Foucault’s definition of power opposed how the Marxist and Liberal theories defined it. They limited it just to the Bourgeoisie which is wrong according to Foucault who considers it as a cross-levels relation. In addition, he relates the existence of resistance to the existence of power, so wherever there is power, there is resistance. Moreover, when we talk about Foucault and power, we should mention the Power/Knowledge theory by Foucault which defines a correlation between and knowledge since knowledge is a form of power: Knowledge linked to power, not only assumes the authority of 'the truth' but has the power to make itself true. All knowledge, once applied in the real world, has effects, and in that sense at least, 'becomes true.'
(as cited in Fitzsimons, A. (2011): 7) Foucault recognises the fact that when two or more people are engaged in some kind of activity power conflicts and struggles are unavoidable. However this means that socially excludes groups or marginalised individuals are also involved in the exercise of power. Rather than viewing power with discomfort, or as a negative concept terms of control, he sees the fact that everyone has a certain amount of power, meaning that power cannot simply be located with particular groups in society. His concept of power gives new air to the possibility of enabling in a productive dialogue on power that could be used to explore empowerment in customs that can be progressive and liberating.
It is not about who the leader is in actuality, but how he is portrayed to those subject to charismatic authority, that is the determinant for the authenticity of charisma. In light of this, the development of personality cult signifies an attempt to breed the ideology that a leader possesses supernormal or extraordinary qualities that are not possessed by any other in society to support the legitimacy of his rule. The use of mass media to propagate not only a false depiction of the leader as an individual, but also of his many accomplishments and uncommon failures, are presented to the naïve
Foucault deciphers this change not as a refining of discipline, as is ordinarily thought, yet as a more right economy of energy. The significance of the change is the improvement and execution of another innovation, which he named disciplinary power. Foucault trusted that Power is the thing that makes us what we are. 'His work denotes a radical takeoff from past methods of considering power and can 't be effectively coordinated with past thoughts, as power is diffuse instead of concentrated, typified and sanctioned as opposed to had, desultory as opposed to simply coercive, and constitutes specialists as opposed to being conveyed by them’
Most people assume that automation does not alter or change the work of a job or the worker, but Carr implies that this is a substitution myth in which he disagrees to this myth. Carr states “Automation remakes both work and worker”, meaning that automation does alter humans regarding their work and themselves – their behaviors, roles, attitudes, and skills (67). Furthering his debate, Carr suggest with the substitution myth of automation consciously affects humans to do their job. He introduces that automation victimize a person creating a sense of automation complacency and bias. Automation complacency is defined by Carr as a “false sense of security” provided by automation – allowing automation to drift human attention away (67).
Althusser states that there are no practices “except by and in an ideology”. Practices of particular powerful social institutions reproduce ideology in an ever-changing dynamic process. Individuals, who are born as “subjects” into the realm of some form of ideology, are inevitably called to participate in practices of particular dominant institutional ideologies. Althusser describes this process systematically, as a circular relationship. Through a “conceptual device or dispositif,” an individual believes himself a subject endowed with a consciousness in which he freely forms or freely recognizes ideas in which he believes.
It argues that the lack of an authority higher than nation-states, causes states to act only in competitive and selfish ways, and that material power determines relations between states. John Mearsheimer supports this by saying, “States are potentially dangerous to each other. Although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous”(Mearsheimer, 70). Instead of keeping identities and interests in mind when determining relations between states, realists assert that anarchy will cause states to act solely in their best interest. Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure.
Studying Michel Foucault’s analysis of power relations one can notice that the French philosopher argues about a shift in the way power functions. Power is not visible anymore, since we have no kings or princes to behead. This makes power even more dangerous than it was before, as you cannot actually see it and consequently you believe that there is nothing to resist to. Foucault introduces the notion of panopticism, a theory that speaks about the unseen eye of power that regulates our behaviour. This means that we end up doing, thinking and behaving in a certain way because we believe someone is watching us.
Authority comes with a number of qualities: ‘assurance, superior judgment, the ability to impose discipline, the capacity to inspire fear.’ And most important of all, power portrays the image of strength; it ‘is the will of one person prevailing over the will of the other’ (Sennett,
However, if the magnitude of those flaws is less than the magnitude of the advantages provided by societies, then the arguments against societies fail. A major issue with societies is the potential for the abuse of power by those leading the society. Rousseau addresses the abuse of power, what he calls the “right of the strongest,” and claims that “ruling a society is different from subduing a multitude.” He asserts that when the goal of the public good becomes subservient to the goal of the leader, the society is, in effect, dissolved. Rather than a people and its ruler, the society has become a master and his or her slaves (The Social Contract, 6).
Power. A word as described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as possession of control, authority, or influence over others. Yet in the world, often times the other side of power is overshadowed by those reaching to attain it. When in fact, those suffering under the hold of not having power could be arguably greater than those who suffer to reach it. In the classic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the case of Justine Moritz is a strong argument of one side of power.