Shweta Duseja
Roll No. 708
3rd Year
9b Tute
Foucault’s concept of Truth/Knowledge and Power: A rethinking of
conventional ideas.
Truth/knowledge is assumed to be the creation of the isolated creative geniuses, for example,
Einstein and Darwin. And, power is thought to be the capacity of dominant agents to realise
their will over the will of powerless people, and the ability to compel them to do things which
they do not wish to do. Michel Foucault, one of the most notable figures in critical theory,
challenges the conventional notion of truth/knowledge and power by looking at them from a
new standpoint. This piece will examine Foucault’s refutation of the conformist notion of
power as an instrument of “repression” of the powerless by the powerful; he identifies power
as a chain or as a net, which is a system of relations spread throughout the society. Thereafter,
his equally challenging ideas about truth will be discussed where he rejects the objective
nature of truth and locates its existence within a particular setting. Finally, institutionalised
or rule-governed model of truth/knowledge production will be discussed, where he links truth
and power.
Foucault disapproves the widespread belief that power lies in the hands of a few and thinks
that it is wrong to consider power as something that the institutions possess and use
oppressively against individuals and groups. Thus, he moves away from the common view
which assumes power as the plain oppression of the powerless by the powerful, aiming to
examine the way power relations pervade all relations within the social order. He declares, “I
am not referring to Power with a capital P, dominating and imposing its rationality upon the
totality of the social body. In fact, there are power relations. They are multiple; they have
different forms, they can be in play in family relations, or within an institution, or an
administration” (Foucault, ‘Critical theory/intellectual theory’).The above statement throws
light on Foucault’s disapproval of the Marxist view in which power is seen as acting from top
to bottom. He presents an alternative model in which power relations dissipate through all
relational structures of the society. As per his model of power relations an individual is
viewed as an active subject, not as a passive dupe.
Foucault says, “Power must be analysed as something which circulates, or as something
which only functions in the form of a chain . . . Power is employed and exercised through a
netlike organisation . . . Individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application”
(Foucault, Power/Knowledge). According to him, power should be visualised as a network of
relations encompassing the whole society, rather than a relation between the oppressed and
the oppressor. In addition, he believes that the individuals are not just the objects of power,
but they are the locus where the power and the resistance to it are exerted. So, his notions of
power compel us to revisit not only our preconceived view of power itself but also the role
that individuals play in power relations – whether they are simply subjected to oppression or
whether they actively play a role in the form of their relations with others and with
institutions. In The Political Philosophy of Michel Foucault, Mark G.E. Kelly illustrates
Foucault’s view of power, as presented in Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. In his
view, power involves the following features: “impersonality or subjectlessness”,
“relationality”, “decentredness”, “multidirectionality”, “strategy”.
Next, Foucault presents an equally challenging view of truth just like that of power which
tried to reconceptualise our previously held beliefs. He argues that truth is an event which
takes place in history. It is something that 'happens', and is produced by various techniques.
Shweta Duseja
Roll No. 708
3rd Year
9b Tute
Truth does not exist absolutely, universally, waiting to be discovered rather, it is the context
and the social setting that determines what is “truth” in a certain locale or a particular period
of time. This he calls “regime of truth”. Foucault, in Power/Knowledge, says that in order for
something to be recognised as a fact or truth other equally authenticate statements have to be
rejected. Thus, rather than focusing on the individual thinkers who developed certain ideas or
theories, Foucault focuses on the influences of the social, economic, political and institutional
set-up which validate something as a fact or truth. Thus, he is less concerned with what is
known at any one period but rather in ‘the material conditions of thought’.
Besides, Foucault’s work traces the genealogy of truth. He investigates how is it that we
know something and the processes that lead to the establishment of facts. Here, he links truth
and power. Foucault argues that rather than knowledge being a pure search after ‘truth’, in
fact, power operates in that processing of information which results in something being
labelled as a ‘fact’. The true statements are circulated throughout the society, reproduced in
books; they appear in school curriculum and they are commented on, described and evaluated
by others in books and articles. These statements are then considered to be ‘common-sense
knowledge’ within a society. Those statements which are classified as false are not
reproduced.
He asserts that the rule-governing body determines what will be known, rather than assuming
that individual thinkers develop ideas and knowledge. Foucault’s ideas about the production
of knowledge try to shake our beliefs about the development of knowledge being due to the
devotion of innumerable scholars who have worked unceasingly to improve on past
knowledge; in Foucault’s vision, it is the power structure which leads to the production of
facts and the individual scholars are simply the vehicles or the sites where this knowledge is
produced. That’s how truth/knowledge production depends more on the power structure
rather than the minds of isolated creative geniuses.
To conclude, Foucault establishes the interconnectedness of power and knowledge/truth. He
describes the ways in which knowledge does not simply emerge from scholarly study but is
produced and maintained in circulation in societies through the work of a number of different
institutions and practices. Thus, he moves us away from seeing knowledge as objective and
dispassionate towards a view which sees knowledge always working in the interests of
particular groups.