I was still thinking about the part of our Tuesday discussion when we were grappling with the question of whether power creates knowledge or knowledge creates power. I think it depends on what type of knowledge you are talking about. When I claim that knowledge is a prerequisite to power, I am talking about instrumental knowledge along the lines of "I know how to mobilize x y and z resources to achieve some goal, and I know what arguments to use to make people go along with it."
Foucault, I think, was talking about something else, that might not be considered 'knowledge' in a strict sense. He was talking more about what is commonly accepted to be the truth, not what actually is the truth (most people think that a belief must be true in order for me to 'know' it...but that's a weird philosophical distinction that I don't think matters very much. After all, it is the perception of truth we act on--we can never know the absolute objective truth of most things. Even if you can't 'know' a false belief, you'll think you know it). This is seen in the examples he gives where the methods of criminal investigation, trail and punishment create the perceived truth of guilt by means that are probably not very fair to the accused. Necessary truths are interesting here (the definition of the terms involved guarantee truth; not logically possible to be false), because we see them as fairly immutable. But I think Foucault might argue, and I would agree, that it is conceivable in extreme cases for power to create those types of 'knowledge' as well...anyone who has read 1984 by George Orwell should remember that 2+2=5.
I agree that it's both with each scenario containing a different definition of knowledge. Knowledge of how the world and people work will create power and power will create knowledge by defining certain things and having the inherent credibility through that power for people to believe them.
ReplyDeleteWhen Foucault is talking about knowledge, I think it is an entirely different definition than what we are traditionally used to. I consider his conception of knowledge to be something that is very susceptible to the forces of power and institutions. For example, I think that institutions are able to define what is permissible and what is not and in itself that is a very strong power that they have. For Foucault, it is those in power who are able to control what inmates and prisoners need to learn and therefore, they dictate what is essential knowledge for human beings. I think this power and control spills over into many other realms, including the family, where what is taught becomes the foundation for all other learning in society. Overall, I think Foucault considers power to have the ability to determine what knowledge is. In the end, if you have the power to control how people see the world, then essentially you determine how we come to know the world, which is knowledge.
ReplyDelete