SO500 Essay 1 Paula Hakkaja

How does Foucault conceptualise ‘power’? How does this help us to explain social attitudes and
behaviours?

Foucault’s general concept of power is applied through every social, political, economical and personal
aspect of life – with no one line of progress of systemized control. He’s theories about marginalization,
knowledge, institutions, sexuality and discipline all conceptualize he’s ideas of power and in order to
understand the wider concept, one would have to take a close look at these theories. Only through
understanding the maintenance o f the power and resistance of it, one can understand Foucault’s
concept of governmentality. The power distributions and control are used to model societies and limit a
freedom of human nature. Supposedly justice is what forms the norms of our society – through
punishing criminals, ‘right’ for knowledge/education, ‘freedom’ of speech, abolishment of racial, sexual
etc. discrimination and, most of all, democracy. All these aspects of life – one way or another – are
power relations. Unlike most other political and social thinkers, Foucault, instead of analyzing power
relations from ‘inside out’, observes power from ‘above’ and considers it as a whole concept, rather
than a systemized way of governing. When applying one can analyze and reason social attitudes such as
crime, prostitution or even sexual behavior.

‘Power is everywhere not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. And
“Power,” insofar as it is permanent, repetitious, inert, and self-reproducing, is simply the over-all effect
that emerges from all these mobilities… power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a
certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical
situation in a particular society,’ (Foucault, 1976). Individuals are exercising and enduring power
simultaneously, resulting a cycle where these individuals are interacting with branches of power.
‘Individuality’ in his concept is an interaction of physical self and various discourses. As these discourses
are marked for us by the society we are born in, they limit our ‘freedom’ and prove the effect of power.
This results an ‘individual’ being a target for power since birth. Hence, power is not one or more
institutions or individuals dominating others, but more insidious concept locating power outside of one’s
conscious self or intentional decisions.

Foucault created a relativity theory of knowledge and power. Therefore, to gain an insight of his other
social concepts, one must understand how power and knowledge interact with each other. ‘Knowledge’
is a set of principles, opinions and theories imposed on majority as the ‘truth,’ which creates a paradox
where there is no truth as it is constructed by other ‘individuals’. ‘Only creativity is possible in putting
into play of a system of rules; it is not a mixture of order and freedom’ (Foucault, 1971). If the majority
that the ‘truth’ is imposed on, through belief and trust, takes it as granted, then knowledge is born.
Hence, knowledge is a tool of power – through language, punishment and discipline. For instance, basic
punishments of a child create an understanding of that child of where does he belong in the society and
what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. These distinctions are made for us by the society, thus imposing power on us
from a young age. These factors resemble a discourse in a network structure. For this discourse to take
place there has to be a respectful exchange of information amongst parties, which does not disengage
from the discourse (Hamilton, 1996). ‘Power and knowledge directly imply each other that there is no
power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does
not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.’ These power relations are entirely
what our society, as we know it, stands on. ‘Each discovery should not only be situated and dated, but
should also be attributed to someone; it should have an inventor and someone responsible for it.
General or collective phenomena on the other hand, those which by definition can't be "attributed", are
normally devalued: they are still traditionally described through words like "tradition', "mentality",
SO500 Essay 1 Paula Hakkaja

"modes". In brief, this has to do with the principle of the sovereignty of the subject applied to the
history of knowledge,’ (Foucault, 1971). When knowledge is produced, the self production of power,
through this knowledge, is brought into action. On the other hand, throughout history power has
attracted itself towards the ones with knowledge. For example, Western Europe in early 16 th century,
where Protestant Reformation took place resulting power reproducing itself on the basis of religion
(religion itself can be considered as knowledge as it is a set of human created beliefs and ‘truths’
imposed on others). ‘The disturbing trait of a power is that it is able to multiply itself and has far deeper
reach than most people realize,’ (Business Line, 1998).

Apart from knowledge, what is important in power relations is the classification of people into ‘normal’
and ‘abnormal’ – these definitions are there to regulate human behavior. Instead of establishing normal
and according to that abnormal, we define abnormal first. Defining abnormality is what creates an
understanding of ‘normal’. Although society marginalizes and excludes ‘abnormal,’ it is essential part of
the functioning of power distributions in our society. It is only through these ‘abnormalities’ that control
or power can be enforced. One way of distinguishing ‘abnormality’ is through madness - however,
madness is only a broken reasoning (Foucault, 1961). Abnormalities, however, change through time and
space and create ways of control. For example, in 17 th century it madness ‘became thought of as a
subcategory of the unemployed,’ which today we justify as ‘economic’ situation rather than a madness
(Fillingham, 1993). ‘The fact that at a certain time madness became an object for scientific study, and an
object of knowledge in the West, seems to me to be linked to a particular economic and social situation’
(Foucault, 1971) Therefore the abnormality is defined through time differently and it changes itself
through justification for power and control in various social, economic and cultural circumstances. The
punishments and discipline, however, set an ideal behavior that one must obey in order to become
‘normal’ and a ‘free individual’ of the society. The ‘madness,’ which is only an opposite to what is
socially acceptable or ‘normal,’ has to be treated in order to ensure that power is distributed and
enforced equally on every ‘accepted’ member of the society – this, for example, is done through
psychiatric and disciplinary power and birth of clinic. ‘The point is that asylum space has to be imbued
with the psychiatrist’s rule, thereby imprinting upon it a constant relation of power – cool, calm,
efficient power – enacted with the perfection of the military tactician. It is a relation that might involve a
measure of violence, perhaps physical restraint using a strait-waistcoat or applying cold showers and
rotating chairs’ (Philo, 2007). The importance is the repetition of the pattern of judgment and
punishment that follows until it is internalized by the patient. Through the development of the clinic
Foucault developed an essential concept of ‘the gaze’, meaning that doctor’s perception is all that
matters. ‘Over all these endeavours on the part of clinical thought to define its methods and scientific
norms hovers the great myth of a pure Gaze that would be pure language: a speaking eye. It would scan
the entire hospital field, taking in and gathering together each of the singular events that occurred
within it; and as it saw, as it saw ever more and more clearly, it would be turned into speech that states
and teaches…’ (Foucault, 1963). This thought interlinks the marginalization and the knowledge of what is
‘normal’ becomes the ‘truth’ and the knowledge and how one is supposed to behave in a certain way in
society – hence, distinguishes the control and power that is enacted on all of us at once.

The way control takes practice is through Foucault’s invention of science of discipline, which defines its
principles through spatialization (everyone has his place in society, knowing where he belongs to and
what he can achieve), minute control of activity, repetitive exercises (repetition creates sufficiency and
therefore automated reactions to incentives) and normalizing judgments. Foucault divides power into
Judicial and disciplinary power. ‘Judicial power deals with law and order and hands out punishments like
imprisonment, hard labor and even death. Disciplinary power, on the other hand, involves the control of
an individual through time and space, through hierarchical surveillance, normalizing sanctions,
SO500 Essay 1 Paula Hakkaja

examination and the panopticon.’ (Business Line, 1998). Disciplinary power, however, does not only
require punishments but also rewards, where an individual gets rewarded for good behavior, success or
simply obeying the rules of the society.

Panopticon is an architectural model of prison created by Jeremy Bentham in 1843 and is essential to
Foucault’s concept of control, power and ‘the gaze’. This is idea would be an example of disciplinary
power and the principle of organization. The principle of panopticon is as follows: the central tower
which is surrounded by solitary cells forming a semi-circle. This architectural design disables the
prisoners to see each-other, but more importantly, it enables the guard in the tower to look out in all
directions. Hence, the cells are always visible from the tower, but the prisoners cannot see inside the
tower. The prisoners are always aware of the possibility that they can be watched, but don’t know
exactly when. The fear of being watched causes a psychological reaction, where the prisoners internalize
the control and adapt self-discipline. This idea of panopticon as central control is applied to our society
always and everywhere. ‘Prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals which all resemble
prisons,’ (Foucault, 1975). Hierarchical Surveillance is a structure where one is under the observation of
his supervisor, who is under the observation by his superior, creating a pyramid where everyone is being
watched. ‘Normalising Sanctions are intended to correct behavior and minimize non-conformity by way
of penalization. Punishment, ranking, sanctions and demotions are integrated into a cycle of complete
knowledge about the individual,’ (Business Line, 1998).

To apply these factors of power into today’s society and human attitudes and behavior, examples of
educational / non-governmental neutral institutions and violence in society have been brought into the
concept. Education is there to share one’s knowledge with generations below. Firstly, this knowledge
itself becomes a substitute of power acting as a cause and a resistance for it. However this knowledge is
already formed for us – resulting in controlled power over the knowledge and information that reaches
one’s child. When this knowledge is adjusted and taught, it opens up the chain of control, but also limits
our thoughts and ideas outside of this barrier. Hence, education sets up the norms for us in the society
and makes us believe what the government (in modern society) wants us to believe. The groups of
institutions that make us believe in our ‘freedom’ in our society are the neutral institutions that seem to
be outside of the control of the government and therefore practice no control over the society. This, in
Foucault’s concepts is not true. ‘In European society, to consider that power is localised in the hands of
the government and that it is exercised through a certain number of particular institutions, such as the
administration, the police, the army, and the apparatus of the state. One knows that all these
institutions are made to elaborate and to transmit a certain number of decisions, in the name of the
nation or of the state, to have them applied and to punish those who don't obey. But I believe that
political power also exercises itself through the mediation of a certain number of institutions which look
as if they have nothing in common with the political power, and as if they are independent of it, while
they are not. One knows this in relation to the family; and one knows that the university and in a general
way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a
certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class,’ (Foucault,
1971). CCTV cameras would be good way of illustrating Foucault’s idea of these non-governmental tools
of power. CCTV cameras operate as panopticon of our society – most of the times they are switched off
or no one is actually watching them. However, as these CCTV’s are surrounding us everywhere, we are
constantly aware that we might be watched. Therefore these CCTV’s are not there for justice, but to
decrease the violence or any other socially not accepted behavior. However, this is done through self-
discipline, resulting us to believe that this constrained behavior is our own choice, when it really is a
psychological application of power and control. ‘Violence in societies, often grounded in oppressive
circumstances, is caused by imbalances in power relations and wrong conceptions and applications of
SO500 Essay 1 Paula Hakkaja

power,’ (Hamilton, 1996). The ideologies and the knowledge from the past that has been formed for us,
is important in construction of present society – it is important in the ways how different social groups
and individuals are directed into current power relations and how they are interacting with each other.
This concept encourages the reasoning of violence in our society to be attempts to break apart from
current power relations and change the structure of them in the society (not only violence, but also any
braking of laws, bearing in mind that laws are there to conduct the power relations and control). This
resistance, however, is reproducing control itself. ‘What the proletariat will achieve by expelling the
class which is at present in power and by taking over power itself, is precisely the suppression of the
power of class in general. The idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put
to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power or as a
weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions
within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it.’ What
Foucault is trying to put across is that every resistance for power is to create another system of control,
where ‘justice’ is only made for justification for this change in power relations. When this change in
power relations takes place, then the power relations are redistributed, enabling power to self
reproduce itself through different discourses in our society. ‘Power must be understood in the first
instance as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which
constitute their own organization: as the process which, through ceaseless struggle and confrontations,
transforms, strengthens, or even reverses them; as the support which these force relations find in one
another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions which
isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general
design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in
the various social hegemonies,’ (Foucault, 1971).

For example, war is in itself is a fight for distribution of the power and control. However, the idea
develops much further than that. Every human being who is part of the contemporary society is not
willing to accept war as ‘moral’ and all of us think of it as wrong measures for changing power relations.
However, when countries enter war they never accept the notion of attempts to redistribute power, but
they approach it as ‘justice’. Therefore justice is there only to ‘justify’ ones actions when talking about
power resistance or distribution. ‘War is politics pursued by other means,’ (Clausewitz, 1820s). This
famous quote is true by the means of establishing power relations through war. However, Foucault
turns it other way around stating that ‘Politics is war pursued by other means,’ implying that politics,
laws and all other constructive aspects of our society are a power struggle between power relations.
Hence, resisting other power relations, justifies other power relations.

One major point that comes across as a new approach of society and power relations is the diminishing
of the ‘justice’ as a human value. ‘The notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a
claim made by the oppressed class and justification for it,’ (Foucault, 1971). However, not all the
criticism agrees with Foucault on his point. Noam Chomsky, for example, argues that justice is not only a
system of class oppression, but also a collection of human values, such as love, compassion and kindness
which are real and embrace major significance in morals and justice. On the other hand, Foucault
justifies his opinion in a reasonable manner. ‘These notions of human nature; of justice, of the
realization of the essence of the human being, are all notions and concepts which have been found
within one civilization, within our type of knowledge, and that as a result form part of our class system;
and one can’t put forward these notions to describe or justify a fight which should – and shall in
principal overthrow the very fundamentals of our society. This is an extrapolation for which I can’t find
the historical justification,’ (Foucault, 1971). These concepts can be applied for every change of morals
and laws in a particular society. Abolishment for racial discrimination, for example, illustrates well how
SO500 Essay 1 Paula Hakkaja

Foucault’s concept works in reality. The laws against racial discrimination were put in action in 1960’s
after frustration of minorities as an oppressed class. These laws are there to bring ‘justice,’ but actually it
only redistributes the power relations and ‘justice’ is only there to justify the enforcement of the laws.
Racism still exists in our society, because now we live in a society where there is a fear of being racist
rather than not being it because of our moral and just values. However, as these principles and morals
are created for us, it suppresses anyone who does not think the way one is supposed to. Therefore the
power relations are redistributed, as now the oppressed classes are not the minorities, but the rest of
the society, who are made to think in a certain way through power distribution rather than ‘justice’ or
moral values. For example, issues when employing personnel – the minority would get the placement,
as if they did not the employer would be accused of being ‘racist’. The fear of being racist is created
through false notion of ‘justice’ and the idea of being observed by some higher authority, such as
panopticon. ‘It is true that in all social struggles, there is a question of "justice". To put it more precisely,
the fight against class justice, against its injustice, is always part of the social struggle : to dismiss the
judges, to change the tribunals, to amnesty the condemned, to open the prisons, has always been part
of social transformations as soon as they become slightly violent. But if justice is at stake in a struggle,
then it is as an instrument of power; it is not in the hope that finally one day, in this or another society,
people will be rewarded according to their merits, or punished according to their faults. Rather than
thinking of the social struggle in terms of "justice", one has to emphasise justice in terms of the social
struggle,’ (Foucault, 1971).

The major question that Foucault’s philosophies raise is how can freedom and democracy still exist is
out society under such discourses. The connection between power and freedom is what Foucault is very
explicit about. ‘Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar they are ‘free’,’ (Foucault,
1982). This means that control can be exercised over someone who is not involved in any other power
relations yet, but as soon as he becomes part of the cycle he loses his ‘freedom’. Hence, as there is no
‘justice’ or ‘freedom’ there is no democracy. In his debate with Foucault, Noam Chomsky argues that
despite the power relations in our society democracy does exist and is the best way of systemized
society. ‘Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as
other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is
the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society, in which human
beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any
social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that
can be overcome and we must overcome it by a society of freedom and free association, in which the
creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature, will in fact be able to realise itself in whatever
way it will,’ (Chomsky, 1971). Chomsky is right in a sense that in the society as we know it now, it is the
best way of systemizing relations as there is no way of resisting it or escaping from it. One is born into
society and has to be adapted according to it in order to live a quality life. However, that does not justify
the idea that there is no democracy in our existing society, which leads us and makes us understand the
response to Chomsky’s point by Foucault. ‘If one understands by democracy the effective exercise of
power by a population which is neither divided nor hierarchically ordered in classes, it is quite clear that
we are very far from democracy. It is only too clear that we are living under a regime of a dictatorship of
class, of a power of class which imposes itself by violence, even when the instruments of this violence
are institutional and constitutional; and to that degree, there isn't any question of democracy for us.’

In history society became focused on one’s individuality at the same time that it started normalizing
itself – resulting that the individual, individual rights and motivation is what distinguishes power. Power
is everywhere and embraces every aspect of our lives. The vital arguments that help us to understand
human behavior and attitudes is that there is no individual ‘freedom’ or democracy, hence the society as
SO500 Essay 1 Paula Hakkaja

we know is merely an illusion and justification for power relations. However, as the purpose of sociology
confronts us with questions of best systems for the society. What Foucault argues, states that there is
no one particular in charge or in power and therefore it raises the question how to resist it if it does not
exist. The solution to the problem suggests that there are ways to power resistance, but only within the
system of power relations. Hence, creating a paradox where power resistance is possible through
specific discourses, but it cannot resist itself.

Bibliography:

Foucault, M. 1961. Madness and Civilisation.

Foucault, M. 1984. The history of Sexuality.
Foucault, M. 1966. The Order of Things.
Foucault, M. 1975. Discipline and Punish.
Fillingham, A. 1993 Foucault for Beginners. Danbury: Writers and Readers, Inc.
Foucault vs. Noam Chomsky. 1971. Available on < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8>,
accessed on 15/12/2010
Foucault vs. Noam Chomsky 1971 debate. Available on
<http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm>, accessed on 15/12/2010
Hamilton, T. 1996 Peace Research: Power, Power Relations, and Oppression: a perspective for balancing
power relations.
Business Line, 1998. Foucault, Management and Organisation Theory. London: Sage
Elden, S. 2004 Foucault Studies.Available on < http://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-
studies/issue/archive> . Accessed on 15/12/2010.