Michel Foucault's "Power/Knowledge"

Foucault's main purpose in writing these pieces seems to be to attempt to investigate no only what power is but also how it is manifest through society by looking at various points in history to uncover the execution/manipulation of power. He discusses different conceptions of power at length and sets up a binary between the idea that power functions only to control or police the masses and that of power as a living organism that weaves a path through society. He claims:

Power must be analysed as something which circulates, or rather as something which only functions in the form of a chain. It is never localised here or there, never in anybody's hands, never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth. Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organisation. And not only do individuals circulate between its threads; they are always in the 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. (98)

Foucault fights back against the notion that power is something possessed by only a few and exerted on many. In fact, he seems to be arguing that power is distributed much more broadly (though he does admit it's not equally distributed), and that those in "power" are only in that privileged position because the masses allow it. Throughout this book, Foucault seems to be asking his readers to reformulate their thinking on power, pushing them to perhaps rise up and seize the power he argues they already possess.

As a collection of his work, this book builds its argument from chapter to chapter by dealing with different aspects of history and society to demonstrate how power is manifest/present in each.
Foucault begins with a discussion concerning popular justice and argues the regulating nature of any official court will inherently work against the goals of a popular uprising. He points out, for instance, that

In all the great uprisings since the fourteenth century the judicial officials have regularly been attacked, on the same grounds as have tax officials, and more generally those who exercise power: the prisons have been opened, the judges thrown out and the courts closed down. Popular justice recognises in the judicial system a state apparatus, representative of public authority, and instrument of class power. (6)

Foucault goes to examine the purpose of penal systems and argues that the goal of prisons is not, as many believe it is, to reform criminals. Rather, he argues that prisons are very good at breeding new criminals, criminals who will reinforce the popular need for the police. As Foucault says, without criminals there would be no police. Foucault ends this discussion by pointing out that the judicial system is also responsible for withholding knowledge from the masses and that in many cases of popular justice, the information held within official coffers is frequently disseminated to the masses. This is significant because Foucault believes that knowledge and power are very closely tied together. He argues that "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; this is just a way of reviving humanism in a utopian guise. It is not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge, it is impossible for knowledge not to engender power" (52). Though he never really expands on it, he seems to be implying some of the government's methods for controlling the masses (namely, prisons and the penal system) work to purposefully limit the amount of knowledge that is available to the masses. Without this knowledge, the masses can never have as much power as those who regularly exercise official power. Knowledge is key.

Foucault's key purpose in this book, especially as seen in the last few excerpts included here, seems to be to reformulate our conception of power, of the way we look at and examine power. Many, Foucault argues, look at power as something that limits what people can do--something that says "no"--but he calls us to consider power in other terms. He argues

What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn't only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression. (119)

In other words, though he's spent much of the works included in this book critically investigating those who exercise power--picking apart their motives and techniques as something presumably "bad"--he's asking us to consider the productive aspects of power...what it has the potential to acheive. Additionally, he argues that instead of merely looking at those who already have power and they way execute it, we should also consider the means by which they came to have that power. Who put them there? How the did the system that empowers them come to be? Understanding this, he seems to claim, will help us understand the roots of power.

Much of what Foucault is discussing in this book seems central to what we're trying to do in composition classes. That is, we teach students to write to a particular audience for a particular end. We teach them to use language to persuade readers to buy into their argument. We teach students to better understand their audience's expectations/needs so that they can be more effective in persuading those particular people that their argument is sound. All of this seems centrally connected to Foucault's conception of power...both how one gains power as well as how one executes it. We're trying to breed critical consciousness in our students so that they can go forward and, we hope, make the world a better place. We're trying to enstill power in them by giving them a working knowledge of how people communicate to persuade one another. Theoretically, I see the connection, but beyond this, I'm not really sure Foucault's work directly relates to the composition class. Rather, it seems his work can be related to the critical work the field is doing in developing composition classes that will empower. It seems that Foucault's works ask us, those studying rhetoric and composition, to do the work behind the scenes to better understand how power is working in our society so that we can then pass on this knowledge to our students.

As I read through this book, I made several comments relating Foucault's work here with the digital age. He speaks of knowledge as central to having power, and I wonder how the Internet--as a global communication and knowledge dissemination device--has changed the hierarchical power structures of society. I'm reminded of the Tibetian monk uprising in March of 2008 when the government restricted access to telephones and the Internet. I was horrified then that the government had the power to effectively cut off its citizens from the rest of the world, as after reading Foucault, I guess I'm no longer surprised the government would respond the way they did. Cutting Internet access prevented those in Tibet from contacting the rest of the world. Whereas the current protests in Iran are on phenomenon. To my knowledge (though sadly, people aren't talking about this anymore), the government never effectively cut Internet access, and consequently, videos of protests have been posted to Youtube that have drawn the attention of the rest of the world. It seems wide-spread communication tools have given more people power, but on the other hand, I can't help but wonder about those people who are completely removed from the digital era. Be it people who don't have access to the Internet b/c of economic reasons or those simply not "into" the Internet, they can't have the same perspective on global issues nor can they fully engage with the conversation that's going on and are consequently disempowered.

As to Foucault's theory that power is in everybody, that it's not centralized in one sector over another, I'm not sure I buy it. I'm thinking of all the times people have been exploited--all people who suffered in slavery, those who are bound a system they can seem to get out of (women, african americans, the dependent class), etc.--and have a hard time believing that they willingly handed over power to those in charge. I think there's a lot of hope in what Foucault is saying because if everybody has a hand in the way the world is run, then everybody has a chance to change the world. But I think something he's not considering are the stakes different people have. Poor people have to work, and if it means they're being exploited in order to feed their family, then they'll continue to do it until their bodies break or the system no longer gives them what they need to survive. I was disappointed in reading Foucault's discussion of popular justice because of this. He talks a lot about what happens when a popular uprising occurs, but he doesn't really discuss what causes those uprisings...what is it that finally gets people angry enough to stand up, despite what they have to lose, and demand a change. Exploring this more may have convinced me that power is, in fact, distributed throughout society. I certainly don't deny a certain amount of power is inherent in mostly everybody, but I don't think it's as easy for some to exercise that power as it is for others.