Power and Knowledge Essay

Poststructuralism as nonpargonil of the contemporaneous governmental philosophy crap its popularity because of its radical assumptions that veered away from the traditional structuralist meaning. The check of the renaissance scholars to adjudge everything including nature with the used of experience relegateicularly scientific fellowship did non gain frequently fame in this late century. Structuralism although it offers such(prenominal) in looking how institutions served as set out of a mixer system of rules head for the hills to recall that auberge could control the mortal with the aid of science. However, the ideas of Jean Lyotard, Michel Foucault and Jean-Luc Nancy proved otherwise.The imagine of grand theorists to integrate intimacy and nominate a unified social system is the very idea that most contemporary theorists avoid. Prior to the cultivation of poststructuralism, discussion on might and knowledge is always a feature serven within the structu res and not aboutthing that emanates from the individual, this structure-agency pendulum continues to transfix theorists. Structural functionalists believed that social structures such as religion, culture, and government have strong involve over the individual particularly in their socialization process.Talcott Parsons (1951) for display case, look society as the social system divided by subsystems that have specific functions. Each part of society functions and creates mutual interdependence indeed maintaining the dynamism of whole social system(Parsons 1951). The present- solar day(a) governmental philosophy opens a mess of venues in analyzing society with proposing meta narratives. Much of the themes of contemporary thinkers would be on the consequences of ultra new-fangledity, globalization among others. Topics on strength and knowledge atomic number 18 retri scarceory two of the basic issues that philosophers continuously be gaining interest.It go aways a picture on how the development of knowledge modify causality dealings in contemporary society. contemporary political philosophy as it is advanced by the writings of three philosophers menti geniusd in the preceding paragraph, look at ply and knowledge in a diverse light. Before, the scholars would think that the development of knowledge is in a continuum and that antecedent is exerted by institutions to the individual as if post has a center or a fixed point. In Contemporary political philosophy angiotensin-converting enzyme and exclusively(a) whoremaster view that the source of male monarch comes from dissimilar agencies,and the struggling character of power is in every word.Power is not to a greater extentover evident on political apparatus, on the religious order or on the intellectual confederation notwithstanding power is confabulaten on all arrays of everyday existence. Our day to day social semblances atomic number 18 power dealing. wiz(a) of the contemporar y thinkers who would practice much time in discussing power is Foucault. Some thinkers considered him as a poststrcuturalist or a post mod thinker, because of the fluidity of his ideas. Moreover, thither atomic number 18 critics who accused him of relativism because of his system favors, intersubjectivity, the logical method, discourse among others.Foucault (2002) did not suggests a rally power or a real one that one derriere see for instance in an authoritarian society, quite in looking at society, one could see pockets of power or a decentralized one coming from confused discourses. On the other hand, in his theory of knowledge one can see its deviation from Descartes Cogito. Reason as the be principle of the enlightenment period, did not flee the gaze of Foucault. In his Madness and elegance (1965) he examined that with history, derangement became an intent that would serve as the opposite of reason.With the exposition on madness as non-rational or irrational, i t justifies the power of reason during the enlightenment period. whole through its binary opposition which is madness can reason hold its power. The control of the patient with the development of psychiatry in Madness and Civilization (1965) also served as a critique that looks at how modern society manifests the said(prenominal) features as that one can find in the work of psychiatry. There argon various mean by which society controls the individual. Foucault discussed that in the modern era, exercising power need not necessarily be brute and obvious.One example is his idea of penalisation as a result of deviating from the norm. Foucault in cogitation an Punish (1977), discussed in what way torment as a grade of punishment in the 18th century was modify by discipline. With the birth of the prison, instead of attack the physical body the institution enlighten discipline as a form of punishment. This feature of the prison, and even the birth of the clinic shows how slowly m odern society is becoming more authoritarian and all of these atomic number 18 thinkable because of the divers(prenominal) knowledge that people believe as true and moral during their times.Foucault in his Archeology of Knowledge (2002) look at historical development not in a continuum because he did not believed in a unified discourse as proposed by grand narratives such as that of the Parsonian theory. What one can see through history ar various realities, are what he called discontinuities. Much of his theory of power and knowledge could also be seen in the record of Sexuality (1990) wherein he is not interested in intimateity per se, but in looking at the cardinal struggle within the discourse of sexuality. epoch in the earlier periods, society gag ones sexuality, this class of discourse even propagates it. The more that society for instance repressed homosexuality, the more that people have interested in exploring the topic. In the History of Sexuality (1990)), he see s the reciprocal sexual intercourse of power and knowledge. One example is the different meanings that society give on sexual similaritys such as relations out of marriage and the one allowed by the community. These definitions creates divisions in society, thus exercising power over the individual through social norms.By propagating a certain kind of knowledge, this could lead to a power relation between groups. The one who is in control of knowledge result thitherfore effect power to the other group. However, it must(prenominal) be clear that the reciprocal relation of power and knowledge is not fixed rather it transform through every discourse. obscure from Foucault, Jean Lyotard also contributes to the debate on the relationship of power and knowledge. In his book, the postmodern Condition (1979) Lyotard mentioned that the transformation of society into industrialize and complex system leads into the redefinition of the nature of knowledge.In Modern societies, the power of the capitalists to open the trade leads to the disbelief that, what kind of knowledge is bankable or is legitimate provided that there are a lot of choices. Lyotard(1979) sees the complexities in modern times because when one looks at it, it is in no longer a question of simple legitimacy of knowledge but a question of who has the power to fall what is acceptable or legitimate. In addressing the uncertainties of knowledge, Lyotard suggests that one should employ the value of treating the same dustup game.How can people speak the same language provided that there are various ways of learning things? Lyotard believes that one must contextualize, and in this part he adopts Wittgensteins language game. By contextualizing, the person should be aware of the rules before making significant actions. Lyotard believes that to be able to analyze knowledge in contemporary society, one must consider what kind of society it is situated. The split between Parsonian theory and that of M arxism will unimpeachably help in looking at the problem of knowledge. Initially one will decide whether to maintain the status quo or radically change it.Because of the ability of language to bind society through communication, Lyotard favors this exemplar in addressing the issue of knowledge in the postmodern era. Greatly influenced by Heidegger on the other hand, Jean -Luc Nancy (1991) believed that we are impel into the world accordingly we should not imprecate on God for our existence. Contemporary society according to him is becoming more higgledy-piggledy in the sense that the harmonious relation in traditional society is modify into a complex society where there are a lot of uncertainties. Uncertainties are brought by the unintended consequences of modernity.With the advent of globalization, the disagreeable and neatly tied community is transformed into a complex one. While rough thinkers consider the development of society into industrialized one as beneficial, sti ll there are paradoxes to this rationality. Nancy in his concept of community critique the grand project of some societies to create a well-planned system such in the case of the socialist resign where it only leads to violence. Much of the discussions of contemporary political philosophy dwells on how you can identify the discourse on power as a consequence of the accumulation of knowledge.The fortuitous consequences of mans search for knowledge and the transformation of knowledge into its many forms leads to different power relations. These power relations are seen on every realm of life, on every discourse in society. It is life-and-death to note that in the analysis of power, power lies to those who have control over knowledge, and in this age of information technology where there is an easy access to all forms of knowledge, it is only logical to think that power is distributed therefore decentralized.While the contemporary era provide a lot of alternatives,undeniably there are consequences that not even scientific knowledge can calculate. Yet the quest for barely knowledge continues because beneath those ideas there you can always find power. Various forms of power operates on every realm of life. These are the fascinations of philosophers of the twentieth century.