pline. For Foucault, such disciplinary techniques
demonstrate the intimate linkage of knowledge to
power. Foucault later referred to government tech-
niques that seek to harness and control the bodies of
citizens, even through health care and welfare sys-
tems, as forms of “bio-power.”
Foucault also argued that the post-MODERNcritique
of political LEGITIMACYis not merely a simple skepti-
cism about ENLIGHTENMENTideals, but a recognition
that reason and power are not inherently distinct. A
significant facet of POST-MODERNISMis its criticism of
the controversial assumption of modernity that legiti-
mate AUTHORITYis necessarily opposed to domination
and repression. Yet Foucault was careful to note that
this does not mean that there is no distinction between
authority and domination. Instead, what must be real-
ized is that there are distinct and heterogeneous
modalities of exercising power that are characteristic
of authority as well as of freedom and domination.
Consequently, authority cannot be regarded either as a
form of action opposed to power or as an institution
that merely wields power, but as a mechanism of polit-
ical management that is composed by the fluid exer-
cise of power throughout society. For Foucault, there
is no justification for authority that completely tran-
scends power and no guarantee that the exercise of
authority will be constrained by the demands of a uni-
versal rationality.
The general thrust of Foucault’s analysis of social
and political institutions, then, was not the elimina-
tion of authority—that would presume the elimination
of power—rather, it was the recognition that authority
is constituted through the historically shifting and
contextual uses of power, such that its legitimacy does
not transparently derive from either NATURAL RIGHTSor
rational consent.
Further Reading
Dreyfus, H., and Rabinow, P. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structural-
ism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1983.
Fourier, Charles (1772–1837) French social
theorist
Born and educated in Besançon, Fourier developed his
social theory while working for much of his life as a
minor business employee. His first major work,
Théorie des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales
(The Social Destiny of Man; or Theory of the Four Move-
ments), was published in 1808. Fourier argued that the
social world and the physical universe were created by
a benevolent deity and ordered according to a divine
plan, although the plan had not been carried out prac-
tically in the social realm. According to Fourier, the
social world and natural universe would evolve
through eight ascending stages. Within the social evo-
lutionary process, happiness, unity, and harmony
would replace misery, division, and civilization. Social
transformation must be driven by the complete release
of the 13 passions implanted in human beings, yet
repressed in civilization. These passions include the
five senses; the “social” passions of friendship, love,
ambition, and family feeling; the “distributive” pas-
sions for intrigue, diversification, and combination of
pleasures; and the supreme passion of harmony, which
synthesizes all of the lower passions.
Fourier advocated reconstruction of society based
on the release of the passions and the attainment of
harmony. Known as Fourierism, Fourier’s doctrine of
social change recommended the division of society
into phalanges,or phalanxes. As conceived by Fourier,
the phalangewas to be a small cooperative community
of fewer than 2,000 people. Each phalangewas to be
independent and self-subsistent and organized in such
a way that the different interests, capabilities, and
tastes of each member could be freely expressed and
productively combined. Fourier was critical of the
extreme inequality of wealth that resulted from the
competitive nature of CAPITALISM and believed that
small, cooperative communities would distribute
wealth more equitably. Indeed, Fourier suggested that
phalangeswould be highly successful economic sys-
tems insofar as each member of the community would
contribute his or her unique talent to the means of
production and would receive compensation based on
the productivity of the phalangeas a whole. Phalanges
would therefore be less wasteful than large capitalist
economies and provide each member with incentive
for contributing to the success of the entire commu-
nity.
Fourier maintained that phalangeswould both per-
fect humanity’s social passion and provide for the pur-
suit and satisfaction of individual desires. The
communal character of the phalange would inspire
respect for the diversity of individual interests and pas-
sions and would also prevent social oppression and the
“civilized” demand for bland conformity. Ultimately,
Fourier believed, numerous phalanges would form110 Fourier, Charles