respond depends on which time period I live and my environment broadly. And within the background of this environment, all the biological factors create potentialities of outcome, and yet, it will be the cultural factors that create the most prominent paradigm of influences, such as between being a greek drunk at a dionysian festival or a christian during the reformation. I agree that philosophers should incorporate better understanding of science, however, what you suggested is what I take issue with. Yes, there are an infinitely limitless factor that potentially affects one’s decision. Factors that’s outside of our control. After all, we are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. So, following this lane of thought leads almost to nowhere, but the truisms regarding human limitations and epistemological uncertainty.
P.s. marxism isn’t the only framework that is critical of the state. Even between the left and the right outside of marxist thought, the state is criticised. Heck, you can clearly see how foucault departs from marxist form of analysis.
@@art-ificialblon-die7013 On the biology of free will (or, the lack of, you might enjoy Robert Sapolsky's "Behave." It's thick, but breezily written and he provides an exhaustive (for the layman) overview of genes, hormones, sensual environment, and why all of that matters completely, and collectively overrides the notion of choice. He has a new book coming out, the title is something like "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will." There are more of us all the time (which sounds like a line from a creepy movie) that accept the total lack of free will, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow. That said, my thinking is coming straight out of biology.
@@wrsouth so, yeah. I guess I just straight up disagree with you Ted. I do believe it’s more than just biology and can suggest countless texts as well that would counter the ones you present.
That’s not what this discussion or channel is about. It’s almost like you’re saying your religion is the correct one and all the others are false gods. While this may be true for you this is hardly how you foster the discussion and sharing of ideas. I always think of this channel as the meeting of the minds not the controlling of others’.
@@OneConsciousnessWithAaron Thanks for your note. When you have a moment, send me a link to the guidelines for "what this channel is about." If those guidelines include freely expressing your thoughts, I'll most likely continue to do that. (PS: you can't possibly suggest countless texts, or any, to counter a book that isn't even published yet: Determined.)
@@wrsouth I think you purposely misinterpreted my meaning and intention. But thanks for the Rorschach.
Happy to refrain from any further comments on your posts. But do, and I mean this sincerely, feel free to comment on mine. Thanks
Tunisia 🇹🇳
OG Hipster DB.
Great people are helping individuals. Loved. I am Indian just touched Mumbai where the mighty magical mystics practiced. Pray the Indian Armed forces realise that might is not right. Love you all specially the followers of Jesus Christ and stop the mis use to prove that their God is the mightiest and power full.
Any philosophical reasoning in relation to truth is subject to logic in that it begins with a premise. And that premise must not only be in truth. But every step of the way must continue in conceivable truth. And all this without bias or ulterior motive. The problem with Foucault is that too many assumptions were made from the start. He already has his mind made up about "this" or "that" and he set out to prove it. Well, one can prove anything someway somehow. And they can construct a long line of rhyme or reason get the result they so desire. And many will gladly find appeal and jump aboard. I find Foucault's work "entertaining". But that is all. Why? Because his work on "Power", especially in regards to prisons is one example of misinterpretation on his part. Nevertheless, his motive is to free everyone from the clutches of life while keeping them alive in the end. Foucault was an atheist, which tells me that he didn't see as deeply as one thinks.
Life has taught me that all that has been created could not be without an intelligence that humans will likely never fully perceive. A Creator. We cannot characterize or define the Creator(s). But something or someone did it. And Reality itself has proven to be a largely complex mathematical equation running a course. All things have a beginning and an end. Life is the very beginning. And it must continue at any cost. Man was created and inherently given the desire and ability to dominate the world and the women in it. That power has never been taken away. And its not likely to be as we see it. The idea of "freeing all people from power" is another left wing produced naive ideology that is bound for nowhere. Because anything that challenges the process of Reality is going to be utterly destroyed. Feminism is a similar process that will vanish in due time. It does not matter if you recognize something that challenges your own unmitigated freedom, and then label it as something to change or destroy. You have no chance against the power of Reality which controls us all. We are mere variables in a very large equation. And with limited choices or abilities. If we challenge reality, reality will destroy us in any number of possible ways. We are always at the mercy of consequence no matter what we do. We would be wise to see Reality more deeply and align ourselves with it. Respecting the design of all things that the Present demonstrates as Nature. Not what man says or thinks about. But from the forces that are greater than any man or thought. Ever try to stop an earthquake?
Foucault used his power over those young boys in Tunisia.
subbed. nicely done.