Foucault’s perspective is both anti-Marxist and anti-dialectical. In Foucault’s view society does not really have a proper historical progression; rather, society goes through repetitions of the same. Foucault’s primary unit of analysis is discourse – understood as “a system of possibility for knowledge” (Philp:69). His method is to ask what rules allow certain statements to be made and “what rules allow us to identify certain individuals as authors” (Philp:68-69). He is interested in the ways that statements which are considered either true or false impact society.
Key to understanding Foucault is the notion of power. While many other theorists understand power to be something that can be acquired and exercised, Foucault suggests that power runs throughout society. Power describes “relationships in which one agent is able to get another to do what he or she would not have done otherwise” and “operates to constrain or otherwise direct action in areas where there are a number of possible courses of action open to the agents in question” (Philp:74). Because power is an inherent feature in social relations it is always potentially unstable and potentially reversible (Skinner:75). Foucault suggests that “we are subjected to the production of truth through power, and we cannot exercise power except through production of truth” (cited in Philp:75).
For Foucault, power operates relationally through institutions, normalizing procedures, and disciplining practices. Collectively, we become subjects of the power of institutions and power produces the meaning of things. It is through definitions and meanings that modern science disciplines and creates docile bodies that have internalized discipline such that punishment is no longer needed.
Though Foucault is focused on understanding power, he also suggests that there are possibilities for resistance. He suggests that resistance is internal to power and is generated by conflicts between discourses that have produced us as subjects. He suggests that resistance is always localized and operates through the will to not be governed. Because power/knowledge operates on the body, people are produced as subjects. Therefore, Foucault suggests that the body might be a place where resistance can be found. Foucault also suggests that individuals’ ‘agonism,’ or thirst for struggle, ensures they will struggle. Additionally, Foucault understands state power as being “built up from innumerable individual exercises of power which are consolidated and co-ordinated by the institutions, practice and knowledge claims” (Philp:76)
Because Foucault focuses on discourse and power relations it appears that he has a difficult time explaining the decisions that individuals make. This is compounded by the fact that knowledge/power and truth claims impact whole swaths of people in similar ways. However, this impact and the people that it impacts vary with time. Foucault is only able to analyze individual decision in such a way that historical context is ignored. Unlike Raymond Williams and his ability to contextualize decision making, Foucault is focused on discourse, definitions, and power/knowledge such that he is often unable to see some of the real life circumstances that impact decision making. Thus, I believe that Foucault is better able to explain issues of power, society and discourse than individual decision making processes.
The MSR - Media Studies Repository 