Foucault as historian (original) (raw)

In this paper I argue that even though Foucault has achieved a paradigmatic status in history, his methodological value has been neglected. I suggest that even though Foucault's "method" poses a number of problems, it is nevertheless useful for conducting more "traditional," archival research. The method, I suggest, has three levels: 1)archaeology, 2)genealogy and 3)strategics. The first level involves the way in which knowledge produces power effects, which come together to form a "system," the second the way in which elements of a system travel between different domains and over time, and the third the way in which interactions take place and networks form within the system. While the first two levels are fairly well developed, I suggest, the lack of a proper actor on last level makes it difficult to explain how and why different power constellations emerge and change historically. Though Foucault's model might be able to show that power is not something that you have but something that is produced by a myriad of different procedures, it does not enable you to explain the relation between "small power" and "big power." I suggest that reinserting "traditional" political actors such as the government and legislature into Foucault's scheme might prove very useful in coming to terms with the relation between "small power" and "big power."

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Foucault on Power and Government

Sociological Problems (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), Special Issue edited by Antoinette Koleva, Kolyo Koev, Michel Foucault: New Problematizations, 2016