See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335060981

Michel Foucault Power Knowledge Nexus: Critical Analysis and Its Relevance

Book · August 2019

CITATIONS READS
2 18,947

1 author:

Teshome Abera
Addis Ababa Science and Technology University
18 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

indigenous View project

ZaraYacob View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Teshome Abera on 13 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


 
    
 


!  
 
 

  
   
 
 
"#
  $  %&'!    
   
&   
     
  
  
 (  (  
 " 
'!

    
(    
  )        
   
    
 "   '  
  "

  '
  &   

  (
    
     "% * 
    +  
&'  
 !
       
 

     
  
(   
 
 
         
(  
   
 


 
    
  !

 

 



 
, # (- #   
(
- .  .   
 (
 

 +    / 
 !

  &
.


  

  
+  (0 (/
.  (    



#  # (,
 (  
+ 
(. 
 !

 !"!#

 

 


 

 



     ! 


""


##$%
    

&
'&



 

 

 
   

 
   
 

 


 
  

 

 
 




 ! 

 

"



 
# 

 

$  !%
 !

   
& 
$

'  

 
'  

($
 

' 

# %
 %
)   %
*  %
'  
  $


'
 

 

+ 
 


" %
 
 
 

&

'  !

#  




  
$,

 

( 

$



  

 
 
-
 
 
   
. 
 
   

 
 

 
 
  

 
  
 

  

 


 ! 

"-
 
 


 


 


(

  %
 

 



  


  


 


. 



 
 %

 %

 %
 
 %




$ 

  
 

 
$



$ -




 
 

 
 -

 






  

 

 


 


-
-

/

/
 
$$$   

0 

 

1"
1"#23.
" 
 







  


"0
"  
)*
4
/
+)

* !5!&
6!7%
66898
& %
  

) -
2 

: !  

*
 

&





 
 
($)*+,-.-/0*-1,*0*-2

/- 
;
9<89
"0
"  
)*
4
/
+)

"
3 
 

"
 

& 
9<89
CONTENTS
PAGES
STATEMENTS OF THE PROBLEM ....................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER ONE: POWER AND KNOWLEDGE ..................................... 13
1.1. POWER AND KNOWLEDGE NEXUS ............................................. 13
1.2. POWER AND TRUTH ....................................................................... 16
1.3. POWER AND RESISTANCE............................................................. 21
1.4. THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF POWER AND KNOWLEDGE......... 12
CHAPTER TWO: POWER/ KNOWLEDGE AND THE BODY ............... 24
2.1. DISPELINE AND PUNISH ............................................................... 24
2.1.1. Hierarchical observation .............................................................. 30
2.1.2. Normalizing Judgment................................................................. 31
2.1.3. The examination ......................................................................... 32
2.2. THE BODY AND SEXUALITY ........................................................ 34
2.2.1. Sexuality...................................................................................... 34
2.2.2. Repressive Hypothesis ................................................................. 37
2.2.3. Bio- power ................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER THREE: GOVERNMENTALITY ........................................... 43
)2&$8/76&21&(372,212)7+(µ68%-(&7¶ ........................ 43
3.2. GOVERNING CONDUCT; TECHNOLOGIES OF
DOMINATION AND THE SELF ........................................................... 45
3.3. GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTALITY.............................. 47
CHAPTER FOUR: CRITICAL ANALISIS AND THE
RELEVANCE OF FOUCALT WORK ...................................................... 58
4.1. CRITICAL ANALISIS44
4.2. POWER/KNOWLEDGE RELATED TO SOME ISSUES OF
AFRICA..................................................................................................... 63
4.3. POWER/KNOWLEDGE NEXUS AND GLOBALIZATION............. 66

1
4.4. POWER/KNOWLEDGE NEXUS AND NEO- LIBERALISM........... 69
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................ 73
BIBLOGRAPHY

2
Statements of The problem
Michel Foucault the French philosopher since his death in 1984
LQIOXHQFHV WKH FULWLTXH WKDW LGHQWLILHV LWVHOI ³SRVWPRGHUQ´ DQG
³SRVWVWUXFWXUDOLVW´

In his work he made the connection between power and knowledge.

He studied their interaction and looked into how the two operate. He
describe the dynamic relationship that exist between power and
knowledge

Foucault discussed the relationship that exists between power and

knowledge in terms of the response they have to social, political,
PHGLFDODQGOHJDOUHDOLW\DVD³GLVFRXUVH´

There are individuals by whom Foucault was influenced in his work

both positively and negatively such as Nietzsche and Sartre.
Foucault was LQIOXHQFHG SRVLWLYHO\ E\ 1LHW]VFKH¶V UHMHFWLRQ RI DQ\
universal phenomenon in human behavior. According to Nietzsche the
subjectivity of the individual is shaped and self disciplined by the
society. He was negatively influenced by the works of Sartre. For
Sartre the individual is responsible for his feeling but for Foucault
subjectivity is the result of discourse in the society.

For Foucault power and knowledge are insepDUDEOH ³IRU )RXFDXOW

,knowledge, power, oppression and resistance always circulate around
one another, alternatively feeding off and nourishing one another
³6WDF\,WLVGXHWRSRZHUWKDWSDUWLFXODUFODLPRIGLVFRXUVH
at the level of knowledge and knowledge which reinforces power.
Power for Foucault is everywhere; it is because it comes from

3
everywhere which he considers it as bio-SRZHU )RXFDXOW¶V 3UHYLRXV
work was based on archaeology of knowledge in the human science
such as biology, economics and linguistic.

+HHPSOR\VµJHQHDORJ\¶DVDIRUPRIFULWLFDOKLVWRU\LQGLVFLSOLQHDnd
punish and the history of sexuality. Foucault shows how power and
knowledge directly support one another. He traces the form of
knowledge, social institution and techniques of government which
helps in shaping modern Europe and the emergency of some of the
practices. He extends that there are three dimensions of knowledge
such as archaeology, genealogy and strategies. In the archaeology of
knowledge Foucault deployed archaeology in the history of madness,
the birth of clinic and the order of things while the genealogy is his
QHZ PHWKRG LQ µ'LVFLSOLQH DQG 3XQLVK¶ DQG µ7KH +LVWRU\  RI
6H[XDOLW\¶ )RXFDXOWDQDO\VLVRISRZHUFRQWUDU\WR PDQ\DQDO\VLV RI
power is largely outside of institutions. In Foucault analysis the
notion of bodies as a target of power is a central attempt. Hence, it is
LPSRUWDQW WR VHH )RXFDXOW¶V LGHD RI SRZHU NQRZOHGJH LQ UHODWLRQ WR
the body. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault associated the practice
of discipline and training with that of disciplinary power. The
instruments which are used as disciplinary power are, hierarchical
REVHUYDWLRQ QRUPDOL]LQJMXGJPHQWDQGH[DPLQDWLRQ,Qµ7KH +LVWRU\
RI 6H[XDOLW\¶ PRGHUQ ERGLHV RI NQRZOHGJH DERXW VH[XDOLW\ KDV
intimate relation with power structure of modern society.

In his later work, Foucault substitutes his idea of power/ knowledge

with the term governmentality. In this work he pointed out a specific
mentality of government.

4
INTRODUCTION
Michel, Foucault who lived from 1926-84 was a French philosopher
whose work has a profound impact across many disciplines such as,
sociology, philosophy, anthropology, the English language and
history.

Foucault, though, many of his works were history from that of the
History of Madness to the History of Sexuality, he is often treated as a
philosopher, social theorist, or cultural critique (Gutting 2005:32).
Among many of his works power/knowledge is one in which he
studied the connection between power and knowledge. Power and
knowledge for him are inseparable; there is an intimate tie between
the two.

Foucault in his work µPower and Knowledge¶ (1980) examines

thoroughly as being conjunction of power relation.
In his essay µ3ULVRQ 7DON¶ in his book knowledge µPower and
Knowledge¶ VWDWHG WKDW ³LW LV QRW SRVVLEOH for power to be exercised
without knowledge, it is not possible for knowledge to engender
power´ Foucault 1980:52). For Foucault facts are produced by
power/knowledge. He took the individual scholars simply as vehicles
or sites where knowledge is produced. In his writings he focused
mainly on specific and key events in history that can be read through
power/knowledge relationship (Clark 2006:85). According to Mills, it
LV XQGHUVWDQGDEOH IURP )RXFDXOW¶VFRPPHQWWKDW his works are based
on his own personal experience. It is not simply because they are
theoretically interested to him (Mills 2003:11). So it is essential to
look into what Foucault calls ³eventualization´. In all his studies, he

7
took specific instances such as the mad, the imprisoned, and the
sexual deviant right from the beginning. Foucault uses specific
instances to reveal or show the different forms of rationality. The
different instances having different forms of rationality imply the
deferring relations to one another in addition to differing effects. In
the µ3ROLWLFV of Truth µ(2005:59) and µPower¶ (1994:226-327)
Foucault discusses what he calls µEventualization¶(YHQWXDOL]DWLRQLV
the work in which a single event is analyzed as a process. There are
multiple processes through which the events are analyzed. If one is
interested in analyzing the mechanisms of coercion and contents of
knowledge, it is important to go through different types of
mechanisms or coercion and contents of knowledge in terms of their
diversity, heterogeneity and what effects of power they generate.

In this thesis one may find the word µdLVFRXUVH¶ frequently referred to
LQµ7he Archaeology of Knowledge¶ (1972). 'LVFRXUVH³«WUHDWLQJ LW
sometimes as a general domain of all statements, sometimes as
individualizable group of statements, and sometimes as a regulated
practice that accounts IRUDFHUWDLQQXPEHURIVWDWHPHQWV«´)RXFDXOW
1972:80). Stacy (2001:63) put Foucault¶V QRWLRQV RI µdLVFRXUVH¶ as
³&ROOHFWLRQV RI VWDWHPHQWV SUDFWLFHV FODVVLILFDWRU\ VFKHPD DQG
objects of analysis´ He, for instance, offered the way that the modern
individual or subject is produced from the discursive practice in the
society. According to Foucault, Mills (2003:55) VWDWHG ³«WKDW every
thing is constructed and apprehended through discourses´

In order to fully comprehend Foucault¶V work it is important to be

acquainted with his methods what he calls, in µPolitics of Truth¶
(Foucault 2007), the three dimensions of knowledge archaeology,

8
genealogy and strategies. In his first three books, µ0DGQHVV DQG
&LYLOL]DWLRQ¶µ7KH%LUWKRI&OLQLF¶DQG¶7he Order of TKLQJV¶he uses
µarchaeology¶ as a method of DQDO\VLV ,Q µThe Archaeology of
Knowledge (1972)¶ he states the details of the method. The way he
uses this terminology is different from what is used in history; his
work is distinguished from the historiography which is typical of the
history of ideas. Foucault¶V archaeology was mainly restricted to the
comparison of the different discourses formation in different periods.
His archaeology was not concerned in identifying the subject that
produces them but it was rather concerned with a set of discursive
structures in different periods. For him the history of ideas is what is
consciously going on in the minds of the subject.

Following µArchaeological NQRZOHGJH¶ Foucault developed

µGenealogical ApprRDFK¶ )RXFDXOWDGDSWHG1LHW]VFKH¶VJHQHDORJLFDO
methods. Nietzsche on the genealogy of moral described that every
morality iVEDVHGRQFHUWDLQµSUHMXGLFHV¶
Genealogical approach helped Foucault to investigate power relations
which informs discourse practice. ,Qµgenealogy¶)RXFDXOWdocuments
the relationship that exists between power and knowledge within
particular discursive practice. +HHPSOR\HGWKHµJHQHDORJLFDO¶PHWKRG
mainly in µ7KH 'LVFLSOLQH DQG 3XQLVK¶ ) and µThe History of
Sexuality volume RQH¶ ). This thesis deals with his work in
genealogy which is power/knowledge nexus. He conceived that
³NQRZOHGJH DQG SRZHU DUH RQO\ DQ DQDO\WLFDO JULG´
(Foucault2007:60).

In the µ3ROLWLFV RI 7UXWK¶(2007), Foucault defines µgenealogy¶ as

³«some thing that attempts to restore the conditions for the

9
appearance of a singularity born out of multiple determining elements
of which it is not the product, EXW UDWKHU WKH HIIHFW´)RXFDXOW
2007:64). Here one can understand that there is a network of
relationships. These networks of relationships are not simply on a
VLQJOH SODQH ³EXW RQ SHUSHWXDO VOLSSDJH IURm one another´ Foucault
2007:65). According to Foucault, on the level of strategies, each
interaction has an effect. As a result, ³ZH KDYH SHUSHWXDO mobility,
essential fragility´ of power knowledge nexus which he calls
µVWUDWHJLHV¶.

The thesis consists of four parts; chapter one discusses XQGHUµPower

and Knowledge NH[XV¶WKHUHODWLRQEHWZHHQµSRZHUDQGNQRZOHGJH¶
µSRZHU DQG WUXWK¶ µSRZHU DQG UHVLVWDQFH¶ and the dynamic nature of
power and knowledge which Foucault has given emphasis in the
nexus.
In chapter two the thesis is concerned with Power/Knowledge, The
Body and Sexuality. The focus of this chapter is the analysis of
³Discipline and Punish´ ZKLFK deals with the effect of various
institutions on groups of people. At the same time the roles that the
groups of people resist or affirm those effects. The three primary
techniques of control are outlined and discussed. In Addition, in the
section µThe Body and Sexuality¶, it explores how the body can be
seen as the focus of a number of discursive pressures. The body is
considered as a place where discourses are ordered and take part in
struggle.

Chapter three discusses ³Governmentality¶ ,W LV RI WKH UHOation

between power, knowledge and discipline which Foucault analyzes
the connection between what he calls technologies of the self (self

10
discipline) and technologies of domination (the regulatory process
through which self discipline occurs).
In chapter four; Critical analysis on the work of Foucault¶V power and
knowledge is made. In addition I tried to look in to the relevance of
power/knowledge in the current world finally; conclusions are
presented with some key points for further work.

11
12
CHAPTER ONE
POWER AND KNOWLEDGE
1.1 POWER AND KNOWLEDGE NEXUS
In Foucault relational network, knowledge, power, operation and
resistance are always revolving around one another; one is supporting
and influencing the other. In the interaction of power and knowledge
the exercise of power creates knowledge, and at the same time
knowledge constantly induces the effects of power.

)RU)RXFDXOW³Power produces knowledge, or at least the apparatuses

of knowledge, and knowledge becomes power; the two are bound
WRJHWKHU´&ODUN 2006:104). Whenever there is power, it produces
knowledge. Power and knowledge are inseparable. Power exists
everywhere; but it is important to notice that, for Foucault, whenever
there is power there is resistance. Resistance is internal to power. This
concept will be discussed later in this chapter under µ3RZHU DQG
5HVLVWDQFH¶

There is co-joining between power and knowledge. Power relation

occurs at all levels of society. It also occurs among individuals and
manifests itself in our personal relationships. Foucault argues that, in
the West, the existence of dominant scientific knowledge is the
effective product of a particular community or group that has been
successful in subjugating other¶V Knowledge. Power is a complex set
of techniques in which at the level of knowledge power raises
particular discourse and knowledge reinforces power.

13
In volume I of µThe History of Sexuality¶ in power relation Foucault
discuss how the sovereign has the power to decide life and death. The
power of life and death is not an absolute privilege but rather it is
conditioned by the defense of the sovereign and his own survival
(Foucault 1984:25).

)RXFDXOW¶V DQDO\VLV RI SURGXFWLYH ELR-power shows a complex of

interaction that exists between modern forms of power and
knowledge. The exercises of power constantly create knowledge, and
knowledge on the other hand simultaneously induces effects of
power. According to Foucault, it is impossible to differentiate among
the elements of knowledge and power. One can not safely assume that
there is one element of knowledge or one power separately.
It is therefore not a matter of describing what knowledge is and what
power is and how one would repress the other or how the other would
abuse the one, but rather, a nexus of knowledge- power has to be described
so that we can grasp what constitutes the acceptability of a system, be it the
mental health system, the penal system, delinquency, sexuality, etc
(Foucault 2007:61).

Foucault also speaks about the mutual and reciprocating conditioning

of power and knowledge. In other words he tells about the regimes of
power and knowledge or discourse; which in the later case are
structured ways of exercising power and knowledge. That is what is
referred to as the power/knowledge nexus. According to Foucault, it is
inappropriate to draw a line between power and knowledge; either
power or knowledge cannot exist in the absence of the other. ³«Lt is
not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge, it is
impossible for knowledge not to engender SRZHU´(Foucault 1980:52).

14
In explaining the structured way of power/knowledge, Foucault
claims that even when power is exercised by several individuals it is
effective as being exercised by a single entity. In the eighteenth
century according to Foucault, it was the knowledge created by
economic change or, in other words, knowledge generated by human
science that enabled power to circulate through finer channels,
³gaining access to individuals themselves, to their bodies, their
gesture and all their daily actions´Foucault 1980:151).

Foucault describes knowledge as being a conjunction of power

relation and information seeking which he terms power/knowledge. In
his essay entitled µPrison TDON¶ Foucault described that; ³Modern
humanism is therefore mistaken in drawing this line between
Knowledge and power. Knowledge and power are integrated with
one another, and there is no point in dreaming of a time when
knowledge will cease to depend on power ;«´( Foucault 1980:52).

Power and knowledge always exist in nexus; one can not exercise
power in the absence of knowledge. It is also impossible for
knowledge to expel (engender) power. In producing knowledge, one
has to aspire for power. Knowledge is an integral part of power. It
cannot exist without power. ³.QRZOHGJH LV QRW GLVSDVVLRQDWH EXW
UDWKHUDQLQWHJUDOSDUWRIVWUXJJOHRYHUSRZHU´Mills 2003: 69).

,Q )RXFDXOW¶V µ3ower and Knowledge¶ (1980) the other important

things which Foucault.

explores are that, for something to be established as fact instead of

focusing on individual thinker, it is essential to give concern more for

15
abstract institutional process which can establish as facts or
knowledge. It is to mean that, for Foucault knowledge is with in
power relation and information seeking, this is what he calls
power/knowledge. ,QKLVHVVD\µPrison TDON¶ He clearly indicated that
it is impossible to exercise power in the absence of knowledge and
vice versa.

1.2 POWER AND TRUTH

In order to further explain power/knowledge nexus, it is important to
look into power and truth. For Foucault, truth is not an abstract entity
as knowledge +H WKRXJKW WKDW ³Truth is a thing of this world´
(Foucault 1980:13, Foucault 1994:131). It implies that truth can only
exist within power. Truth is the result of different forms of
FRQVWUDLQWV ³(DFK VRFLHW\ KDV LWV UHJLPH RI WUXWK.´)RXFDXOW
1980:131). What are true in a given society are the discourses which
are accepted and function in the society as a true. In short truth is
the discourse which exists in the society. And the discourse in the
society has to be considered true by the society itself; otherwise it is
false.

It can be understood from the thoughts of Foucault that one cannot

separate the production of truth from the technologies of power. How
one can distinguish truth from falsehood in the society is a critical
issue. For Foucault, however, this can be made possible by observing
the mechanism and instances in the society, the means by which the
society sanctioned; the techniques and procedures used or values
accorded, and the status of those who are sanctioned.

16
Like in many philosophical traditions cited in an interview entitled
³Truth and Power´ )RXFDXOW examined like knowledge, the way of
truth, is not an abstract entity. Mills further indicated, for Foucault,
through different ways those statements which are accepted as true by
society disseminated to the public but those considered as false are
not. )RXFDXOWLQKLVLQWHUYLHZµ7UXWKDQGSRZHU¶VDLGWKDW
In societies like ours, WKH ³SROLWLFDO HFRQRP\´ RI WUXWK LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG
by five important traits ³7UXWK´ is centered on the form of scientific
discourse and the institutions which produce it; it is subject to constant
economic and political incitement(the demand for truth, as much for
economic production as for political power);it is the object, under diverse
forms, of immense diffusion and consumption(circulating through
apparatuses of education and information whose extent is relatively broad
in the social body, not withstanding certain strict limitations); it is
produced and transmitted under the control, dominant if not exclusive, of
a few great political and economic apparatuses (university, army, writing,
media); lastly, it is the issue of a whole political debate and social and
VRFLDO FRQIURQWDWLRQ³LGHRORJLFDO´ VWUXJJOHVFoucault 1994:131 and
Foucault 1980:131).

For Foucault, therefore, knowledge and truth are not simply produced
from scholarly studies; but they are the results of different interactions
and subsequent disseminations in a society following the operations of
a number of different institutions and inherent practices. They are the
products of the institution that produce it, the education and
information apparatuses through which they are circulated, the
political and economic apparatuses, and the ideological struggle on
the truth itself.

Each society with its particular mechanisms has a way of producing

truth. Like manner contemporary society has its own political
economy of truth. What Foucault argues is that,´,W LV QRWD PDWWHURI
emancipating truth from every system of power (which would be a
chimera, for truth is already power) but of detaching the power of

17
truth from the forms of hegemony, social, economic and cultural with
in which it operates at present time (Foucault 1980: 131). It is from
the existence of particular political, economic and cultural regime of
the production of truth that truth, power and knowledge are intimately
interconnected. Mills understands Foucault ideas of hegemony aV´«D
state with in society where by those who dominated by other take on
board the value and ideologies of those in power and accept them as
their own : this leads to them accepting their position within the
hierarchy as a natural or their own goods(Mills 2003:75). It is to mean
that the ideologies and values of those in power can easily be accepted
by those who are dominated within the hierarchy of the society. What
in short we can infer IURP )RXFDXOW¶V statement is that ³WUXWK´ LV
constructed through different strategies which support it and excluded
those which counter.

For Foucault ³µTruth¶ LV WR EH XQGHUVWRRG DV system of ordered

procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and
operation of statement´ (Foucault 1980:133). There is a circular
relation by which truth is linked with system of power. One can infer
that Foucault, in a number of his discussions and writings, established
the interconnectedness that exists between power and knowledge as
well as power and truth. Truth, power and knowledge are
interconnected.

Foucault rejected the traditional view that power is the capacity of

powerful agents through which they exercise their will over that of the
powerless people. He also criticizes the idea that power serves the
powerful to force the powerless to do things against the will of the
latter. For Foucault, power is not a possession or it is not something

18
which is held by the powerful, Power is impersonal and it is more of a
strategy. According to him, ³Power must be analyzed as something
which circulates, or rather as something which only functions in the
form of a chain. It is never localized here or there, never in anyERG\¶V
hands, never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth´
(Foucault 1980:98).

What is important in this context is that power is not something static,

it circulates here and there. It is not something which is found in the
hands of a specific individual to use it as he/she likes. It cannot be
considered the property of somebody. Power is found every where.
Foucault in his two lectures further explains.
Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organization. And
not only do individuals circulate between its threads; they are always in a
position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power. They
are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the
elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of
power, not its points of application (Foucault 1980:98).

Hence one can understand from the statements above that the exercise
of power is explained in the form of a chain or net-like systems.
³,QGLYLGXDOVVKRXOGQRWEHVHHQVLPSO\DVrecipients of power, but as a
µSODFH¶ ZKHUH SRZHU LV HQDFWHG DQG WKH µSODFH¶ ZKHUH LW LV UHVLVWHG´
(Mills 2003:35).

Power is not a phenomenon of one individual for Foucault. He

considers individuals as a vehicle of power, the elements of
articulation and DQ HIIHFW RI SRZHU ³)RU )RXFDXOW LQGLYLGXDO LV D
product of poZHU DQG D WUDQVPLWWHU RI SRZHU´ (Clark 2006:104).
Individuals are not a nucleus or material on which power comes to fix

19
or fasten or against which power happens to hit, but it is one of prime
effects of power.

)RXFDXOW H[SODLQHG ³«RQH RI WKH SULPH HIIHFW RI SRZHU WKDW FHUWDLQ
bodies, certain gestures, certain discourses, certain desires, come to be
identified and constituted as individuals.´(Foucault 1980: 98). In the
µHistory of Sexuality¶ Foucault GHVFULEHG WKDW ³SRZHU FRPHV IURP
EHORZ´ This implies that there is no distinction between the ruler and
the ruled, and thus, that Power is not some thing possessed as noted
earlier, but rather diffuses through the social body. ,WLVDYHKLFOH³7KH
individual which power has constituted is at the same time its vehicle´
(Foucault 1980:98).

1.3POWER AND RESISTANCE

As stated at the beginning of section one, power and resistance are co-
joining. In the µHistory of Sexuality¶, )RXFDXOWVWDWHGWKDW³ZKHUHWKHUH
is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this
resistance is never in a position of exterLRULW\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR SRZHU´
(Foucault 1978:95). It is to mean that resistance is not outside of
forces, it is within the force. There is no distinction between power
and UHVLVWDQFH³«Where are no relations RISRZHUZLWKRXWUHVLVWDQFHV´
(Foucault 1980:142). Resistance is formed, as Foucault stated,
immediately after power is exercised. Foucault argues WKDW ³ZKHUH
there is no resistance, it is not, in effect, a power relation. Thus, for
KLPUHVLVWDQFH LVµZULWWHQ LQ¶WR WKHH[HUFLVHRISRZHU´Mills 2003:
40). Both power and resistaQFHDUHIRXQGLQWKHVDPHSODFH³Hence,
like power, resistance is multiple and can be integrated in global
VWUDWHJLHV´ Foucault 1980:142). This implies that power is seen as
something which tends to perform in particular context. It is

20
considered as a strategy rather than something which is possessed.
Power is an important force in all relations that are found in society.
Here one can identify that individuals do not simply take the power
imposed on them but they also resist it. Thus, it is possible to take
individuals as places where power is both enacted and resisted. They
should not simply be considered as recipients of power. In Foucault¶V
understanding, resistance is internal to power. Resistance for Foucault
is created at a time when relations of power are exercised. Then; due
to the fact that resistance is taken to be internal to power, Foucault
does not accept total emancipation from power. This is one of the
points that differentiate him from some critical social theorists. Such
as for example Habermas said that emancipation is possible through
communication action. He also emphasizes modernity as incomplete
project. For Foucault, however, resistance is not emancipation from
power ³LQVWHDG RI UHVLVWDQFH EHLQJ XQGHUVWRRG DV freedom, or
emancipation from power, it LV EHWWHU WKRXJKW RI DV HPSRZHUPHQW´
(Elden 1971:106). It is to mean that resistance is in power not external
to it. It is itself a component of power in which power entails
resistance. According to Foucault, resistance is not something that
makes us free from power. Power is exercised over a free individual.

1.4 THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF POWER AND KNOWLEDGE

For Foucault, both knowing subjects and truth that is known is the
product of power and knowledge relations.The networks through
which power is exercised are dynamic. His emphasis is that one must
conduct a dynamic ³DVFHQGLQJ analysis of power´Foucault 1980:99).
In order to analyze the ascending analysis of power according to
Foucault, there is a large scale structure of power which is ³VWDUWLQJ

21
«, from its infinitesimal mechanisms, « their own techniques and
tactics, « of power have been- and continue to be-invested,
colonized, utilized, involuted, transformed, displaced, extended
etc«´)RXFDXOW 1980:99).

Foucault conceives power as dynamic which, in other word implies

the dynamic nature of knowledge. )RXFDXOW¶VXQGHUVWDQGLQJRISRZHU
as dynamic described in the History of Sexuality stated ³SRZHU is not
something that is acquired, seized, or shared, some thing that one
holds on to or allows to slip away; power is exercised from
innumerable points, in the interplay of nonegalitarian and mobile
relations´ )RXFDXOW 1978:94). ,Q )RXFDXOW¶V FRQFHSWLRQ, power is
exercised in a net- like organization. It is not something possessed by
the dominant agent but which circulates throughout the social body. It
is not limited to some where but it is something found every where. It
has multiple sources. In the History of Sexuality, KHDVVHUWV³power is
every where; not because it embraces something, but because it comes
IURPHYHU\ZKHUH´Foucault1978:93).

The social network through which power is exercised is dynamic. In

his book µPower and Knowledge¶ Foucault asserted, ³Power must be
DQDO\]HG DV VRPHWKLQJ ZKLFK FLUFXODWHV´ )Rucault 1980:98).This
statement is supported by his idea in the ERRN µThe History of
Sexuality¶; ³The omnipresence of power: not because it has the
privilege of consolidating everything under its invincible unity, but
because it is produced from one moment to the next, at every point, or
rather in every relation from one point to another´Foucault 1978:93).

22
Power circulates from one point to the other in chain. It is from
everywhere. It is not permanent, not static and repetitious. It emerges
from mobility. To conclude; According to Foucault power and
knowledge are found in nexus. Power produces knowledge and
knowledge engenders power, the two are bound together. Truth and
power reveal the existence of co-joining of power /knowledge. Truth
is the thing of this world, and it cannot exist outside of power
relations. For Foucault, there is no relation of power without
resistance. Resistance is written in power and, thus, it cannot exist
outside of power. Power comes from everywhere; it is exercised at
innumerable points and it is dynamic.

23
 CHAPTER TWO
POWER/KNOWLEDGE, THE BODY AND SEXUALITY
2. 1 DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH
The body in Foucault¶V works has a central role in the operation of
power and knowledge. Foucault, in his genealogical studies, both in
Discipline and Punish (1977) and The History of Sexuality (1978)
took the body as a central component which serves as objects of
knowledge and the site for the exercising SRZHU³«Whe body is also
directly involved in a political field; power relations have an
immediate hold up on it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force
LW WR FDUU\ RXW WDVNV WR SHUIRUP FHUHPRQLHV WR HPLW VLJQV´)RXFDXOW
1977: 25). The body is located in the political field with which power
relations are invested upon it to become docile and productive.
According to Foucault, it is only when the body is subject to and
becomes productive that it is useful. The subjection of the body can be
achieved through political technology. The political technology of the
body is; ³«a µ.QRZOHGJH¶ of the body that is not exactly the science
of its functioning, and a mastery of its forces that is more than the
ability to conquer them. This knowledge and this mastery constitute
what might be called the µpolitical technology¶ of thHERG\´Foucault
1977: 26). The political technology of the body is not situated in
specific types of institution or state apparatuses, but it diffuses. The
institutions and state apparatuses may use or employ certain aspects of
the methods of the political technology.

Hence, Foucault¶V analysis of power, knowledge and the body is

situated up on the diffusion of the technologies of power with that of
NQRZOHGJH³«notably those sciences which have human beings, the
LQGLYLGXDODVWKHLUREMHFW´Smart 1985: 69).

24
In µDiscipline and Punish (1977), Foucault, described how power and
knowledge are related. Foucault makes it clear that,
we should admit rather that power produces knowledge (and not simply by
encouraging it because it serves power or by applying it because it is
useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is
no power relation without the corrective constitution of a field of
knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at
the same time power relations (Foucault 1977:27).

One cannot talk of power relations in the absence of the constitution

of a field of knowledge. Similarly, for Foucault without power
relation there is no knowledge. +H IXUWKHU VWDWHG WKDW ³SRZHU-
knowledge relations are to be DQDO\]HG«WKHVXEMHFWZKR knows the
REMHFW WR EH NQRZQ DQG WKH PRGDOLWLHV RI NQRZOHGJH «´ )RXFDXOW
1977:28). It is to mean that the possible domain of knowledge is the
result of power-knowledge. It is not the activity of the subject of
knowledge which determines.

Discipline and Punish traces the period between 1757 and nearly
1800. This period was the time in which imprisonment and control
by prison rules took the place of the torture of prisoners by the state.

In relation to disciplinary power, Foucault observed the practice of

disciplining and training. According to him disciplinary power targets
the human body as an object to be manipulated and trained. The
practice was first implemented in isolated institutional settings. Such
as prisons, military establishment, hospitals, factories, and schools
which gradually applied more broadly as techniques of social
regulation and control. Here, what Foucault wants to focus on is the
studies of the effects of various institutions on groups of people and

25
 the analysis of power. The key features of disciplinary power are that
it is exercised directly on the body. Foucault considered punishment
DV ³D V\VWHP RI SRZHU DQG UHJXODWLRQ ZKLFK LV LPSRVHG XSRQ D
SRSXODWLRQ´*DUODQG 1990:132).

,Q )RXFDXOW¶s concept µdiscipline¶UHIHUV to be a special modern form

of exercising power. In view of this development, the introduction of
prison in the early nineteenth century can be conceived as the process
by which individuals in the modern world are socially constructed. In
order to control the individual conduct, disciplinary practice subjected
bodily activities to a process of constant surveillance and examination.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, then, the great spectacles of

physical punishment disappeared; the tortured body was avoided; the
theatrical representation of pain was excluded from punishment. The age
of sobriety in punishment had begun. By 1830-48, public executions,
preceded by torture, had almost entirely disappeared (Foucault1977:14).

The change is gradual and, thus did not come at once. The change in the

penal system from the scaffold to the penitentiary suggests for Foucault

as deeper change in the characteristic of justice as a result of discourses

in the penal system. The introduction of prison led to the understanding

of the nature of a criminal, why a person committed crime, and what the

sources of the criminality are, furthermore, and how to intervene and

correct become the principal concerns.

There are three main interrelated concepts which Foucault uses to study

or analyze the fundamentals of any structure of the body (Garland

26
1991:137). These are power, knowledge and the body. Disciplinary

practices that subject/affect bodily activity Foucault calls ³GRFLOLW\´ ,W

changes the analyzable body to the manipulable body. A body is docile

that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved.

µDiscipline and Punish¶ in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

context implies how new kinds of human knowledge created new
forms of social control such as, for example surveillance and
examination that enables a continuous control of individuals. The way
was humane and civilized and they constitute ³JHQWOHU´ ZD\s of
imprisoning criminals rather than killing or torturing them. The
gradual change in the process of punishment that is µthe gentler¶ one
shows how the reform movement in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries became a vehicle of more effective control. The change
brought about new strategies for the exercise of power to punish. The
objective is WR ³PDNH SXQLVKPHQW DQG UHSUHVVLRQ RI LOOHJDOLWLHV D
regular function, coextensive with society; not to punish less, but to
SXQLVKEHWWHU«´)RXFDXOW

The reform movement facilitated the departure from torture in pre-

modern way of punishment to a modern system of disciplinary power
as the model to control the whole society. As a result, the modern
system introduces experts such as psychiatrists, criminologists, social
workers, and so on in the judicial process. The introduction of the
different expertise is to enable and involve in the study of the criminal
behavior why one becomes criminal, and these are investigated by
studying the family back ground, the environment, and overall history

27
of the criminal. It can be inferred from all the explanations and
process above, how the power/knowledge nexus functions. The
reform movement which involved torture and killing was gradually
replaced by a mode of power based on knowledge.

The aim of disciplinary practice is EDVHG RQ WKHFRQFHSWLRQWKDW³WKH

human body was entering a machinery of power that explores it,
breaks it down and rearranges it´Foucault 1977:138).
The practices help to increase the body capacity, the skill of
individuals who transformed and improved the body. It made the body
to foster its usefulness or of its docility.
7KXVGLVFLSOLQHSURGXFHVVXEMHFWHGDQGSUDFWLFHGERGLHV¶GRFLOH¶ERGLHV
Discipline increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility)
and diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience). In
short, it dissociates power from the body; on the one hand, it turns into an
µDSWLWXGH¶ D µFDSDFLW\¶ ZKLFK LW VHHNV WR LQFUHDVH RQ WKH RWKHU hand, it
reverses the course of energy, the power that might result from it, and
turns into a relation of strict subjection (Foucault 1977:138).

Foucault in his four general rules of studies in the µHistory of

6H[XDOLW\¶ 1978) pointed out punishment as a political tactic, and
regarded as a complex social function. Punishment is situated or
invested by power relations. ³It is to be studied with a view to its
positive effects, however marginal or indirect, and not simply as a
repressive mechanism. It is to be thought of as intimately and
LQWHUQDOO\ OLQNHG ZLWK WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI KXPDQ VFLHQFHV«´
(Garland 1990:137).

From all what is presented as far, one can found power relation
everywhere and so in society. ³That is, power relations are rooted
GHHS LQ WKH VRFLDO QH[XV «WR OLYH LQ VRFLHW\ is, and in any
event«some can act on the actions of others. A society without power

28
relations can only be an abstraction´Foucault 1994:343). Whenever
social relation exists, there is power
µ3RZHU¶, for Foucault, is not to be thought of as the property of particular
classes RU LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR µKDYH¶ LW QRU DV DQ LQVWUXPHQW ZKLFK they can
VRPH KRZ µXVH¶ DW will. Power refers instead to the various forms of
domination and subordination and asymmetrical balance of forces which
operate whenever and wherever social relations exist (Garland 1990:138).

Power relations are rooted in social nexus. Society without a social

relation can not exist. To be in the society implies that one is always
in social relations. The relation between power and bodies involves
knowledge. Foucault uses knowledge to describe ³NQRZ-how´ The
know-how is the techniques and strategies. There is internal
relationship between power and knowledge.
For Foucault the relationship between knowledge and power is thus an
intimate and internal relationship in which each implies and increases the
other, and his use RI WKH WHUP µSRZHU-knowledge¶ LV kind of conceptual
shorthand used to emphasize these interconnections (Garland 1990:139).

³'LVFLSOLQH´ is a VSHFLILF WHFKQRORJ\ RI SRZHU µDiscipline and

Punish¶ describes the central techniques of disciplinary power. Power
in the modern society, according to Foucault, therefore, ceases to be
repressive in its negative sense and it is rather fundamentally creative.

µDiscipline and SXQLVK¶ is all the science of man which started

functioning in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. According to
Foucault, discipline is not something dependent on intellectual
development, but rather it is knowledge and techniques of enquiry
deeply embedded in the history of power-Knowledge and its relation
with the body.

In modern disciplinary power, According to Foucault, there are three

primary techniques of control through which docile bodies are
29
produced. These are hierarchical observations, normalizing judgments
and examinations.

³The success of disciplinary power derives no doubt from the use of

simple instruments, hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment
and their combinations in a procedure that is specific to it, the
H[DPLQDWLRQ´)RXFDXOW:170). It is important to look one by one
in to such instruments through which docile bodies are produced in
order to have some clear understanding about them.

2.1 1 Hierarchical Observation

In this instrument, the main idea is that one can control other people
by observing their activities. It is to mean that the exercise of
discipline requires a mechanism that coerces by means of observation.
The means by which the coercion is made makes those whom the
coercion is applied to clearly visible (Foucault 1977:171). The
potential of observation increases with improvements in technology.
This can be easily cited by Examples taken from Standard
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and from other sources such as (Gutting
2005:82) µWLHUHG URZV RI VHDWV in stadium or on walls of classrooms
not only make it easy for spectators/teachers to see but also for
guards or security cameras to scan WKHDXGLHQFH¶.

Foucault explains the situation through the description of a military

camp. He said, ³7Ke camp is the diagram of power that acts by means
RI JHQHUDO YLVLELOLW\´ )RXFDXOW  And this mechanism has
also been applied to all situations of urban development in the
construction of hospitals, prisons, schools, working class housing, and
states and so on.

30
All these are mechanisms of training that helps to transform
individuals. All the architectural setup of all such establishments
facilitates hierarchzed surveillance that functions OLNHDPDFKLQH³7KH
power in the hierarchized surveillance of the disciplines is not
possessed as a thing, or transferred as a property; it functions like a
piece of machiQHU\ ³Foucault 1977:177). By means of such
surveillance, according to Foucault, disciplinary power became
functional as an µLQWHJUDWHG¶ V\VWHP. The various disciplinary
institutions operate as machinery and, thus, serve as an apparatus of
observation. The apparatus scores for a single gaze to observe
everything continuously.

2.1.2 Normalizing judgment

This is one of the modern disciplinary controls in which individuals
are judged in terms of achieving a certain required standard.
³1RUPDOL]LQJ MXGJPHQW LV a peculiarly pervasive means of control´
(Gutting 2005:84). Individuals have to achieve or perform the
required standard. There is no means of escaping from the established
standard since the standards are set virtually to any desired level of
achievement.

The goal of normalizing judgment is to perform, not to revenge, as in

the pre-modern punishments such as torture. It makes the deviant
behavior in the society to conform to the norms of society. Foucault
says that the normalizing judgments are pervasive in a society. It is to
mean that there are standard levels that are expected to meet.

31
Disciplinary punishment mainly involves correcting those who failed
WR UHJDLQ WKHLU UDQN ZKLFK DFFRUGLQJ WR )RXFDXOW ³WR SXQLVK LV WR
H[HUFLVH³)RXFDXOW ). As one can really observe there exist
required national standards for education, medical practices, industrial
process and products which have official level.

In the normalizing judgment, all behaviors are defined by the explicit

rules of the society or the norms. The norms of society define those
actions which are considered normal or otherwise.
2.1.3 The examination
The examination is a prime expression of power/knowledge, it is
highly ritualized. ³7KH H[DPLQDWLRQ FRPELQHV WKH WHFKQLTXHV RI DQ
observing hierarchy and those of normalizing judgment´
(Foucault1977:184). For Foucault, examination is both power and
knowledge in which the experiments are combined. In his words, ³,Q
it are combined the ceremony of power and the forms of experiment,
the deployment of forces and the establishment of truth´ Foucault
1977:184). According to Foucault, the relationships between power
and knowledge are clearly visible in the examination. In the
examination a certain type of the formation of knowledge linked to a
certain form of the exercise of power. At this level, there is an
ultimate co-joining between knowledge and power which in turn
enables to classify, qualify and punish. There are no places that the
examination is absent. One has to examine in hospitals, schools,
universities, armies, and so on. Those who fail the examination are
measured in terms of deviance from the established norms.

The truth about those who undergo the examination such as patients
and students control their respective behaviors through the norms of

32
the society. It is to mean that for those who passed through the
examination, their behaviors are classified in terms of the norms in the
society. The examination records WKH LQGLYLGXDOV µLQ WKH ILHOGV RI
GRFXPHQWDWLRQV¶7KHresults of the individuals examined are recorded
in the document. The documents provide detailed information about
the individuals who pass through the examination and allow power
system to control them.

To mention some of the examples absentee records for schools and

patients chart in hospitals are manifestation of such records. The
records serve as bases for those who are in control to create
categories, averages, norms and other indices which serve as bases for
knowledge.

µPower ZULWLQJ¶ZDVFRQVWLWXWHGDVDQHVVHQWLDOpart in the mechanism

of discipline7KHH[DPLQDWLRQDOVRWXUQVLQGLYLGXDOVLQWRµFDVHV¶,WLV
not the circumstance which serves as the case. This is to mean that it
is the individual who is judged, measured and compared with others.
Above all, it is the individual who has passed through training,
correcting, classifying and normalizing.

In short the examination enables to reveal the new position of an

individual in the modern power /knowledge nexus. As indicated in
Discipline and Punish (Foucault1977:189), ³7KH H[DPLQDWLRQ WKDW
places individuals in a field of surveillance also situates them in a
network of writing; it engages them in a whole mass of documents
WKDWFDSWXUHDQGIL[WKHP´.

33
2.2 THE BODY AND SEXUALITY
2.2.1Sexuality
As it was discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the body is one of
the sites for struggle and discursive conflict upon which Foucault
focuses. His analysis reveals the body as an object of knowledge and
as a site for the exercise of power. The body is the central place for
the operation of power relations. It is the place which is useful both
politically and economically. As a result, the body is the center for the
exercise of power relations to make it productive or docile. This is
created not through social institutions but rather through the diffusion
of particular technologies of power in association with the forms of
knowledge, especially those sciences which conceive the individual
and human beings as the object. Due to these facts, Foucault takes the
body as one of the places where power is exercised. He conceived
µSRZHU comes from EHORZ¶ LW is not something that is conceived as
the property of the dominant class. Power dispersed through the social
body as a whole.
Power comes from below; that is, there is no binary and all- encompassing
opposition between rulers and ruled at the root of power relations, and serving as
a general matrix ±no such duality extending from the top down and reacting on
more and more limited groups to the very depths of the social body. One must
suppose rather that the manifold relationships of force that take shape and come
into play in the machinery of production, in families, limited groups, and
institutions, are the basis for wide-ranging effects of cleavage that run through the
social body as a whole (Foucault 1978:94).

Foucault mainly focuses on the body rather than the individual. He

considers the individual as an effect. As it was already discussed
earlier and noted in his book µ.nowledge and 3RZHU¶ (Foucault
1980: 98), he VDLG³«LQIDFWLWLVDOUHDG\RQHRIWKHSULPHHIIHcts of
power that certain bodies, certain gestures, certain discourses, certain
GHVLUHVFRPHWREHLGHQWLILHGDQGFRQVWLWXWHGDVLQGLYLGXDOV´.

34
In this section an attempt has been made to the first volume of µThe
History of Sexuality volume one¶ (Foucault 1978). )RXFDXOW¶V
treatment of sexuality is the extension of the genealogical methods of
Discipline and Punish. In the History of Sexuality he focuses on the
analysis, of the various modern bodies of knowledge about sexuality
in relation to power structure in modern society. In short, the
characteristics that are created by the power/knowledge nexus of
modern science of sexuality such as psychology, physiology,
sociology and medicine are new disciplines engaged as a new sexual
discourse. According to Foucault, people are subjected to the creation
or investigation of the new sciences. Sexuality for Foucault is an
apparatus of power. The apparatus of power produces the social order
and types of subjectivity which characterizes the industrial West.

History of Sexuality volume I is the examination of the development

of modern sexual discourses in the West. Sexuality, according to
Foucault, is the deployment of power that is linked to the body; it is
the result of a historically singular event. He also wants to show that
sexuality is not naturally given but something which was historically
constructed.
Sexuality is something produced through the strategies of
power/knowledge. It is created or mediated through networks of
discourses that are historically constructed. Sexuality is an account of
direct interrelation of power with that of intimate areas of human
body. This is to mean that in the modern world, human beings become
subjected through the dominating strategies of disciplinary
technologies and the creation of new sciences.

35
 Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural given which power tries to hold
in check, or as an obscure domain which knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is
WKHQDPHWKDWFDQEHJLYHQWRDKLVWRULFDOFRQVWUXFW«LQDFFRUGDQce with a few major
strategies of knowledge and power (Foucault 1978:105-106).

In the genealogical studies of Discipline and Punish which has been

taken up in this thesis, one can see how the objects of disciplinary
control monitor the behavior of an individual by classifying
individuals in to different categories. The same is true in the History
of Sexuality that the modern sciences of sexuality categorize the
sexual behaviors into homosexual, fetishist, and so on which in both
cases has roles of power and knowledge.

In his essay HQWLWOHGµ'RPDLQ¶ Foucault stated about sexuality

Sexuality must not be described as a stubborn drive, by nature alien and of
necessity disobedient to a power which exhausts itself trying to subdue it
and often fail to control it entirely. It appears rather as an especially dense
transfer point for relation of power: between men and women, young
people and old people, parents and offspring, teachers and students, priests
and laity, an administration and population. Sexuality is not the most
intractable element in power relations, but rather one of those endowed
with the greatest instrumentality: useful for the greatest number of
maneuvers and capable of serving as a point of support, as a linchpin, for
the most varied strategies (Foucault 1978:103).

In the History of Sexuality: volume I XQGHUWKHWLWOH³The Deployment

of Sexuality´ )RXFDXOW LGHQWLILHG IRXU µUXOHV¶ RU ZKDW KH FDOOs
µFDXWLRQDU\SUHVFULSWLRQV¶ to show how sexuality was used as a focus
for the exercise of power. Among those four rules Foucault identified
the fourth one as WKHµRule of the Tactical Polyvalence of DLVFRXUVH¶.
Here, Foucault argued that VH[LVQRWVLPSO\DQDO\]HGDV³WKHVXUIDFH
of projection of these power mechanisms. Indeed, it is in discourse
that power and knowledge are joined together´Foucault 1978:100).

36
2.2.2 Repressive Hypothesis
Foucault tried to describe what he WHUPHG ³UHSUHVVLYH K\SRWKHVLV´
Repressive hypothesis for Foucault is superficial (Gutting 2005:93,
Carrette 2000:21).
In The History of Sexuality, Foucault refused the Victorian myth that
sex was repressed in the seventeenth century. But to Foucault, sex was
not silenced or repressed. In his WKHVLV µZH ³RWKHUV 9LFWRULDQV´ ¶
Foucault said that,
The doubts I would like to oppose to the repressive hypothesis are aimed
less at showing it to be mistaken than at putting it back with in a general
economy of discourses on sex in modern societies since the seventeenth
century. Why has sexuality been so widely discussed, and what has been
said about it? What were the effects of power generated by what was said?
What are the links between these discourses, these effects of power, and the
pleasures that were invested by them? What knowledge (savior) was formed
as a result of this linkage? The object, in short, is to define the regime of
power-knowledge ±pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality
in our part of the world (Foucault 1978:11).

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there was an increase and

µH[SORVLRQ µLQ sexual discourses. At this time according to Foucault
modern power created new forms of sexuality by inventing discourses
about it. Rather than repressing and silencing sexuality the discourses
further explode and discussed endlessly. Foucault in repressive
hypothesis shows how, beginning from the seventeenth century, sex
had been in discourses. In the nineteenth century sexuality was
increasingly constituted in scientific terms. In western societies, there
developed what is called µVFLHQWLDVH[XDOLWLHV¶, the main aim of which
is to develop true discourses in scientific terms.

In µVFLHQWLD VH[XDOLWLHV¶, Foucault describes that ³WKH FRQIHVVLRQ

became one of the West¶V most highly valued techniques for

37
SURGXFLQJWUXWK´)RXFDXOW 1978:59). The practice of confession in the
western society is not limited to the priest but there is confession to
one¶s psychiatrist, doctors, and so on. In view of this fact, in the new
modern science of sexuality our own sexual nature is not based on our
will but depends on the authorities of various experts. It is to mean
that confession which was developed in the Christian church is
currently seen in various other practices. In confession one must tell
personal practices to an authorized person. According to Foucault, in
the seventeeQWK FHQWXU\ WKHUH DUH µIUDQNQHVV¶ DQG µOLWWOH QHHGV RI
VHFUHF\¶ RI SHRSOH LQ VH[XDO LVVXHV ,Q the Victorian era there were
attempts to confine sexuality at home between the husband and wife
in the EHGURRP ³RQ WKH VXEMHFW RI VH[ VLOHQFH EHFRPH WKH UXOH´
(Foucault 1978:3). In the nineteenth century, again there was an
attempt to silence discussion of sexuality. But an attempt to silence
resulted in an opposite effect. Instead of making it silenced the
discourse on sex increased the interest to speak about sexuality and
sexual practices. Whenever one tries to silence sexual issues, the
opposite generally happens. The discourse may create an atmosphere
whereby the issues are widely spread and become practiced by the
majority.
Discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a
hindrance, a stumbling--block, a point of resistance and a starting point
for an opposing strategy. Discourse transmits and produces power; it
reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and
makes it possible to thwart it. In like manner, silence and secrecy are a
VKHOWHUIRUSRZHU«)RXFDXOW

7KHUH DUH ³IRXU JUHDW VWUDWHJLF XQLWLHV ZKLFK EHJLQQLQJ LQ WKH
eighteenth century, formed specific mechanisms of knowledge and
power centering on sex´ Foucault 1978:103). Foucault understands
them DV ³$ K\VWerization of ZRPHQ¶V ERGLHV´ ³$ SHGDJRJL]DWLRQ RI

38
FKLOGUHQ¶V VH[´ ³SRFLDOL]DWLRQ RI SURFUHDWLYH EHKDYLRU´ and ³$
SV\FKLDWUL]DWLRQRISHUYHUVHSOHDVXUH´7KH IRXUVWUDWHJLHV Pentioned
³ZKich mounted throughout the nineteenth century ± four privileged
objects of knowledge ,which were also targets and anchorage points
for the ventures of knowledge: the hysterical women, the masturbating
FKLOG WKH 0DOWKXVLDQ FRXSOH DQG WKH SUHVHUYH DGXOW´ Foucault
1978:103).
2.2.3 Bio-power
)RXFDXOW¶V WKH +LVWRU\ RI 6H[XDOLW\ YROXPH I part five begins by
GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ WZR NLQGV RI SRZHU 7KH ILUVW RQH LV WKH ³5LJKW to
'HDWK´ This power has negative connotation in that it is the power
exercised by a king in time of absolute monarch. At the time, the
kings were considered the embodiment of the state. If the state is
threatened by external enemies, he has the right to wage war and the
citizens must take part in defense. If someone from the community
steals the property of the king, the latter has the right to punish the
person. This implies that LQ WKH µULJKW RI GHDWK¶ LW LV IRUELGGHQ WR GR
what is considered to be harmful to the king. Any one who went
against the law of the king were punished by the king himself.

Gradually the situation changed and the absolute monarch was

replaced by the bourgeois or by what is generally referred to us
PRGHUQFDSLWDOLVP+HUHWKHSRZHUH[HUFLVHGLVWKHµ3RZHURI/LIH¶.
It is a kind of positive power which is exercised by giving emphasis to
what people should do
.
Bio-power is a term Foucault used in The History of Sexuality (1978).
It is the new power over life. Bio- power is exercising the power to
make human beings live. It is concerned not with exercising the old

39
soverHLJQ¶V ULJKW WR SXW VXEMHFWs to death or need to the sacrifice of
WKHLUOLYHVLQZDULWLV³DOOIRUPVRIPRGHUQSRZHUGLUHFWHGWRZDUGVXV
as living beings, that is, as subject to standards of not just sexual but
ELRORJLFDOQRUPDOLW\´*XWWLQJ 2005:95).

³In concert terms, starting in the seventeenth century, this power over
life evolved in two basic forms´Foucault 1978:139). That is on the
OHYHORILQGLYLGXDOµWKHDQDWRPRSROLWLFVRIWKHKXPDQERG\¶WKHIRUP
ZKLFK FKDUDFWHUL]HG WKH µGLVFLSOLQHV¶ ZKLFK FHntered the body as a
machine which is disciplining the body. Discipline of the body mainly
appears in the military, in education, in work place to create
disciplined population. µ7KH VHFRQG EDVLF IRUP LV µELR-politics of
SRSXODWLRQ¶ ³IRFXVHG RQ VSHFLHV ERdy, the body imbued with the
mechanism of life and serving as thH EDVLV RI ELRORJLFDO SURFHVV«´
(Foucault 1978:129). The second basic forms concerned with taking
WKHHQWLUHSRSXODWLRQDVUHVRXUFHWKDWKDVWREH³SURWHFWHGVXSHUYLVHG
DQGLPSURYHG´*XWWLQg 2005:96). This bio-power mainly focuses on
productive capacity of the human body. It appeared in demography;
wealth analysis and in ideology. It is mainly devoted to control the
population in statistical form.
In his work of bio-SRZHU «NQRZOHGJH LV DFFumulated, populations are
observed and surveyed, procedure for investigation and research about the
population as a whole and the body in particular are refined. Here, he argues,
the aim of government in their attempts to control populations and the social
sciences in their investigations of population growth and large scale trends
across societies seemed to coalesce (Mills 2003:83).

Bio-power is different from disciplinary power in that, bio-power does

not apply to individuals like the disciplinary power. It takes
individuals simply as members of the populations. But Foucault took
both disciplinary power and bio-power as complementary in

40
µDGPLQLVWHULQJ OLIH¶ ³«RQH ZRXOG KDYH WR VSHDN RI ELR-power to
designate what brought life and its mechanism in the realm of explicit
calculation and made knowledge/power an agent to transform human
life´Foucault 1978:143).

Knowledge/power is used as a catalyst in transforming human life.

Bio-power helps to strictly control the population so as to increase or
decrease fertility, to manage public health and mortality, for
eradicating epidemic, and so on. In general, it is concerned with
improving the welfare of population as a whole. Bio-power is in short
power-knowledge in which its networks are XVHG LQ µDGPLQLVWHULQJ
lLIH¶it is vital to control the population and improve the welfare as a
whole. In other words, iWLVFRQFHUQHGZLWKµDGPLQLVWHULQJRXUOLIH¶RQ
ERWKµWKHDQDWRPRSROLWLFVRIWKHKXPDQERG\¶DQGWKDWRIµELRSROLWLFV
of SRSXODWLRQ¶7KLVOHDGVXVWRZKDW)Rucault calls µ*RYHUQPHQWDOLW\¶
which we will see in the next chapter. To conclude, in the operation of
power and knowledge the body has the central place in Foucault¶V
genealogical studies. The nexus of power/knowledge was clearly
described in Foucault¶V work Discipline and Punish (1977) and The
History of Sexuality (1978). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault
observed the practice of disciplining and training. According to
Foucault, disciplinary power targets the human body as the object.
The new technology of disciplinary power is based on the military
model. He applies his conception of power and knowledge between
modern disciplinary practices and that of modern scientific
disciplines. His first practice was prison and took prison as a model
for the whole of modern disciplinary power employed in schools,
factories, and the military and so on. Foucault identified three

41
instruments of power these are ³hierarchical observation´
³normalizing judgments´ and ³the examination´. The examination
involves ERWK ³hieraUFKLFDO REVHUYDWLRQ´ DQG ³QRUPDOL]LQJ
MXGJPHQWV´,WLVZKHUHSRZHUDQGNQRZOHGJHDUHLQQH[XV

In The History of Sexuality: volume one (1978) Foucault examines

the way sex is put into discourse and the way power permeates the sex
in discourse. It is the continuation of the notion of disciplinary power
that he developed in µ'LVFLSOLQH DQG 3XQLVK¶ ). Sexuality for
Foucault is not naturally given. It is something historically
constructed. Sexuality according to Foucault was produced through
the strategies of power- knowledge. He tried to show in what he calls
³Repressive Hypotheses´ WKH FODLP WKDW VH[ ZDV UHSUHVVHG DQG
silenced was fundamentally wrong. He considers sexuality as a
deployment of power linked to the body. For Foucault bio-power is
exercising the power to enables human beings to survive.

42
 CHAPTER THREE
GOVERNMENTALITY
3.1 FOUCAULT¶6 &21&(37,212)7+(µ68%-(&7¶
Before entering in to the issues of government and governmentality, it
is important to be clear with Foucault¶V conception of the subject. In
the History of Sexuality (1978), Foucault suggested the subject
appears primarily as an effect. In power and Knowledge (1980)
Foucault considers that the individual is an ³effect of Power´
(Foucault1980:98). It is an element of its articulation. He identified
two meanings of the word µVXEMHFW¶ ³6XEMHFWWRVRPHRQHE\FRQWURO
and dependence, and tied to his own identity by conscience of self
knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power that subjugates
and make subjects to´Foucault 1994:331).

For Foucault, in his historical studies of western culture there are

³three modes of objectification that transform human being into the
subject´Foucault 1994:326).The first ones are those mode of inquiry
that give themselves the statues of sciences and which objectify the
speaking subject (example Linguistics and philology); within the same
mode the productive subject (which is economics); in the analysis of
wealth or sheer facts of being alive (Biology). The second is what
Foucault calls µdividing practices¶. The practices differentiate the
subjects within or from others like for example (the mad from the
sane, the sick from the healthy, and the criminal from the good). The
third mode of inquiry is that of the way human beings µturn us in to
WKHVXEMHFW¶For instance in the History of Sexuality, one can see how
people have learned to recognize themselves as the subject of
³VH[XDOLW\´ To put it briefly, in the above subjectification, there are
scientific classifications in which many of the sciences are brought by

43
the enlightenments which are involved in the understanding of the
QDWXUH RI LQGLYLGXDOV¶. The new science also distinguishes what is
normal and abnormal, mad and sane, etc. In the case of psychiatry, the
doctor classifies an individual in the normal or in the ranges of various
diseased states.

In Divide and Practice, it divides the subject inside himself or from

other like for example the exclusion of those who were considered a
treat to the people. This took place in the middle ages. At that time
lepers withdrew from the community into colonies of their own.

The third one is concerned with the idea of self formation in which
individuals are prescribed in creating themselves and turn others into
the subject by opening themselves into observation and punishment.
As it was seen in Discipline and Punish, and the History of Sexuality
in the preceding chapters, Foucault described the strategies of power
in which their target or object is mainly the human body.
In Discipline and Punish, the techniques of discipline are deployed in
order to shape the bodily forces. At the same time, as it was observed
in the History of Sexuality: volume I the body which has come to be
constituted as the bearer of sex and how sexuality and its role within
the process of self formation of the individuals.

Foucault¶V works, therefore, direct the different modes of

objectification and power/ knowledge relation through which human
beings are made subject. It is the point at which he made a historical
indication of power-knowledge upon the body.

44
Techniques of the self are for Foucault the means by which
individuals affecting their own bodies, souls thought and conduct and
transform them. The situation comes from Christian culture that the
Christian societies have to consider texts, propositions and decisions
RI VRPH DXWKRULWLHV DV µWUXH¶ and to tell the truth of themselves to
oneself and others.

3.2 GOVERNING CONDUCT: TECHNOLOGIES OF

DOMINATION AND TECHNOLOGIES OF SELF
What Foucault studied in History of Sexuality (1978) LVµWHFKQLTXHRI
WKH VHOI¶ ,W LV D VWUDWHJ\ RU a practice that individuals by their own
means made certain operation that enables them to transform
themselves so as to achieve quality of life or happiness. The
operations are made on their own bodies, minds, souls, etc.
Technologies of the self according to Foucault are;

Techniques which permit individuals to perform, by their own means, a certain

number of operations on their own bodies, on their own souls, on their own thoughts,
on their own conduct, and this in such a way that they transform themselves, modify
themselves and reach a certain state of perfection, of happiness, of purity, of
supernatural power, and so RQ /HW¶V FDOO WKLV NLQG of techniques a techniques or
technology of the self (Foucault 2007:154).

Technologies of domination are on the body which classify and

objectify the individual. They are developed in disciplinary practice
such as the prison, hospital and the school.

Technologies of the self are common in the culture of the West which
is used by individuals to reveal the truth about oneself.
7KH SUREOHP RI JRYHUQPHQW LV RQH RI )RXFDXOW¶V ODWHU ZRUNV LQ KLV
genealogical studies after ³'LVFLSOLQH DQG 3XQLVK´ DQG ³7KH KLVWRU\
of Sexuality´7KHSUREOHPRIJRYHUQPHQWLVWhe link between the two
45
studies. ³,W LV D OLQN EHFDXVH )RXFDXOW XVHV LW H[DFWO\ WR DQDO\ze
between what he called technologies of the self and technologies of
domination, the constitution of the subject and the formation of the
VWDWH´/HPHN 2000:2)

Foucault developed the notion of the µart of government¶ as a reason

of state. It is to mean that to its nature of rationality in which both the
techniques mentioned above are used on the individual so as to make
significant elements of the state.
According to Foucault¶V description, power as was also presented
earlier is not a thing but it is relationship, this also has its own
reflection in his studies of governmentality.
³Power is relations: power is not a thing, it is a relationship between two
individuals, a relationship which is such that one can direct the behavior of
another or determine the behavior of another. Voluntarily determining it in
WHUPVRIDQXPEHURIREMHFWLYHVZKLFKDUHDOVRRQH¶VRZQ,QRWKHUZRUGV
when one sees what power is, it is the exercise of something that one could
call government in any wide sense of the term´(Foucault 2007:134-135).

Power is considered to be the exercise of something and in the broad

sense the exercise of something is government.

Since, power is a relationship one can determine the behavior of

others due to the fact that one can govern society, group, a
community, a family, and person. Foucault conceives of government
³as conduct of conduct´ Gordon in Foucault 1994: xxix).
Government is involved in directing human behavior. Human
behavior can be directed in several ways such as the souls,
conscience, household, state or the self. In Foucault µV words ³
³*RYHUQPHQW´ is being understood in the broad sense of techniques
and procedures for directing human behavior, government of souls

46
and conscience, government of household, of state, or of the VHOI´
(Foucault 1994:83). 2QH¶V EHKDYLRU FDQ EH determined through
strategies with that of different tactics. It LVWKURXJK³DVWUDWHJ\WKDW is
composed of different taFWLFV WKDW RQH FDQ DIIHFW RU GHWHUPLQH RQH¶V
behavior. Considering power as a relationship there are a number of
power relations with multiple techniques which enable WKH³UHODWLRQV
of power to be exercised´Foucault 2007:135).

Hence, the group of power relation and the techniques involved for
the former to be exercised ³JRYHUQPHQWDOLW\´ ZLOO be presented
subsequently
Moss put Foucault¶V GHVFULSWLRQRIµto govern¶ in this way

WR µstructure the possible fields of action of RWKHUV¶ QRW simply by

intervening by force to prevent an action, but by restructuring the type of
action open to a subject by restricting him or her at a level of his or her
FDSDFLWLHV «, in the way in which various types of subject ±the insane,
prisoners, sexual subjects ±have had their actions modified at the level of
capacities (Moss 1998:151).

This signifies that power is not any bod\¶V property but relational in
the entire society. The relational and non-substantial (not a thing)
relationship creates the means or potentials for conducting, modifying
or, in short, governing others thinking or behaviors.

3.3 GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTALITY

The discussion of this section is mainly based on )RXFDXOW¶V essay
entitled ³JRYHQPDQWDOLW\´ ,Q WKH essay Foucault discuss the
µSUREOHPDWLF RI government¶ that started in the sixteenth century
³*RYHUQPHQW DV D general problem seems to be exploded in the
sixteenth century, posed by discussions of quite diverse questions´

47
(Foucault 1994:201). For example DFFRUGLQJWR)RXFDXOW³JRYHUQPHQW
of oneself, pHUVRQDO FRQGXFW´ µJRYHUQPHQW RI VRXO DQG OLYHV¶ WKH
whole theme of pastoral thought both catholic aQG SURWHVWDQW¶
government of children and the pedagogies developed and
government of the state by the prince were all the manifestation of the
problem of government
In the sixteenth century there were multiplicity of issues and questions
that were raised with regard WR µhow to govern oneself¶ µhow to be
governed¶, µhow to govern others¶, and other related issues had central
places.

The problematic of government which Foucault stated was found

between what he calls µGRXEOHPRYHPHQW¶which addressed on the one
hand, VWDWH FHQWUDOL]DWLRQ DQG WKDW RI µGLVSHUVLRQ DQG UHOLJLRXV
GLVVLGHQFH¶ RQ WKH RWKHU This raises different questions on how, and
by whom to be ruled, as well as to what ends and methods.

According to Smart state centralization and religious dispersion and

UHOLJLRXVGLVVLGHQFH¶DUHWKHSUREOHPDWLF manifestation of government
in which problem come at the intersections of the two tendencies
State centralization which commenced with the formation of administrative
and colonial states out of the destruction and decomposition of feudal
structure, and µdispersion and religious dissidence¶ arising from the
questioning of earthly existence, spiritual rule, and salivation which began
with the Reformation and continues with the Counter Reformation (Smart
1985:126).

According to Foucault, there is a distinction between sovereignty and

JRYHUQPHQW³«what government has to do with is not territory but,
rather, a VRUW RI FRPSOH[ FRPSRVHG RI PHQ DQG WKLQJV´
(Foucault1994:208). The things, according to Foucault are wealth,

48
resources, and ways of living, and all other phenomenon that are
vulnerable to the human condition. Government according to him has
its own ends which distinguishes it from sovereignty. Government is
mainly concerned with human beings in relation to other things that
are mentioned above. Foucault further explains the difference between
the two as.

µ6RYHUHLJQW\¶ WKH REMHFW ZKLFK LV WKH SUHVHUYation of a principality or

territory, and a concomitant submission of the people to the law through
which sovereign rule is preserved and with which it is synonymous, and on the
RWKHUµJRYHUQPHQWµZKLFKLVDIRUPRIWKHH[HUFLVHRISRZHU ZKLFKµGRHVQRW
bear on the territory but rather on the complex unit constituted by men and
WKLQJV¶)RXFDXOWLQSmart 1985:126).

One can infer from this that there existed absolutely intimate
relationship between sovereignty and law. This is because the end of
sovereignty unlike that of government is its self preservation through
the mechanism of the authority of law. On the other hand for
government it is the imposition of things not law. Government most of
the time used tactics rather than laws. It implies that governments are
mainly concerned with human relationship with that of wealth,
resources, and ways of living as well as all climatic, cultural factors,
accidents and misfortune that human beings cope up with, for his
survival. ³«WKHHQGRIVRYHUHLJQW\LVLQWHUQDOWo itself and possess its
own laws« WKH finality of governments resides in the things it
manages, instead of being laws, now come to be range of multiform
tactics. Within respective of government law is not what is important´
(Foucault 1994: 211).

Foucault describes power as a relationship through which one can

determine or direct the behaviors of another. If one understands what

49
power is, ³it is the exercise of something that one could call
government in a very wide sense oI WKH WHUP´ )RXFDXOW 
)RXFDXOW¶VDUJXPHQWLVWKDWJRYHUQPHQWLVFRQFHLYHGLQZLGHVHQVHWKH
exercise of power in which one can govern a person, a family, group,
a community, and a society. To govern from the individual to societal
level in other words, means determining RQH¶Vbehavior. This requires
tactics or strategies which Foucault calls µgovernmentality¶ For
)RXFDXOW µgovernmentality¶ LV the combination of group of power
relations with techniques that facilitate or allow the relation of power
to be exercised.

The other important issue that Foucault discusses is WKH µart of

JRYHUQPHQW¶ which is some WLPHVXVHGDVµUHDVRQRIWKHVWDWH¶. There
DUHµPXOWLIDULRXV¶SUDFWLFHVRIJRYHUQPHQWFRQFHUQHGZLWKPDQ\types
of people ³WKH KHDGV RI WKH IDPLO\ the superior of a convent, the
teacher or tutor of a FKLOG RU SHRSOH« DOO WKHVH RWKHU NLQGV RI
government are internal WR WKH VWDWH RU VRFLHW\´ Foucault 1994;205-
206). All these forms of government DUH µLQWHUZoven¶ ZLWK LQ WKH
society and state. But among all there is one special form which is
applied to the state as a whole WKDWLVWKHµDUWRIJRYHUQPHQW¶

Foucault, by quoting La mothe Le Vayer, distinguishes three

µIXQGDPHQWDO W\SHV RI JRYHUQPHQW¶ DQG WKH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI
government are related to SDUWLFXODU µVFLHQFH or discipliQH¶ these are
³The art of self government, connected with morality; the art of
property governing a family, which belongs to the economy; and,
finally, the science of UXOLQJ WKH VWDWH ZKLFK FRQFHUQV SROLWLFV´
(Foucault1994:206). The art of government, therefore, refers to the
continuity of the first with the second and then to the third topology of

50
government. It establishes continuity among the topology in both
directions, upward and down ward.

The smooth running of both the upward and downward continuity

have an implication in which, in the upward continuity, the person
who is successful in governing himself has the ability to govern the
state. In similar manner in downward continuity, when the state is
well governed, it is known that the head of a family has the
knowledge on how to manage his family, his goods and so on.

The essential element in the downward continuity is that the principles

which help the success of state continuity transmit both to the
individual behavior and that of the family the characteristics of good
government. Foucault calls the transmission of the principle of good
JRYHUQPHQW RI WKH VWDWH µpolice¶ %RWK WKH XSZDUG DQG GRZQ ZDUG
FRQWLQXLW\ ³LV WKH JRYHUQPHQW RI WKH IDPLO\ WHUPHG µeconomy¶´
(Foucault1994:207). In short, the art of government is mainly
concerned in bringing economy into the political practices. This
implies that both the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries were
conceived in terms of the model of a family, in that, in the
government of the state, there was a need to apply the management of
WKHIDPLO\RUµHFRQRP\DWWKHOHYHORIWKHZKROHVWDWH¶. So the art of
government of the state during that period was linked to the form of
surveillance and control similar to what is practiced by the head of
family over his house hold and goods.

,Q )RXFDXOW¶V DUJXPHQW, throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries, the arts of government were conceived as the reason of the
state. It is to mean that the state was governed based on its own

51
rational principles which is µLQWULQVLF¶ to or embodied in the specific
rationality of the state itself. It was not something which was derived
from the divine or nature.

In the eighteenth century, the development of the art of government

was associated with the demographic explanation ZKLFK LV ³WKH
emergence of the problem of the population´.

(Smart 1985:126 and Foucault 1994:215) with the closely interwoven

process that took place. ³7KURXJK which the science of government,
the recentering of the theme of economy on different plane from that
of the family, and the problem of the population are
interconnected´(Foucault1994:215) :KDW LV LPSRUWDQW LQ )RXFDXOW¶V
FRQFHSWLRQ LV WKDW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH ³science of gRYHUQPHQW¶
EULQJV WKH µHFRQRP\¶ ZKLFK HQDEOHs to identify the problems of the
population. In other words, it resulted in the development from the
family in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries to that of µthe
common welfare of all¶ that is the economic. It is through the
development of this science that the problem specific to the
population are easily identified. It facilitates access to the specific
problem of the population, and changes. The isolation of the
conception of economy creates a situation whereby the problem of
government was formulated outside the juridical frame work of
Sovereignty.

The other form of knowledge which is developed and help to provide

the knowledge of the state is ³VWDWLVWLFV¶. Statistics serves as one of the
new and main components of technologies of government. It serves to
show the regularities of the population such as, for example birth and

52
death rates, issues related to diseases, security, and others which are
irreducible to the level of family. Statistics serves to quantify the
various variables in the population. The representations are at the
level of the population and not at that of the family level. This in turn
makes the family not to be considered as the model of government
any more, is rather considered as one of the elements or aspects of the
population. From the eighteenth century on wards the family serves as
an instrument in government. It is not considered as a model in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As an instrument the family
serves as the source of the information concerning the population;
such as on issues like sexual behavior, demographic issues,
consumption and so on. The coming of population into the sphere of
government results in the elimination of the family as the model. The
family rather serves as a fundamental instrument through which
government promotes marriage, reduces mortality, and so on.

Population became the ultimate end of government through which the

government will act to improve the welfare of the population, the
improvements of its condition, the increase of its wealth, longevity,
and health.

In order to govern properly in a rational way, population becomes an

object that government must take into consideration seriously in all its
observation and knowledge. The knowledge (Savior) of government is
completely linked to the knowledge that is concerned with population
and this is the economy. This implies that the emergence of wealth is
considered to be a new subject or concern of the population. It
resulted in the coming into being of new tactics and techniques of
power or new sciences called ³Solitical economy´ )RXFDXOW

53
1994:217). In the eighteenth century, the transition from the power of
sovereignty which was predominant at the time to the techniques of
government was associated with the emergence of the problem of
population and that of the birth of political economy as a new science.

Foucault suggested that the SURFHVVGRHVQRWVKRZ³WKHUHSODFHPHQWRI

society of sovereignty by a disciplinary society and the subsequent
replacement of disciplinary society by a society of government´
(Foucault1994:219). The process does not consider the displacement
RI RQH VRFLHW\ E\ DQRWKHU VXFK DV µVRFLHW\ RI VRYHUHLJQW\¶ E\
µGLVFLSOLQDU\ VRFLHW\¶ DQG WKHQ E\ µJRYHUQPHQWDO VRFLHW\¶. It
constitutes ³D triangle, sovereignty-discipline- government, which has
its primary target the population and as its essential mechanism the
DSSDUDWXVHVRIVHFXULW\´)RXFDXOW4:219).

Here, Foucault wants to show the link that exists between

µVRYHUHLJQW\-discipline- JRYHUQPHQW¶ DQG not the replacement of
µVRYHUHLJQW\-disciplinary societies¶ ZLWK WKDW RI JRYHUQPHQW As
shown in the process, according to Foucault, from the eighteenth
century on wards was observed three movements such as
µgovernment-population-SROLWLFDOHFRQRP\¶.

As Smart points out, it is ³WKURXJK an analysis of tactics and

techniques of government and SURFHVV RI µJRYHUQPHQWDOL]DWLRQ¶ of
VWDWH WKDW )RXFDXOW¶V ZRUN LV UHOHYDQt for understanding of the
GHYHORSPHQW RI PRGHUQ VWDWH´ Smart 1985:128). The modern state,
therefore, can be understood through the techniques and tactics which
are composed of complex forms of power that is exercised both on
individuals and the population.

54
 When Foucault stresses on the µgRYHUQPHQWDOL]DWLRQRIWKHVWDWH¶, he
does not consider that government is a technique that could be applied
or used by state authorities or apparatuses; but he comprehends the
state itself as a dynamic and contingent form of societal power
relations. Thus, governmentality is

at once internal and external to the state- since it is the tactics of government
that make possible the continual definition and redefinition of what is within the
competence of the state and what is not, the public versus the private, and so on;
thus the state can only be understood in its survival and its limits on the basis of
the general tactics of Governmentality (Foucault 1994: 221).

Foucault further identified three important elements from which the

governmentalization of the state emerges, from the Christian pastoral,
diplomatic-military model and the twelfth and thirteen centuries,
police.
³Governmentality´IRU Foucault means three things

1.the ensemble formed by the institution, procedures, analysis, and

reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very
specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population, as
its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential
technical means apparatus of security.
2. The tendency that, over a long period and through out the west, has
steadily led towards the preeminence over all other forms (sovereignty,
discipline, and so on) of this type of power-which may be termed
³JRYHUQPHQW´ ± resulting, on the one hand, in the formation of the whole
series of a whole governmental apparatuses, and, on the other, in the
development of a whole complex of knowledge (savoirs).
3.The process or, rather, the result of the process through which the state of
justice of the Middle ages transformed into the administrative state during the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and gradually beFRPH ³JRYHUQPHQWDOi]HG´
(Foucault 1994:221-222).

Finally, Foucault argues in the conception of µsubject¶ that there are

two meanings of the subject, the first one is subject to someone by

55
dependence and control, the second one is by his conscience of self
knowledge when he is tied to his identity.

He also asserts the history of different models by which in western

culture human beings are made subject. First are forms of inquiry of
science, which include the twentieth century sciences of linguistics,
economics, and biology through which the West understands itself in
relation to language, labor and physical life. Secondly, the divide
practice, in which at a given time institutional structure, theories and
group of people classified individuals in different categories such as
sane and insane, sick and healthy, normal and criminal and so on.
Thirdly, it is that of self formation by which individual uses methods,
routines, practices and discipline that he/she undertakes.

In the DUWLFOH HQWLWOHG µGovernmentaOLW\¶ )RXFDXOW DSSOLHV D

JHQHDORJLFDODQDO\VLVRI WKH QRWLRQRIµJRYHUQPHQW¶+H UHSHDWHGWKH
historical method which he developed in Discipline and Punish.
)RXFDXOW GHILQHV µJRYHUQPHQWDOLW\¶ DV FRQGXFW RU µFRQGXFW RI
FRQGXFW¶ ,W LV WKH WHUP ZKLFK UDQJHV IURP ³JRYHUQLQJ¶ WKH VHOI WR
µJRYHUQLQJ¶RWKHUV

7KH WHUP µJRYHUQPHQWDOLt\¶ IRU )RXFDXOW LV XVHG ³WR GHVFULEH WKH
regulation of population and economies by government through
expanding its control over virtually every aspHFW RI FLWL]HQV¶ OLYHV´
(Stacy 2001:70-71). From eighteenth century onwards, government
regulates the population as a new object of the economy, in which the
population is disciplined by the state in relation to things. Government
organizes relationships between men, objects and events. Foucault
VKRZVWKHOLQNEHWZHHQ³VRYHUHLJQW\± discipline-JRYHUQPHQW´6RKH

56
suggested that what was happening between sixteenth and eighteenth
centuries was not the replacement of sovereignty or disciplinary
society with government but it is solid series in which one has a
WULDQJOH ³VRYHUHLJQW\ ± discipline-government, which has as its
primary target the population and as its essential mechanism the
apparatus of security´ (Foucault 1994:219). Finally, according to
Foucault, governmentality emphasizes the relationship among power,
knowledge and discipline which is inseparable from coercion and
techniques of rational control by the state to a more indefinite
relationship.

57
 CHAPTER FOUR
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND THE RELEVANCE
OF FOUCAULT¶6 WORK
4.1 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
I found Foucault¶V work to be an important source of ideas for
philosophers. But, his work has been very difficult to integrate.
Foucault¶V work is full and rich in its conceptual insight for
philosophers to work on. Among his works one of the most essential
contributions for the philosophical concern is the one taken up as the
basis for this thesis that is his explication of Power and knowledge.

According to Foucault, and as it has been presented all along in the

previous chapters power /knowledge relations are inseparable. He
identified that for Western, societies there are five important traits
which characterize truth,
µ7UXWK¶ LV FHQWHUHG RQ WKH IRUP of scientific discourses and the instructions
which produce it, it is subject to constant economic and political incitement «it
is the object , under diverse forms, of immense diffusion and consumption
(circulating through apparatuses of education and information whose extent is
relatively broad in the social body, not withstanding certain strict limitations); it
is produced and transmitted under the control , dominant if not exclusive, of a
few great political and economic apparatuses (university, army, writing,
media);it is lastly the issue of the whole political debate and social confrontation
(ideological struggles (Foucault1980:131-132).

It is true and I accept that within each society there is a ³UHJLPH RI
WUXWK³%XW)RXFDXOW¶V idea of knowledge/truth and the characteristics
which he outlined are Eurocentric. He discusses as if the traits
concerned are with the western society only. All his study of
Discipline and Punish, and the History of Sexuality are based on West
European experiences as the universal culture which encompass
others.

58
According to Foucault, power serves in producing rather than
repressing individuals. He claims power as a strategy rather than
possessions. This argument may raise some issues such as, for
example, what are the sources of inequalities that exist in our world in
terms of multiple factors, why does the majority get oppressed by the
minority, why are resources under the control of minority in specific
situations?

For Foucault, power is relational; it is not something acquired, seized

or held. However, this raises, for example, why many liberation
fighters fight to overthrow dominations and aspire for their freedom if
power is not in the hands of a few. These and other arguments may
render )RXFDXOW¶V idea contradictory. My argument is on the other
hand that, since, power is relational, and power relations are multiple,
it is important to conceive oppression as one of the multiple forms of
power. This does not mean that I am in favor of Marxist idea which
considers power as oppression. I again do not agree with Foucault¶V
views that power is not merely repressive but a creative/ productive
entity. Since, power exists in multiple forms and is characterized by
the five traits mentioned earlier one may have to consider repressive
as one of the multiple forms that is characterized by the five traits and
tied to society. ³3RZHU LV HYHU\ ZKHUH´ )RXFDXOW. My
problem here is that how one can achieve liberation using knowledge
if power and knowledge are not separable. It is problematic to
consider those who have knowledge also have power. This issue has
been raised by some feminist groups by questioning his denial that
gaining better knowledge of patriarchal power in the society can bring
to liberation from domination.

59
The other issue that is worth commenting on is )RXFDXOW¶VFRQFHSW of
µpower and resistance¶. He confidentially argues that the two are
inseparable, when he VDLG WKDW ³ZKHUH there is power, there is
resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never a
position of exteriority in relation to power´Foucault1978:95). It can
be said that the statements are contradictory because, as Foucault put
LWZLWKUHJDUGWRµGRFLOHERGLHV¶, docility is shaped by the power; or in
RWKHU ZRUGV µGRFLOLW\¶ LV WKH UHVXOW RI WKH H[HUFLVH RI SRZHU It is
because, according Foucault, the individual is the effect of power
(Foucault1980:98). My TXHVWLRQLVKRZGRWKHDOUHDG\µGRFLOHERGLHV¶
which are shaped by power, resist power once it is changed and
became docile. It can be said that Foucault did not develop a fully
acceptable notion of resistance because of his accountability of an
individual to power effect. But, this does not mean that disciplinary
power is not linked to an individual and fashion it. Disciplinary
technologies are playing vital roles in shaping individuals and can be
considered effective form of social control. As Foucault said
disciplinary technologies hold individuals¶ bodies, gestures, desires,
and habits to create them in the way the technologies need and make
individuals their own agent. )RXFDXOWJRHVRQGHVFULELQJ³DSOXUDOLW\
of resistances, each of them a special case: resistances that are
possible, necessary, improbable, other that are spontaneous, savage,
solitary, concerted, rampant, or violent; still others they are quick to
compromise, interested, or sacrificial; by definition, they can only
exist in the strategic field of power relations µ)RXFDXOW
Although, the statement still is ambiguous, it can be assumed and
imply the existence that there are multiple forms of resistance that
play different roles in power relations. The forms of resistance are
found in all power network every where. It is true that power

60
relations are found in networks; so is resistance. This implies in my
view that repressive which is one form of power relations serves as a
form of power in which the powerful oppresses the powerless and in
the same way the oppressed are struggling to liberate themselves in
the power relation.

I have the opinion that what Foucault referred to in the History of

Sexuality should be seen as the discourse on sexuality rather than the
history of sexuality.
In fact, )RXFDXOW¶V study is not really a history of sexuality in conventional
sense of that word, but a history of the discourses on sexuality and the
various ways in which those discourses and the pleasures and powers they
have produced have been deployed in the service of hierarchical relations in
western culture over the past three hundred years (Martin 1988:7).

Further more, what Foucault studies in his genealogical study

following Discipline and Punish was in my opinion the discourses in
sexuality rather than the history of sexuality. This is because for me
sexuality is the state or quality of being sexual which refers to sexual
act. To explain the discussion with one of his own examples,
The restrictions on masturbation hardly start in Europe until the
eighteenth century. Suddenly, a panic theme appears: an appalling sickness
develops in the western world. Children masturbate. Via the medium of
families, though not at their initiative, a system of control of sexuality, an
objectivization of sexuality allied to corporal persecution, is established
over the bodies of children. But sexuality, through thus becoming an object
of analysis and concern, surveillance and control, engenders at the same
time an intensifiFDWLRQ RI HDFK LQGLYLGXDO¶V desire, for, in over his body.
The body thus became the issues of control between parent and children,
the child and the instance of control. The revolt of the sexual body is the
reverse effect of this encroachment (Foucault 1980:56).

The example which Foucault discusses above as I understand is not

the history of sexuality, but it is the discourse on sexuality. The
manner in which he discussed the issue has no historical perspective

61
but rather the mechanics of how masturbation was intensified among
children as the result of the discourses on it. It did not deal with the
sexual act or the state of being sexual. What is important here is that
masturbation is one of the sexual acts which existed in the society and
all individuals have a feeling about it. It is true that, as Foucault said,
talking about it and the restriction imposed intensified the act. It
helped in spreading the knowledge people have about it. But this does
not mean that it tells us how masturbation comes into being as a
sexual act or the state or quality of being sexual.

I also feel appropriate to comment on the conceptual confusion of

power/knowledge nexus. According to Foucault, nexus of power and
knowledge is in discourse. ³,QGHHG, it is in discourses that power and
knowledge are joined together. And for this reason, we must conceive
discourses as a series of discontinuous segments whose tactical
function is neither uniform nor stable´Foucault 1978:100). One can
infer from the statement that the nexus of power/knowledge cannot
exist outside of the discourses. The idea, in other words reveals that
there is a possibility of power/knowledge to exist out side discourse.
However, this conception seems contradictory with his statement
µSRZHU and knowledge arHLQVHSDUDEOH¶,IWKHOLQNEHWZHHQSRZHUDQG
knowledge lies in the discourse, there is no way for power and
knowledge to exist in nexus outside of the discourse. It shows the
inconsistency of Foucault¶V argument. Though, I feel in appropriate to
refrain from getting in to further detail on the issue. Foucault also did
not tell us how discourse itself can exist outside of language. He did
not tell the relationship between discourse and language in light of
power/knowledge. Since the theme of this thesis is not particular to

62
 this topic, it is difficult to conceive the existence of discourse outside
language.

It is important to look into the relevance of Foucault¶V work in terms

of the trends in present day world, especially with the situation of
Africa, globalization and neo-liberalism.

4.2 POWER/KNOWLEDGE AND TO SOME ISSUES OF AFRICA

It is important to begin with the things which are prima face
enigmatic to present day Africa. In this respect, it is appropriate to
take up the idea forwarded by Mudinmbe.

³Knowledge about Africa now orders itself in accordance with a new

model. Despite the resilience of primitivist and evolutionist myth, a
new discourse- more exactly, a new type of relation to the African
object-has been HVWDEOLVKHG´ Mudinmbe1994:38). This is to show
how the present day Africa is seen through historically formed
GLVFRXUVHV DQG ODEHOHG DV µDEVROXWH RWKHUQHVV ¶. The situation is
mainly due to the fusion of scientific discipline with anthropology; the
discipline which is established in time of exploitation of Africa. The
fused discipline created, according to Mudinmbe, a vague body of
discourses or knowledge about Africa by explaining Africa in
scientifically accepted discourses which Foucault talks about both in
Discipline and Punish (1977) and that of the History of Sexuality
(1978).

The works of Hountondji also have some implications about

power/knowledge nexus, although he did not explain it in Foucauldian
terms as Mudinmbe did ,Q ³With the Eyes RI RWKHU¶ which

63
Hountondji dealt with in his essay µRHDSSURSUDWLRQ¶ he shows us how
the system of knowledge is tied with the regime of power in the
African situation through anthropological research. Though
Hountondji did not associate his own idea in light of
power/knowledge in Foucauldian terms what he explained about is a
reflection of power/knowledge. Previously anthropological research
was conducted by foreigners themselves by interviewing the literate
and semi literate Africans. But the situation currently changed and
conducted by the African anthropologist teams themselves. Through
training and conditioning Africans, on how to conduct research for
their own purpose, the western scholars made Africa intellectuals
µGRFLOH¶. Foucault explained in µDiscipline and Punish¶ all political,
economic and penal institutions use the human body as a material
which is shaped and seized. Human bodies are subject to training to
make them docile and so as to render services in the way they are
mastered and subjected to training. In the same manner, African
intellectuals, as important material of the West are subject to training
in the way they could serve the West in conducting research or
collecting the necessary data. The data collected about Africa serves
as a means to understand and device ways of governing Africa. This
will be taken up subsequently in the discussion related to the process
of globalization. For Foucault ³V\VWHP of production, of domination,
and of socialization fundamentally depends up on the successful
subjugations of the bodies´Garland 1990:137). African intellectuals,
African languages, and African knowledge are extraverted and
subjected WR ³H[WHUQDO PRGHOs DV RXU VFLHQWLILF SUDFWLFH´ +RXQWRQGML
2002:138).

64
According to Foucault, there are two ways of making subject; these
are by being dependent on others and also by shaping oneself. Hence,
Africans are becoming subject through both ways by being dependent
on others in financial, institutional and other factors and make
themselves subject by confessing themselves to Western expertise that
trained and sponsors them. To that effect Foucault speaks of
³GLVFRXUVHDVWDFWLFDOHOHPHQWZKLFKKHOGXSLQDILHOGRIIRUFHUHODtion
³)RXFDXOW  Within given strategies, they circulate
uniformly with out changing themselves. So the way African
knowledge is extroverted to the West is one system of truth with its
own strategies.

For Foucault³NQRZOHGJHDQGSRZHUDUHLQWHJUDWHGZLWKRQHDQRWKHU´
(Foucault 1980:52). Some knowledge is considered true, but others
are not. The ones which are considered deficient will be rejected. The
same is true in that knowledge in Africa is marginalized as
Hountondji said. The traditional knowledge of Africa is considered
unimportant. It is the knowledge deemed deficient. Such knowledge
is rejected and excluded from the system. The deficient knowledge in
the words of Foucault is µVXEMXJDWHG¶, Hountondji calls such
knowledge µPDUJLQDOL]HG¶ For )RXFDXOW ³SRZHU FRPHV IURP EHORZ´
(Foucult1978:94). So there is a need for power from below in order to
de-marginalize the marginalized knowledge. This power according to
Hountondji calls IRU µVFLHQWLILF UHYROXWLRQ¶ WR HQJDJH LQ
PHWKRGRORJLFDO UHDSSURSUDWLRQ RI RQH¶V RZQ NQRZOHGJH RI DOO
available knowledge in the world by de-marginalizing the
marginalized traditional knowledge of Africa and appropriation of all
scientific heritages that are available in the world. In other words there

65
is a need for the power from below to counteract (resist) to the power
from above, that is, Western domination.

In the subsequent presentation an effort will be made to relate

)RXFDXOW¶VSRZHU/ knowledge with the process of globalization which
is relevant in current world.
4.3 POWER/KNOWLEDGE AND GLOBALIZATION
It is obvious that globalization, as a concept has becDPHDµEX]]ZRUG¶
which is conceptually confusing. There is no neutral concept about the
process. The process of globalization is an area in which
power/knowledge nexus is clearly seen. There are organizations
established to run the process driven by science and technologies,
which in them plays a vital role in changing the behaviors of others.
The knowledge of science and technology serve as vehicles to power.
I will come to this issue later but for a moment I will discuss
³JOREDOL]DWLRQ IURP DERYH´ DQG ³JOREDOL]DWLRQ IURP EHORZ´ WR shed
light on the relation of power/knowledge nexus. For the advocates of
³globalization from above´ globalization would benefit all countries
and individuals if they accepted the free market policies promulgated
by the financial institutions such as the World Bank(WB),
International Monterey Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization
(WTO) $FFRUGLQJ WR )RXFDXOW ³SRZHU FRPHV IURP EHORZ WKDW LV,
there is no binary and all-encompassing opposition between rulers and
ruled´Foucault 1978:94). Due to this fact the newly emergent social
PRYHPHQW ³*OREDOL]DWLRQ IURP EHORZ´ FRPHV to counteract or resist
KDQGOLQJ IURP WKH µ*OREDOL]DWLRQ IURP DERYH´ µGlobalization from
below¶ has the normative potential. ³The idea of normative potential
is to conceptualize widely shared world order values: minimizing
violence, maximizing economic well-being, realizing social and

66
political justice, and upholding environPHQWDO TXDOLW\´ Falk 2000:
49). The vision or goal of ³globalization from below´ is concerned
with democratizing institutions at all levels from local to global setups
by reducing disparities in global power and wealth. It is said that it is
possible to attain full employment through reducing environmentally
and socially destructive activities. It is claimed that environmental
sustainability is necessary in meeting human and environmental need.
This implies, as Foucault said LQ WKH µ+LVWRU\ RI 6H[XDOLW\¶ LQ KLV
essay µThe Deployment of SH[XDOLW\¶³Where there is power, there is
resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, the resistance is never in a
SRVLWLRQ RI H[WHULRULW\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR SRZHU´ )RXFDXOW +H
again gives emphasis on their inseparability iQ µ.QRZOHGJH DQG
3RZHU¶ XQGHU WKH WLWOH µSRZHU DQG VWUDWHJLHV¶ ³that there are no
relations of power without resistance; the latter are all more real and
effective because there are formed right at a point where relations of
power are H[HUFLVHG«´Foucault 1980:142). It is clearly seen in the
relationship EHWZHHQ ³JOREDOL]DWLRQ IURP DERYH¶´ DQG ³globalization
from below´ that, as soon as the process of globalization started in the
³globalization from above´ sense ³globalization from below´ began to
resist/change its direction.

The motor and matrix of globalization are the scientific and

technological revolutions and global restructuring of capital without
which globalization cannot be understood. The fundamental
importance of scientific and technological revolution and the new
technologies help spread or interpret the process in a technological
determinist system. Globalization also includes both the economic and
other institutional dimensions of capitalism. Foucault is very much
interested in techniques, especially in those techniques that are mainly

67
derived from knowledge and particularly those from scientific
knowledge. Moreover, he gives emphasis on how these technologies
are used by various institutions to exert power over the people.
Foucault is concerned to see the structural relationships between
knowledge and power. The process of globalization is driven by
scientific knowledge or technologies. The institutions such as WTO,
WB, IMF, and Transnational corporations (TNC) use the knowledge
to exercise power in areas and purposes for which they are
established. According to Foucault µ'LVFLSOLQH¶ µLVDW\SHRISower, a
modality for its exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments,
techniques, procedures, levels of application, WDUJHWVLWLVD¶SK\VLFV¶
RU DQ µDQDWRP\¶ RI SRZHU D WHFKQRORJ\´ Foucault 1977:215). The
same is true in globalization; the process includes all the modalities
for its exercise such as the institutions, social relations and scientific
knowledge.

Science and technology are the center of the modern world order
economically, politically, and culturally. At the same time, it is
important to notice that advances in science and technology lead to
new ways of understanding and behaving.

Thus, communication technologies are speeding globalization and

affecting cultural differences. They are, therefore, involved in creating
global culture which is becoming too homogenized. The uniformity
of mass culture around the world is one purpose of cultural
globalization. Their main goal is to create favorable conditions for
exchange of mass consumption and cultural products. These
technologies embody cultural diffusion; adopt new technologies and
practices that can create the will and the desire to consume foreign

68
products and ideas. Through the knowledge of science and
technologies, the process brings new types of consciousness and
identities such as globalism. This forced people to change their ways
of living because of its homogenizing influences. It encourages the
development of all nations in the world connected by common or
shared interests.

The world is becoming linked through communication technologies

such as television, radio, music, the internet and other technologies.
Above all, due to the fact that globalization is driven by the
communication network as a vehicle, it spread more than the anti-
globalization movement.

According to Foucault, knowledge that seems deficient is shut out of

the system and the one which is dominant, such as globalization, can
easily spread in a society. It is possible to relate FoucaulW¶V works with
that of neo-liberalism to show its relevance.

4.4 POWER/KNOWLEDGE NEXUS AND NEO- LIBERALISM

The problematic of government which started in the sixteenth century
constitutes Foucault¶V analysis of the specific political rationality of
government. Currently neo-liberalism, as a form of government, has
specific political technologies employed by the state administration to
direct or manage the conduct of individuals. The specific rationality
employed in neo-liberalism in Ethiopia while I am writing this thesis
is the point of debate for the 2010 Ethiopian elections. This issue is
raised because it has appealing relevance in light of Foucault¶V
genealogy of power which is mainly concerned with how people
govern themselves and others through the production of knowledge.

69
At the same time neo liberalism in Ethiopia deserves to be
GRFXPHQWHG DV WKH ³KLVWRU\ RI WKH SUHVHQW´ as Foucault noted in
³Discipline and 3XQLVK´WKDWLV his interest LQ³ZULWLQJWKHKLVWRU\RI
WKH SUHVHQW´ )RXFDXOW  At present the ruling party in
Ethiopia is against the political technologies of neo-liberalism and
advocates for ³5HYROXWLRQDU\ 'HPRFUDF\´ based on the idea of
µdevelopmental state¶ as state rationality. Unlike neo-liberalism the
idea of developmental state uses state resources and state intervention
to attack poverty. The structures of the output of the economy are
shaped by the state. In the debate as I followed through television
except the ruling party (EPRDF) almost all political parties support
liberalism as political ideology. Revolutionary democracy rejects the
liberal philosophy which claim individual as the source of both
political and economic development.

Property ownership right especially land is one of the central points of

difference between the ruling party (EPRDF) and liberal counterparts.
The liberal parties claim selling land creates economic development.
But the EPRDF led government who believe in agricultural led
economic development as a strategies and tactic of government
leasing land. The revolutionary democracy take land as state owned.

According to Foucault, ³JRYHUQPHQW UHIHUV WR D FRQWLQXXP ZKLFK

extends from political government right through the form of self
regulation; QDPHO\µWHFKQRORJLHVRIWKHVHOI¶´ (Foucault 2001:201). To
see neo-liberalism in Foucault¶V governmentality and identify its
political rationality, it is important first to define neo-liberalism. The
following definition of neo-liberalism is taken from Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia. Neo liberalism is;-

70
 Economic policies based on neoclassical theories of economics that minimize
the role of the state and maximizing private business sector. The term neo
liberalism has also come in to a wide use in cultural studies to describe social,
cultural, and political practices that use the language of market efficiency,
consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk
from governments and corporations on to individuals and to extend this kinds of
market logic into the realm of social and active relationship (Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia).

Taking the more general vision of neo-liberalism, one can infer that the
existence and operation of the market are important in themselves. All
human beings can manage their own lives and individuals have their
own autonomy to exercise their own rights. Neo- liberalism
minimizes the role of the state. It is concerned with forms of self-
understanding in individual activities.

The key feature of neoliberal rationality is its endeavor to achieve

/create responsible, morally respected and autonomous individuals
who are market oriented rational actors. Then, considering Foucault¶V
notion of governmentality, neo -liberalism focuses on minimizing the
role of the state as a technique of government. It shifts the risk from
government to responsible individuals. According to Foucault,
³WHFKQRORJLHV RI WKH VHOI´ )RXFDXOW 2001:154) is the technique
through which the individual acts upon himself. Individuals have their
own autonomy to conduct themselves. They are responsible for their
own activities. Similarly ³QHR-liberalism encourages individuals to
give their lives a specific entrepreneurial form´Lemek 2001:202).

$VGLVFXVVHGDERYHµ*RYHUQPHQWDOLW\¶DVREVHUYHGDSSOLHVWRGLIIHUHQW
historical periods and various specific power regimes. Referring to
¶QHROLEHUDO JRYHUQPHQWDOLW\¶, it is those societies where power is de-
centered and in which each member of the society plays a vital role in
RQH¶V own self ±government. Individuals are expected to be regulated
71
by themselves from inside and by their own autonomy. Foucault
pointed out that ³SRZHU LV H[HUFLVHG RQO\ RYHU IUHH VXEMHFW´
(Foucault1994:342). Hence, neoliberalism or neo-liberal
governmentality is based on free market mechanisms and with the
minimum role or restriction of the state. The knowledge which is
produced in neo-liberal governmentality, therefore, is the creation of
an autonomous and self regulated individual. This is what is currently
practiced in some of the giant capitalist countries. Each parts of the
process both globalization and neo-liberalism has its own interrelated
process. Each part of the process has its own dynamism such as
cultural, political, social, economic and environmental dimensions.
Each part of the dimension has its own varied impact comparing
developed and developing countries.

72
 CONCLUSION
Foucault¶V genealogical studies emphasize the nexus of power and
knowledge. In this essential connection between the two, Foucault
tried to establish his own evidence to show the nexus. For Foucault,
power and knowledge are bound together in such a way that power
produces knowledge and knowledge becomes power, they always
exist in nexus. The relationship between power and truth enables us
to explain the power /knowledge nexus. Truth cannot exist outside of
power in view of the fact that truth is the thing of this world. This is to
mean, according to Foucault, that truth is the discourse which is
accepted as true by the society.

Power and resistance are also never separable. According to Foucault,

whenever there is power, there is also resistance; resistance can not
exist outside power. Power is exercised through a network of chains
and hence, the nexus of power and knowledge is dynamic. In other
words, for Foucault, the social network through which power is
exercised is dynamic.

Foucault, in the genealogy of power, is concerned with how people

govern themselves and others through power/knowledge. ³Power and
knowledge directly LPSO\RQHDQRWKHU´
³Discipline and Punish´(1977) is one of the best examples of
genealogical studies preceding ³7he History of Sexuality´. In
µDiscipline and Punish¶ Foucault is concerned with the period from
1757 to 1830s. This period is a period during which torture was
replaced by prison rule. The change from torture to prison rule or
punishment is considered a humanization of the treatment of
criminals. The new system (punishment) was not designed to be

73
human according to Foucault, but to punish better. It involves the
power to punish more deeply into the social body. The shift from
torture to the new technology of power or to punish, involves
surveillance that is not just confined to criminals but also of the entire
society.

The new technology of disciplinary power is based on the military

model. Foucault applies the conception of power and knowledge
between modern disciplinary practice and that of modern scientific
disciplines. His first practice was prison and he took prison as a model
for the whole of modern disciplinary power employed in schools,
factories, and the military. He identified three instruments of power
such as ³HieraUFKLFDOREVHUYDWLRQ´ZKLFKLQYROYHVobserving all what
the officials control through /with a single gaze. ³Normalizing
MXGJPHQWV´ that is based on the standard set or by which those who
violet will be punished ³E[DPLQDWLRQ´ ZKLFK LQYROYHV WKH two and
which LV³KLHUDUFKLFDOREVHUYDWLRQ´DQG³QRUPDOL]LQJMXGJPHQWV´. It is
thus where power and knowledge are in nexus.

In The History of Sexuality volume One, (1978) Foucault, examines

the way sex is put into discourse and the way power permeates sex in
discourse. It is the continuation of the notion of disciplinary power
that he developeG LQ µ'LVFLSOLQH DQG 3XQLVK¶ . Sexuality for
Foucault is not naturally given. It is something that is historically
constructed. Sexuality according to Foucault was produced through
the strategies of power /knowledge. He tried to show in what he calls
³Repressive H\SRWKHVHV´ WKH FODLP WKDW VH[ ZDV UHSUHVVHG DQG
silenced was fundamentally wrong. He considers sexuality as a
deployment of power linked to the body. The History of Sexuality

74
(1978) H[DPLQHV WKHHIIHFWV XSRQ LQGLYLGXDOVWR PDQ\µLQILQLWHVLPDO¶
examinations of their bodies and their bodily functions. He identified
two types of VXFK IRUPV RI SRZHU WKDW LV µELo-SRZHU¶ DQG µELR-
SROLWLFV¶ %LR- power is one which is associated with that of medical
gaze, turned up on individual bodies in Western society, mainly to the
relation of sexual behaviors. Bio- politics is one in which the
application of bodily control is due to legal and administrative frame
work involved in controlling population such as, for example, (birth
rate, life expectancy, immigration and both housing and public
health). For Foucault bio- power is exercising the power that enables
the survival of human beings.

According to Foucault, the notion of power and knowledge changed

inWR ³*RYHUQPHQWDOLW\´ In the DUWLFOH HQWLWOHG µGRYHUQPHQWDOLW\¶
Foucault applies a genealogical analysis of the notion of
µJRYHUQPHQW¶+HUHSHDWHGWKHKLVWRULFDOPHWKRGZKLFKKHGHYHORSHG
in µDiscipline and Punish¶. Foucault defines µJRYHUQPHQWDOLW\¶ LQ his
HVVD\ µ¶WKH VXEMHFW DQG SRZHU¶ DV FRQGXFW RU µFRQGXFW RI FRQGXFW¶
(Foucault1994:341). Governmentality according to Foucault is
defined in three ways.

Governmentality according to Foucault shows how modern societies

are characterized by triangular power complex such as sovereignty-
discipline-government.

Governmentality for Foucault refers to both governance of the self

and others. Foucault was concerned or interested in governmentality
to question who can govern, what is governing, and who is governed.

75
Finally, there is a need to VWXG\ )RXFDXOW¶V work to understand the
present. His work also has its own limitations which we can help build
our own ideas based on his weakness. I found the relevance of his
ZRUN LQ WRGD\¶V $IULca for the discourse which considers Africa as
µDEVROXWH RWKHUQHVV¶ DQG PDUJLQDOL]DWLRQ RI $IULFDQ LQGLJHQRXV
knowledge. In many ways Foucault¶V power and knowledge works in
the process of globalization and neo-liberal governmentality.

76
 Bibliography
Bristow, Joseph .1997. Sexuality. The New Critical Idiom: London and New York:
Rutledge
Carrette, Jeremy R. 2000. Foucault and Religion: Spiritual Corporality and Political
Spirituality, London and New York: Rutledge.
Clark, Simon .2006. From Enlightenment to Risk: Social Theory and Contemporary
Society, Macmillan: Pal grave
Elden, Stuart .1971. Mapping the Present: Heidegger, Foucault and the Project of Spatial
History, London and New York: Continuum.
Falk, Richard .2000. ³Resisting µGlobalization ±from-DERYH¶ WKURXJK µJOREDOL]DWLRQ-
from-EORZ¶´LQ%DUU\.*LOOVHGV., Globalization and the Politics of Resistance:
Macmillan: Pal grave.
Foucault, Michel.1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith,
London: Tavistok.
_________ .1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, trans. Allan Lane, New
York: Random House
_________ .1978. The History of Sexuality. Volume I, An introduction: trans. Robert
Hurley, New York: Random House).
_________ .1980. Power and Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writing 1972-
1977, Colin Gordon, ed., Brighton: Harvester Press.
_________ .1970. The order of Things: An Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A.M
Sheridan Smith), London; Tavistok.
_________ .1984. Foucault Reader. Paul Rainbow, ed., New York: Pantheon
Books.

_________ .191994. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, Paul Rainbow ed., trans.
Robert Hurley and others, New York: The new press
_________ .2007. The politics of Truth. Sylvere Lotringer,ed., trans. John Rajchman,
USA: Semiotext.
_________ .1994. Power, (ed. James D. Faubion), New York: The New Press

Garland, David .1990. Punishment and Modern Society. A Study in Social Theory,
Oxford: Glarendon Press

77
Gutting, Garry. 2005. Foucault: A very short introduction: New York: Oxford University.

*RUGRQ&ROLQH³,QWURGXFWLRQ´Power, James D. Faubion, ed., New York: The New

Press
Hountondji,P. 2002.The struggle for Meaning. Ohio University Center for international
studies , Athens and USA
Lemek, Thomas. 2000. Foucault, Governmentality and Critique. Paper presented at the
Rethinking Marxism Conference, University of Amherst
Lemek, Thomas. 2001. The Birth of Bio-SROLWLFV¶ 0LFKHO )RXFDXOW¶V Lecture at the
College de France on neo-liberal governmentality, in Economy and society,
volume30, No.2 London and New York: Rutledge
Martin, Biddy .1988. ³Feminism, Criticism, and Foucault´, in Diamond, Irene and lee
Quinby, eds., Feminism and Foucault. Reflection and Resistance, Boston: North
eastern University.
Moss, Jeremy.1998. ³)RXFDXOW 5DZOV DQG 3XEOLF 5HDVRQ´ .In Jeremy Moss, eds., Later
Foucault: Politics and philosophy, London and New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Mudimbe, V.Y. 1994.The Idea of Africa. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indian
University Press and London James Currey Publisher.
Mills, Sara. 2003. Michel, Foucault, London and New York: Rutledge
Smart, Barry, 1985. Michel Foucault. (Revised edition), London and New York:
Rutledge Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Michel, Foucault,
mhtmlfile://F:\Michel%20Foucault%20(Stanford%20Encyclopedia%20%f
20%3KLORVRS«
Wikepedia, The free encyclopedia, Neoliberalism, Last modified 12may, 2010

78
Buy your books fast and straightforward online - at one of world’s
fastest growing online book stores! Environmentally sound due to
Print-on-Demand technologies.

Buy your books online at

www.get-morebooks.com
Kaufen Sie Ihre Bücher schnell und unkompliziert online – auf einer
der am schnellsten wachsenden Buchhandelsplattformen weltweit!
Dank Print-On-Demand umwelt- und ressourcenschonend produzi-
ert.

Bücher schneller online kaufen

www.morebooks.de
VDM Verlagsservicegesellschaft mbH
Heinrich-Böcking-Str. 6-8 Telefon: +49 681 3720 174 info@vdm-vsg.de
D - 66121 Saarbrücken Telefax: +49 681 3720 1749 www.vdm-vsg.de
View publication stats