55
A shepherd tending his flock is
the analogy Foucault uses to describe
“pastoral” power, whereby people are
guided to act in certain ways and then
allow themselves to be governed.
these views become embedded in
that society, defining what is good
and bad, and what is considered
normal or deviant. Individuals
within that society regulate their
behavior according to these norms,
largely unaware that it is the
discourse that is guiding their
conduct, as it makes opposing
thoughts and actions unthinkable.
Discursive regimes
Discourse is constantly reinforced,
as it is both an instrument and an
effect of power: it controls thoughts
and conduct, which in turn shape
the belief system. And because it
defines what is right and wrong, it
is a “regime of truth,” creating a
body of what is considered
undeniable common knowledge.
Foucault challenged the idea
that “knowledge is power,” saying
that the two are related more
subtly. He coined the term “power–
knowledge” for this relationship,
noting that knowledge creates
power, but is also created by
power. Today, power is exercised
by controlling what forms of
knowledge are acceptable,
presenting them as truths,
and excluding other forms of
knowledge. At the same time,
accepted knowledge, the discourse,
is actually produced in the process
of exercising power.
Unlike the way power had
traditionally been used to compel
and coerce people to behave in a
particular way, this form of power–
knowledge has no immediately
recognizable agent or structure.
And because of its all-pervasive
nature, it would appear to have
nothing specific that can be
resisted. Indeed, Foucault points
out that political resistance, in the
form of revolution, may not lead to
social change, as it challenges only
the power of the state, not the
ubiquitous, everyday way in which
power today is exercised.
However, Foucault argues that
there is a possibility of resistance:
what can be resisted is the
discourse itself, which can be
challenged by other, opposing
discourses. Power that relies on
complicity implies at least some
degree of freedom of those subject
to it. For the discourse to be an
instrument of power, those subject
to it must be involved in a power
relation, and he argues that if there
is a power relation, there is also aFOUNDATIONS OF SOCIOLOGY
possibility of resistance—without
resistance, there is no need for the
exercise of power.The deployment of power
Foucault’s concepts of power–
knowledge and discourse are subtle
and at the time were rejected
by many scholars as speculative
and vague. But his lectures and
writings became enormously
popular, despite the difficult
concepts and his sometimes
convoluted prose style. The ideas of
power described in Discipline and
Punish and The History of Sexuality
gradually gained acceptance
by some in the mainstream of
sociology (if not among historians
and philosophers), and eventually
influenced the analysis of how
discourse is used in society as
an instrument of power in many
different arenas.
The development of modern
feminism, queer theory, and
cultural studies owes much
to Foucault’s explanation of how
norms of behavior are enforced.
Today, opinion is still divided as
to whether his theories are the
somewhat vague conclusions of
poor research and scholarship
or whether he should be considered
one of the 20th century’s most
original and wide-ranging thinkers
in the social sciences. ■Discourse transmits
and produces power;
it reinforces it, but also
undermines and exposes it.
Michel Foucault