Michel Foucault

• Who is Michel Foucault
• Structuralism
• Features of Structuralism
• Forms of Structuralism
• Poststructuralism
• Meaning of Poststructuralism
• Methodology of Poststructuralism
• Poststructuralism of Michel Foucault
• Critical Evaluation 

Biographical Sketch 

Michel Foucault, born in 1926 and passing in 1984, was a prominent figure in French intellectual circles, particularly known for his involvement in both structuralist and post-structuralist movements. His impact extended beyond philosophy, shaping various fields within the humanities and social sciences. Here’s a succinct overview of his life and intellectual contributions:

Foucault emerged as a pivotal figure in 20th-century French intellectual circles, traversing both the structuralist and post-structuralist movements. While often labelled as a post-structuralist, he is primarily recognized as a significant contributor to postmodern social theory. His impact on this field has been profound, with his investigations into various societal phenomena reshaping scholarly discourse.

Foucault delved into diverse empirical inquiries, exploring the origins of human sciences, the dynamics of madness within asylums, the evolution of medical practices, and the functioning of crime and punishment systems. Later in his career, he turned his attention to sexuality, particularly its societal regulation and its intersections with identity. Throughout his writings, Foucault’s style is characterized by its elusive nature, inviting multiple interpretations and rendering his analyses intricate. He famously asserted, “Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same,” embodying the fluidity inherent in his intellectual evolution.

Central to Foucault’s contributions is his formulation of the knowledge-power relationship, positing that those who control discourse possess and exert power. This perspective situates him as a key architect of postmodernist thought, continually challenging conventional notions of authority and truth.

Foucault’s interdisciplinary approach spanned history, sociology, psychology, and philosophy, reflecting his commitment to exploring the production of truth across various contexts. By the end of his life, he had ascended to a position of prominence within the French intellectual landscape, leaving behind a legacy of transdisciplinary inquiry and philosophical-historical research.

Life

Michel Foucault, born on October 15, 1926, in Poitiers, France, hailed from a family with a medical background; his father, Paul-Andre Foucault, was a notable surgeon. Despite his family’s medical tradition, Foucault displayed a keen interest in philosophy from an early age, much to his father’s disapproval, who hoped for him to pursue a career in medicine.

In 1945, post-World War II, Foucault relocated to Paris to prepare for the entrance examinations of the prestigious Ecole Normale Supérieure d’Ulm, where he underwent philosophical training under the guidance of renowned figures like Jean Hyppolite. His formal education at Ecole Normale commenced in 1946, where he was influenced by notable intellectuals such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Louis Althusser. Despite academic success, Foucault struggled with depression during his time at Ecole Normale, even attempting suicide. Additionally, under Althusser’s influence, he briefly joined the French Communist Party in 1950, albeit without active involvement, and left in 1952.

In 1951, Foucault earned his aggregation in philosophy from Ecole Normale and began teaching psychology there, nurturing students like Jacques Derrida. Concurrently, he engaged in laboratory research in psychology until 1955. Subsequently, he assumed the directorship of the Maison de France at the University of Uppsala in Sweden before embarking on cultural exchanges in Poland in 1958 and later settling in Hamburg in 1959.

During his time abroad, Foucault penned his seminal work and doctoral thesis, “History of Madness,” published in 1961. He returned to France in 1960 to teach psychology at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, Paris, where he remained until 1966, dedicating himself fully to teaching. It was during this period in Paris that Foucault encountered Daniel Defert, initially as a student and later as a sociologist, with whom he formed a lifelong partnership.

In 1964, Defert began his mandatory military service in Tunisia, where Foucault visited him multiple times. This connection led Foucault to accept a philosophy position at the University of Tunis in 1966, where he stayed until 1968. During this time, he published “The Order of Things,” a significant work that catapulted him to prominence in the French intellectual scene.

Upon his return to France in 1968, Foucault played a key role in establishing and leading the philosophy department at the experimental University of Vincennes in Paris, a response to the student unrest of 1968. He recruited mostly Marxist thinkers, some of whom became influential philosophers themselves. In 1970, Foucault was elected to a prestigious chair at the Collège de France, where his sole responsibility was delivering annual lectures based on his research.

Throughout the early 1970s, Foucault became politically active, particularly concerning the prison system. He founded the Prisons Information Group to support political prisoners and became a leading voice for prisoners’ rights. After the political landscape shifted in the late 1970s, he transitioned to journalism, covering the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79. He also began teaching more frequently in the United States, where he found an eager audience.

Foucault’s health deteriorated rapidly after he contracted HIV in 1984, leading to his death on June 25 of that year. Despite his illness, he managed to edit two volumes on Ancient Sexuality from his sickbed before passing away, leaving a fourth volume unfinished. In his will, he left his estate to Defert, with the stipulation that there would be no posthumous publications. Foucault’s death marked an early loss in the AIDS epidemic, occurring in Paris on June 25, 1984.

Structuralism

In the realms of sociology, anthropology, and linguistics, structuralism emerges as a broad theory and methodology asserting that components of human culture gain meaning through their interconnectedness within a larger framework. It delves into unraveling the foundational frameworks shaping human actions, thoughts, perceptions, and emotions, treating all human expressions as linguistic in nature, including abstract concepts.

Though the exact boundaries of structuralism are elusive, certain overarching themes can be discerned to elucidate its essence. Spivak conceptualizes structuralism as a systemic arrangement where constituent parts interrelate, aiming also to discern the universal principles governing such arrangements.

Originating primarily in Europe during the early 20th century, notably in France and the Russian Empire, structuralism found its roots in the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure and subsequent schools in Prague, Moscow, and Copenhagen.

Initially heralded as the successor to existentialism, a philosophical inquiry focusing on human existence and individual experience, structuralism faced challenges with the rise of thinkers like Noam Chomsky in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Despite the waning influence of structural linguistics during this period, Saussure’s concepts found resonance among scholars across various disciplines within the humanities. Among these scholars, French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss stands as a notable early proponent of structuralist thought.

Since its inception, the structuralist approach has found applications across various disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, literary criticism, economics, and architecture. Notable figures associated with structuralism besides Lévi-Strauss include linguist Roman Jakobson and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.

However, by the late 1960s, structuralism faced critiques from a new generation of primarily French intellectuals and philosophers, such as historian Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, and literary critic Roland Barthes. While their work shares connections with structuralism and is influenced by it, these thinkers are often categorized as post-structuralists.

Features of Structuralism

1. Structuralism seeks to dissect the world through the lens of conceptual production, positing a coherent pattern within it.

2. Central to its framework is the notion of the “death of the subject,” wherein individuals are considered products of societal construction rather than autonomous agents.

3. Historicism and empiricism are rejected by structuralism in favour of a focus on underlying structures and logical frameworks.

4. Saussure is credited as the progenitor of structuralism, particularly through his distinction between language and speech, emphasizing the social nature of language’s development.

5. Within linguistic analysis, signs play a fundamental role, with their meaning derived from their relational context to other signs, comprising both material (signifier) and conceptual (signified) aspects.

6. Building upon linguistic principles, figures like Barthes and Levi-Strauss extended structuralist methods to broader semiotic domains.

7. In essence, structuralism serves as a methodology aimed at uncovering the fundamental structures or logic behind overarching meanings, aspiring to achieve a comprehensive understanding akin to Parsons’ grand theory.

8. However, it’s noteworthy that post-structuralism later emerged, challenging the universalistic assertions of structuralism.

Forms of Structuralism

Out of many forms of structuralism, following are major four forms of structuralism:

1. Linguistics Structuralism
2. Anthropological Structuralism
3. Structural Marxism
4. Post-structuralism

1. Linguistics Structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, is credited with pioneering modern structural linguistics, laying the groundwork for what would later be known as structuralism. Despite his significant contributions, it wasn’t until three years after his death that his ideas gained widespread recognition. In 1966, some of his former students compiled their class notes into a book titled “Course in General Linguistics.”

Saussure challenged the traditional notion of language as a system of symbols directly representing reality. He argued that words derive their meaning not from referencing reality but from their relationships with other words. This perspective laid the foundation for structuralism in linguistics, emphasizing the importance of the relationships between linguistic elements in understanding meaning.

In essence, language serves as a medium for expressing ideas, emotions, and needs, with its various elements contributing to communication through their interconnectedness. Saussure proposed that the underlying structure of language consists of signs, where elements signify meanings based on their relationships with each other.

For instance, cultural practices like wearing glass bangles or a bindi signify marital status in Hindu tradition. These signs convey meaning within a specific cultural context, illustrating how signs operate within a structural framework.

In summary, linguistics structuralism involves identifying the underlying structures and logic of general meanings within language. This approach often assumes that the structures of language mirror the structures of the world, positing a correspondence between mental concepts and the external reality they represent.

2. Anthropological Structuralism: Structuralism encompasses not only a defined discipline within the social sciences but also serves as both an approach and a theory. It offers a perspective that can be applied to analyse texts or elements of reality. When applied to anthropological matters, this approach is termed anthropological structuralism.

Claude Levi-Strauss is credited as the pioneering French anthropologist who employed structuralism to examine kinship systems and myths among primitive societies. He posited that the exchange of spouses could be understood akin to the exchange of words, viewing both as forms of social exchange studied through the lens of social anthropology.

In addition to Levi-Strauss, structuralism was embraced as a perspective by figures such as Louis Althusser, a Marxist, and Jacques Lacan, a psychoanalyst. Edith Kurzweil (1980) has argued, upon analysing the works of anthropological structuralists, that fundamentally, all social reality is the product of interactions among unconscious mental structures.

3. Structural Marxism: Louis Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas, and Maurice Godlier are pivotal figures in the development of structural Marxism. They argue that it was not Saussure who originated linguistic structuralism, but rather Karl Marx who employed structuralism as a methodological tool for examining social reality. Godlier posited that delving into the internal dynamics of a structure should precede and shed light on its origins and evolution—a notion emphasizing the necessity of analysing the inner workings of systems before exploring their genesis.

While Levi-Strauss directs attention to the structure of the mind, structural Marxists focus on the underlying societal structure. However, Ritzer observes that both structuralists and Marxists dismiss empiricist definitions of social structure.

Throughout its analysis, structural Marxism consistently emphasizes social and economic structures, remaining faithful to Marx’s theories of production forces and relations. This emphasis has been crucial in establishing its unique identity.

While Althusser rejects Marx’s economic determinism, he underscores the significance of the superstructure. He introduces the concept of causality, asserting that within every society, various structures—political, economic, ideological, religious, literary, and more—interact and influence each other, with some exerting greater influence than others. Althusser delineates two types of superstructure:

1. Repressive State Apparatus (RSA): The Republic of South Africa (RSA) comprises law enforcement agencies, judicial bodies, and military forces tasked with governing and regulating the populace. Its primary objective is to uphold societal harmony, primarily through coercion when necessary.

2. Ideological State Apparatus (ISA): The government ensures that the majority willingly supports the current power dynamics through various institutions of social control.

The economic and societal structures are causally linked to these two primary types of superstructures.

Post-Structuralism

Post-structuralism finds its roots in the framework laid by Ferdinand Saussure’s structuralism, which posits that language constructs its own realities. According to structuralism, a word’s meaning isn’t inherent within the word itself but rather exists in its relationship with other words. Essentially, meaning resides in the interplay among words rather than in their correspondence to objects.

However, Lamert (1990) attributes the emergence of post-structuralism to a pivotal 1966 speech by Jacques Derrida, signalling a departure from much of the philosophical underpinnings of postmodern theory. This narrative risks oversimplifying post-structuralism as a monolithic school of thought or academic discipline.

In addition to the prominent forms of structuralism, there exist numerous branches, with French intellectuals continuing to play leading roles: Claude Levi-Strauss (anthropology), Louis Althusser (social theory and philosophy), Ronald Barthes (literary criticism and cultural studies), Christian Metz (film criticism), Jacques Lacan (psychoanalysis), Michel Foucault (the history of ideas), and Jacques Derrida (philosophy).

The latter two figures, Foucault and Derrida, are emblematic of postmodernism, reshaping structuralist ideas into post-structuralist frameworks. While structurally, structuralism resides within modern sociological theory, its post-modern iteration forms a segment of post-modern social theory.

Post-structuralism emerged in France during the 1960s, marking a significant shift in philosophical discourse. While poststructuralist thinkers like Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Jacques Derrida share distinctions from their structuralist predecessors, they do so through nuanced themes and trends. These thinkers offered correctives to structuralism’s limitations and reflected the zeitgeist of their era, influenced by Nietzschean, Freudian, and Marxian ideas.

Of note is how poststructuralist thinkers reasserted the importance of philosophical inquiry, a departure from the structuralists who had steered away from it. Positioned in the aftermath of structuralism, their work highlights four key themes:

1. A renewed focus on historical thinking.
2. Revisiting the concept of the subject.
3. Emphasizing the role of difference.
4. Engaging in philosophical discourse on ethics once more.

Structuralism, also recognized as postmodern social theory, emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and gained prominence in France. It became influential across various disciplines such as philosophy, linguistics, literary criticism, and anthropology, among others. Its impact was significant, yet defining it definitively proves challenging due to its broad influence and interpretations.

Although embraced in France, structuralism faced skepticism in countries like Great Britain, America, and Germany, where it was deemed vague and laden with jargon. Michel Foucault, the progenitor of poststructuralism, further developed this theory through historical studies, challenging traditional historical writing methods. His work transcends mere historical analysis, positioning him as a philosopher-historian whose contributions extend into broader discussions of post-structuralism and philosophy.

Meaning of Post-Structuralism

Post-structuralism emerges as a significant aspect of the widespread fascination with language that has permeated much of intellectual discourse, particularly evident in the trajectory of thought throughout the 20th century, encompassing what is now termed postmodernism. This intellectual framework diverges from structuralism, as championed by figures like Ferdinand Saussure, Roland Barthes, Claude Levi-Strauss, and Louis Althusser, among others, while building upon its foundations.

• Structuralism primarily delves into the origins of meaning:
• Does meaning originate solely from the text?
• Is it influenced by the context in which the text is experienced?
• Does the reader possess the autonomy to construct their own interpretations?

To what extent can an author shape the interpretation of their text? Is meaning generated through the interplay of these elements? These inquiries are commonly posed by proponents of structuralism.

Here are the rephrased ideas:

• Post-structuralism elucidates that language remains self-contained and cannot reference external realities.
• It emphasizes that meaning is generated through language.
• Individual identity isn’t directly conveyed through language.
• Similar to contemporary movements, intellectual trends, including post-structuralism, often fade swiftly. Notably, proponents like Foucault and Derrida were pivotal in its inception and subsequent deconstruction of its own principles.

Methodology of Structuralism

Structuralism operates within a specific methodological framework, beginning with foundational metaphysical principles. These principles can be categorized into three distinct types, as outlined below:

1. The World is a Product of Ideas: The premise that everything visible in the world – be it a house, a garden, a family, or a state – is essentially a product of ideas finds its origins in Kantian philosophy and structuralism. This perspective seeks to uncover the fundamental structure or rationale behind abstract concepts. Moreover, it contends that our perceptions, shaped by these ideas, construct the reality we perceive. For instance, when Levi-Strauss asserts his discovery of the underlying structure of kinship systems in tribal societies, he essentially claims to have unearthed the fundamental framework of their kinship terminology and the conceptual apparatus through which these societies communicate. This implies that the principles elucidated by Levi-Strauss possess a certain validity in suggesting that individuals with divergent conceptual frameworks inhabit distinct realities.

2. The world as a logical pattern: The second assumption of structuralism revolves around its focus on the underlying logical order or structure of general meaning. Structuralists often posit that this ‘structure’ aligns with the ‘structures’ observed in the world, positing that since the mind is part of the world, its ideas mirror the world’s structure. However, this assumption is a wager against intuition, given the apparent illogical nature of the real world, leaving structuralism vulnerable to a ‘logical trap.’ Any theory deemed not entirely logical is considered incorrect, yet as no theory is entirely logical, it leads to an endless cycle.

Structuralists elucidate structuralism primarily through logical frameworks. Despite the ever-fluctuating and evolving social reality, there exists an underlying logic. Despite its various manifestations, structuralism endeavours to uncover the consistent logical order amidst change, constituting the second assumption underlying structuralist thought.

3. The Death of the Subject: “The demise of the individual agent” encapsulates the central tenet of structuralism. The term ‘subject’ denotes an entity capable of agency, action, and personhood. Structuralism challenges the prevailing belief that individuals are the sole authors of their thoughts and behaviors. While conventional wisdom holds that individuals conceive thoughts, make choices, and enact decisions, structuralists refute this notion. They contend that individuals are not mere marionettes controlled by their ideas; rather, their actions are shaped by the underlying structural framework of ideas and the inherent logic within them. In essence, human behavior is dictated by the underlying structure rather than by conscious choice or decision-making.

Post-Structuralism of Michel Foucault

Post-structuralism delves into the notion of overdetermination, even when it’s not overtly stated in written discourse. Overdetermination, as an epistemological concept, suggests the seamless integration of discourse and its subjects. It posits that theory and reality are intertwined, with each shaping the other. Our understanding of concepts is intricately moulded by the continuous flow of reality in which we exist.

This perspective acknowledges discourse’s ability to influence both perceptions and concrete realities. Discourse, or theory, can either fabricate perceptions of entities like race (e.g., white race) or obscure genuine social dynamics, such as class relations in feudal societies.

In essence, within any given theoretical framework, our comprehension of the world is limited, and some of this comprehension may be based on inaccuracies embedded within the discourses we’ve been exposed to. As an ontological stance, overdetermination suggests that existence is a product of mutually constitutive processes.

Foucault’s theory delves into the micro-level dynamics of society, focusing on what he terms “force relations.” These force relations are pivotal in understanding the interplay between power and knowledge, serving as mechanisms of social control within institutional frameworks. Lynch, in elucidating Foucault’s concept, describes force relations as the subtle pressures or compulsions inherent in social interactions. Foucault contends that these force relations stem from disparities, inequities, or imbalances present in various relational contexts, such as economic or sexual dynamics.

However, Foucault diverges from conventional notions of power as a possession held by individuals or groups. Instead, he posits power as a complex network of forces ubiquitous in society. These power relations, he argues, are not only pervasive but also purposeful, often driven by goals or objectives. Furthermore, Foucault distinguishes between two forms of power:

1. Tactics: Strategies wield influence on an individual level, such as the manner in which someone opts to convey themselves via their attire.

2. Strategies: Conversely, strategies wield significant influence at the macro-level, often aligning with prevailing trends or circumstances.

Furthermore, strategies comprise a blend of tactics. Foucault asserts that power is simultaneously non-subjective. This presents a paradox, as Lynch notes, wherein there must be an agent exerting power, yet simultaneously, there can be no identifiable agent exercising this power. Foucault argues that power dynamics are perpetually in flux, perpetually entwined with other dynamics that may either diminish, fortify, or alter each other. He expounds that power inherently encompasses resistance, indicating a perpetual potential for shifts in power dynamics. According to Foucault, the primary types of power are as follows:

1. Sovereign Power: Sovereign power is often likened to a hierarchical structure resembling a pyramid, where authority resides with one individual or a select group at the apex, while the populace occupies the base. Within this framework, intermediaries exist to enforce the sovereign’s mandates. Historically, absolute monarchy serves as a quintessential example of sovereign power, wherein crimes were perceived as affronts to the ruler and their authority. Punishments were frequently carried out in public spectacles, serving dual purposes: to instill fear of transgression among the populace and to reaffirm the sovereign’s dominion. However, this approach proved costly, ineffectual, and often garnered sympathy for the wrongdoer. In contemporary society, disciplinary measures are emphasized, aimed at reforming offenders into law-abiding members of society.

2. Disciplinary Power: This concept of power, as articulated by Foucault, revolves around the utilization of individuals—referred to as ‘bodies’—to maximize their skills. As these bodies become more efficient, they also tend to become more compliant. The objective extends beyond mere exploitation of their abilities; it encompasses the prevention of these abilities from being employed in resistance against authority. Foucault posits that disciplinary power operates on and through individuals, treating them as both subjects and objects. In his analysis, he suggests that disciplinary power not only shapes the individual but also serves as a method for cultivating self-discipline, thereby reducing the need for constant external coercion.

Contrary to being solely oppressive, Foucault views disciplinary power as productive, working to reconfigure patterns of behaviour, desires, and interests rather than suppressing them outright. This process occurs within various institutional settings such as factories, schools, hospitals, and prisons.

Disciplinary power molds individuals by instilling new routines, habits, and proficiencies, meticulously regulating even the minutest details of movement, timing, and velocity. It orchestrates the spatial and temporal organization of bodies to optimize efficiency, employing mechanisms like rules, surveillance, examinations, and monitoring. These activities are all orchestrated towards predefined societal or institutional objectives. Furthermore, disciplinary power encourages the amalgamation of bodies, aiming to achieve a collective productivity greater than the sum of individual efforts.

Foucault attributes the success of disciplinary power to its adoption of three key technologies:

            1. Hierarchical Observation

            2. Normalizing Judgement

            3. Examinations

1. Hierarchical Observation: Through hierarchical scrutiny, the bodies remain consistently exposed to authority. This observation operates hierarchically, as it involves not just one observer but rather a layered structure of observers. For instance, in 19th-century mental asylums, various individuals, including psychiatrists, nurses, and auxiliary staff, contributed to this observational hierarchy.

2. Normalizing Judgement: Based on these observations and scholarly discussions, a standard is formulated and applied to assess the entities under observation. In order for disciplinary authority to persist, this assessment must become standardized. Foucault outlines various attributes of this assessment: 

• Any form of incorrect behavior, no matter how minor, incurs consequences.
• Repeated breaches of rules are subject to escalated penalties.
• Tasks serve as a method to rectify behavior and administer consequences.
• Rewards are employed alongside penalties to delineate between commendable and unacceptable conduct or individuals.
• Ranks, grades, etc., function as both a form of reward and punishment.

3. Examinations: Examinations integrate hierarchical scrutiny with assessment. They transform and personalize the subjects under observation by generating detailed records for each. Thus, exams aim to acquire additional data on individuals, monitor their progress, and benchmark their outcomes against the standard.

Foucault suggests that the blueprint of disciplinary power is encapsulated in philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s architectural design for the ideal prison. This prison model comprises a circular structure where each cell accommodates a solitary inmate. Within each cell, two windows are positioned:

The first opening invites natural light into the space, while the second one is positioned towards the center of the circular structure, allowing a guard to monitor the prisoners discreetly. This design creates a situation where the prisoners can never be certain if they are under observation, leading them to internalize the disciplinary influence and govern their actions as if they were under constant surveillance by the guard or the system.

Foucault says this construction:

1. An environment designed to foster individuality is achieved by isolating inmates within individual cells.
2. As prisoners are uncertain whether they are under observation at any given time, they internalize a sense of constant surveillance, leading them to self-regulate their behavior.
3. This surveillance enables detailed documentation of each prisoner’s actions. Foucault notes that the panopticon model has been adopted by various disciplinary institutions, including 19th-century mental asylums.

Critical Evaluation

Based on the preceding explanation, it can be asserted that Michel Foucault’s post-structuralism emerges from a sequence of historical inquiries, distinguishing him more as a philosopher-historian than solely a sociologist. He effectively advances the concept of post-structuralism. However, like many other sociologists, his theory is not immune to critique. Here are several objections raised against his theory by diverse theorists and sociologists:

1. Derrida viewed deconstruction as a vital instrument for dismantling the presumed close connection between power and knowledge, as well as for identifying sources of instability that challenge the coherence of conceptual dichotomies in broader terms. Additionally, he advocated for the utility of deconstruction as a means of scrutinizing power dynamics.

2. Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss posit that a comparison can be made between the power dynamics within the framework of the ‘sovereign domestic/anarchic international’ binary in global politics and the inherent challenges faced by the international sphere when assessed through the lens of a ‘sovereign’ domestic order that is inherently perceived as superior. They suggest an alternative interpretation of world politics that transcends the conventional boundaries of domestic and international spheres. According to this perspective, redefining the understanding of power and its distribution would result in significant transformations in both location and nature of power dynamics.

3. Edkins and Zehfuss illustrate through the context of 9/11 and the subsequent ‘War on Terror’ that while the US government portrayed the nation as less secure post-attacks, it actually marked a resurgence of a security narrative not seen since the Cold War’s end. This was evidenced by the reemergence of a clearly defined adversary (“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”). They contend that the US government leveraged this narrative to its benefit, justifying increased domestic securitization measures and military interventions overseas.

4. David Campbell elucidates the viewpoint of numerous post-structuralists, who argue that the sovereign state fundamentally relies on narratives of threat. They suggest that the ruling elites within a sovereign state consolidate their authority by perpetuating the dichotomy of inside versus outside. Contrary to the conventional notion of states as inherently existing entities, post-structuralists contend that they are continually constructed through performance. This perspective diverges from Foucault’s conception of virtue within post-structural critique.

5. Jennifer Sterling-Folker suggests that post-structuralists aim to critique sovereignty to reveal how the existing framework of global politics perpetuates oppression and social injustices, which are often accepted as unavoidable consequences of power dynamics. Unlike Foucault, who highlights the ambiguity of power and its impact on truth discourses, the clarity of the effects of power is unclear. Given the recent unforeseen political shifts, this open-minded approach, particularly regarding Foucault’s post-structuralist perspective, is perhaps more essential now than ever before.

References and Readings:

The Order of Things, by Michel Foucault, https://amzn.to/4iHWnKG 

Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, by Michel Foucault, https://amzn.to/4iHWANY

Madness and Civilization, by  Michel Foucault, https://amzn.to/3QZXPwi