In this paper, I will be critically examining Michel Foucault’s beliefs of the conception of power and the subject. The book in which he discusses this, “The Subject and Power”, was written in 1982. In this book, Foucault discusses the difference and relationship between subject and power, the types of struggles against power, how power is exercised and relationship of power and free subjects, and the different ways of resisting power.
Foucault defines power as “a mode of action upon the actions of others.” He defines a subject as being a “subject to someone else by control and dependence” and “being tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge.” He sees subjects as a product of social relations. Foucault says that it has not been his objective to study the definition of power, but instead to define the historical roles that humans have held as subjects. Foucault describes three forms of subjects: speaking (a subject who has the ability of linguistics), productive (a subject who labors) and the sheer fact of being alive. He elaborates on this by saying that subjects are either divided inside or divided by others. An example of the division given by Foucault is, healthy or sick. Foucault details that while a large part of the book is based on the effects of power, the human subject is the general theme of his research. Power can be used to objectify the subject. There is an opposition against power. In my own thoughts, I believe that Foucault's definition of power is accurate and timeless. It’s a definition that can be applied to the different types of power we see in society today. With his definition of subjects being products of social relations, I agree. I believe there is also influence of this by someone’s needs and personality. There are many people who wish to be led. They would rather someone tell them how to act, rather than they themselves make their own choices. I believe that the characteristics of natural born leaders are interesting when it comes to the musings of Foucault and his ideas on the differences between subjects and power. I wonder how he would consider this quality, one that I have seen many individuals have. It’s a quality that many use for good, but one that has also historically been used for evil, the most prevalent example of which comes to my mind is Hitler. An alternative of this would be Nelson Mandela. I believe that Foucault would agree that the difference between a successful and loved leader and a praised and feared dictator is an extremely interesting display of power and the different ways that power is used.
Foucault gives three different types of struggles against power: against forms of domination (social, religious, and ethnic), against forms of exploitation which separate individuals from what they produce, and that which ties the individual to himself and submits him to others in this way (struggles against subjection and submission). Foucault believes that examples of these three types of struggles can be found frequently throughout history. He gives his opinion that he believes that in his current time, there is a large struggle against subjection. Foucault views the political system as a power; a power that is both individualizing and totalizing. He further defines the political power as: pastoral power, a power that has come from and old power technique originating from the Christian church. I believe that Foucault’s depiction of the struggles against power are detailed and appropriate. I myself tried to think of other struggles of power that may have more relevance in today’s society. I believe that struggle against politics would deserve its own type of struggle against power in today’s society. This would be a struggle against both the political system and figures.
In “The Subject and Power”, Foucault describes how he believes power is exercised. He elaborates on his definition of power as “not simply a relationship between partners” but as “a way in which certain actions modify others.” Power can only exists when put into action but it is also not a function of consent. Foucault does continue to describe power by saying that it can be consented or force upon someone. These two forms of power change the amount of freedom that the individual has. The most negative way this can be done is through violence. In my opinion, I do not believe that Foucault sees power as a completely negative idea. I believe that he sees power as a needed part of society. I also think that he may agree in saying the power is a natural thing that forms between humans, as many would rather be led than have others follow them. This would be in the example of a political leader who listen to the individual opinions of their citizens and voters. On the contrary, I do not believe that he sees forced power over someone without free will as a positive thing. This would be in the example of slavery. There is a fine line between leading and conducting someone, a difference that Foucault points out himself. Foucault does describe in detail how freedom comes in play with power. If an individual is a free subject and has the ability to make a choice from a range of options, there is a relationship of power. When it comes to relationships between a slave and their master, there is not relationship of power because one of the individuals is in chains. In this relationship, there is no face-to-face confrontation of power and freedom.
Michel Foucault’s “The Subject and Power” defines his views on a wide variety of points on the relationship between power and subjects. I found his descriptions and comparisons between subjects and power extremely thoughtful and encompassing. I believe that his beliefs are still relevant to today’s society and will continue to be so. Foucault made me reconsider how I saw power and how it society and most importantly, how it affects individuals.