Dea Closson, Entry. 2 (Foucault)

            In his lectures titled “Society Must be Defended”, specifically the second and third, at the College de France, Michael Foucault leads an investigation into power relations. He spends a good deal of time explaining how power relations have been analyzed and how he thinks power relations should be analyzed. In the two chapters assigned for our reading this week that main question he is asking aims to determine whether or not war can be used as a valid analysis of power relations.  He begins by discussing the relationship between power, right, and truth.

            This discussion of power, right, and truth is in his second chapter.  He aims here to answer the question of what right does power implement to produce truths. He states that in traditional western theory the right is the right of the monarchy or sovereignty.  He rejects this notion of right being centered on the king or sovereignty and subjugation but instead suggests it should be centered on domination and subjugation. Foucault says we should abandon the theory of sovereignty to study power, but instead we should study the tactics and techniques of domination.  This theory of domination and subjugation creates a new mechanism of power: discipline, and this mechanism is incompatible with the theory sovereignty. But, Foucault says that the theory of dominance and discipline has been co-existing with the theory of sovereignty since the late 17^th century, whether or not this cohabitation is sustainable he does not believe. But it is through both of these theories that society is structured around; sovereignty explains the power of rights, and discipline, the norms.

            In the third chapter Foucault spends his time proving that the theory of dominance is the more correct way to discuss power mechanisms. He does this by explaining dominance as a relationship of force, or war. The main thought is based of Clausewitz’s theory that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” but instead of war being the continuation of politics it is the inverse, that politics is the continuation of war by other means.  Essentially Foucault says that war is the underlying power mechanism to society, and that even in times of “peace” war is still present in the social underbelly. This is further defined by saying that society is run by a binary structure; it is ‘me against my enemy’ and there is no room for the mediator or philosopher who resides in the center of conflict. This idea of binary structures allows truth to function as a weapon and therefore allows for the most truthful structure of society. Foucault finishes the third chapter by saying that this underpinning war that society functions with is essentially a war of race: between races and inter-race.

            For me, this reading was essentially logical.  The theories Foucault presented, while incredibly complex, seemed to make sense to me (that is contingent on my reading correctly or not). But due to the fact that these arguments are incredibly complicated I cannot determine whether or not I actually believe his arguments to be logical in a broader sense, or if I just found them to be logical in the context of his examples. It seems to me that the general concept of war being the underlying power mechanism for society could very easily be correct, especially if war was defined in a very broad sense. I could see war, if defined as conflict between parties, being quite defining.  Take for example entrance to University; when you apply to university you are essentially at war with every other person who applies to gain admission. It seems to me that this could be an example of Foucault’s theory in a very specific sense.