Foucault’s Paradigm
I can’t remember the first time I heard the expression “knowledge is power,” but I have recently discovered that the French philosopher Michel Foucault, who wrote mostly in the ‘60s and ‘70s, is credited with a key concept now trending: “Truth = Power.” This seems to me almost banal. Everybody in my circle always followed that basic mantra – it’s what motivated us into careers in higher education, advertising, engineering, scientific research, law. Now as retired boomers, we have lived our entire adult lives under the proposition that acquisition of more knowledge was the path to greater effectiveness in life (power?) – also its corollary: the pursuit of knowledge is never complete. Yet it seems Foucault has only come into vogue in recent years, despite his work being more than a half-century old (he died in 1984, an early victim of AIDS). Where did all of us get our first taste of his “power-knowledge” paradigm? Surely earlier than that, and certainly without ever having read him.
The relationship of power to justice, and ethics in general, goes back at least to Plato. In the Republic, state power is explored along with definitions of justice – and penalties for unethical actions in the Ethics. The debate has continued throughout the centuries. Apparently, Foucault’s contribution has been mostly to update the plethora of social contract thinking, dating back at least to Hobbes, to include a fundamental vision of reality itself, i.e. “truth.” Not only does knowledge bequeath social power but now is identical to reality. We’ve developed a quantum view of the universe and applied it to social science and psychology. Truth lies only in the eye of the beholder.
It is certainly possible to go from such a proposition to an uncomfortable place regarding things like social justice. If political power is what we’re talking about, the state can very well “create” its own reality. It can manufacture truth. Likewise, economic power can do the same – witness the world of advertising (or social media algorithms). Lately, there has been much talk about the fusion of economic power and state power – Elon Musk in the White House was emblematic of a new “techno-feudalism” where private economic power effectively owned certain social functions previously reserved for the state, which has been intentionally weakened to allow greater freedom for the economically powerful oligarchy to exploit.
We’re now at the point of seeing a truly ugly side of power. Power is no longer something which can be exerted on a population only through its consent, but accrues, via money, from the economic domination of our lives. This amounts to coercion and popular acquiescence. It is not the same thing as the idea of “the good” originating with Plato, or of “freedom” in the eyes of America’s founders (and Enlightenment thinkers like Kant). It is more akin to Nietzsche’s “Übermensch,” or perhaps Machiavelli. If power can define truth, then that noble pursuit of knowledge, to which my youthful cohort was so dedicated, becomes something else – the naked pursuit of power! Is this what the quantum universe has wrought — when applied to social interaction?
Foucault was probably a deeply troubled person – his exploration of “madness” through history is symptomatic of his obsessions. He also had serious questions about sexuality. But, nevertheless, he did write at a time when knowledge itself was undergoing some wrenching advances. Knowledge was becoming entangled with the mathematical concept of “information.” This would become the epistemology for the 21st century. But my own pursuit of knowledge – based on now quaint 20th century sensibilities – has not yet abated. Although I am NOT a “professional philosopher” by any means, I can surely concede that knowledge does not merely lead to truth, but is the primary artifact of power, which equals truth. Christianity traditionally talks of “revealed truth” – something that was there all the time and must be discovered. The ultimate power in Christianity lies with God. However, the filtering of that power down to social institutions, and political mechanisms, has changed over the centuries (and millennia?). Foucault claims that the Revealed Truth is constantly evolving, not just because we are discovering it, but the truth itself is being created continuously as power dynamics shift. So, his theory of power-knowledge is not necessarily dour. Instead, it can be taken as a manifesto – those power relations matter! And they can change.
In the Western World, we have been through multiple dominant expressions of this epistemic dilemma. From the unchanging rule by the forces of nature (either polytheist or monotheist), to the decisive role of human beings in making reality, to the moral urgency of saving each other and our planet, to the complexity of a quantum (or probabilistic) reality, our civilization has always depended on a “unified field theory” of some sort. In the end, I can buy into any number of such theories — presuming they depend on what I can do, what I can think, how I can feel. I reject only those theories that take away my power over those actions, thoughts, and feelings. Foucault’s “Truth = Power” aphorism does not. Hence, it is acceptable to me. It still leaves room for making choices, even if it tends to prioritize acquisition of power over more inclusive ethical constructs. Nietzsche was apparently an influence on Foucault.
The bottom line: Foucault’s “power-knowledge” sends us right back to the “knowledge is power” trope of my youth. The identity of truth and power works in both directions – truth is created by power, but power itself is malleable, and truth does still create power. Ideologies come and go, being susceptible to changing power dynamics – intellectual as well as political. Keep watching, do not to get left behind! I can’t help but wonder, though: Isn’t there still another layer beneath this paradigm? Beyond our current understanding?
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 