Micro-Powers and Foucault

Instead of analyzing cultures as totalities, Foucault views different cultures as discontinuities, eras that follow one another, but do not cause each other. This is his notion of the episteme, or ‘the underlying set of rules governing the production of discourses in any single period, may be seen as an attempt to reconcile change with the notion of a cultural totality.’ Taking into account Foucault’s analysis of discourse, power, and knowledge, it justifies Foucault’s denunciation of revolutionary or utopian attempts of change. He saw it necessary to create a break in the pre-conceived notions of power, which were much influenced by the ideas of Marx and Sartre, particularly in France.

Foucault did not view power as something that could be possessed, or as something seized by a ‘class’ as aforementioned. For Foucault, power took place between individuals and between groups and individuals. As Sheridan further elaborates, ‘There are many forms of power as there are types of relationships. Every group and every individual exercises power and is subjected to it.’ Therefore, Foucault rejected the idea that power can only be associated with the state and the coercive apparatuses of the state. To be taken into consideration are indeed the agencies of the state, but along with all other micro-powers existent in all types of relationships such as ones in families, schools, factories, ect.

Reference:

Michel F. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Book.