Chapter 2.5: Michel Foucault, power 

I learned more from a 9 minute video than a 3 hour class. Thanks Jesus!

Thank you Victor. Curently going over Foucault in law school. You explain this philosophy so much better than our textbook and our lecturer combined. Great delivery.

Thank you for the lecture, so much easier to undertand than the uni lecture I have attended. It makes me think about what's happening now with the pandemic. Back in March 2020, the normalizing power was in place and people were compliant with the lockdown and caring so much about themselves and others. However, with the goverments mix messages, and as a result loss of trust, created a need for repressive power with the scaremongering and discussions about mandating medical treatments (i.e. vaccination).

I have listened to many talks but you explains simply. Thanks

I share this video every time in class pretty much every semester.

Thank you sir!! I was looking for a video to help me explain Foucault, and until now, have only found misinformation about Foucault’s theories. Not only was this not the case with your video, you also explained it in the most useful, clear and concise terms that very few professors could.

This is amazing. You made Foucault easier to understand. Thank you.

This has really helped me in my Critical Understanding of Power within Communities as part of my 2nd year BACD undergraduate course at UofG. Thank you 😊

God bless your soul. This is so easy to understand. It’s 3 AM and I’m able to clearly understand despite being tired

I never thought understanding Foucault is so easy. Thanks for the 9-minute video.

I have learnt so much for my political sociology exam. Thanks a lot guys :)

Wait this man didn't only teach me Kant but now also Foucault?! What a Hero

Excellent explanation and delivery!

the lecture is amazing and inspiring so much! thanks a lot!

So: * Orwell's "1984" = repressive power, * Huxley's "Brave New World" = normalizing power.

Wow... muito bom. Top das galáxias. Agora vai!

Normalized power is balanced power. Makes people freer and more productive knowing that threats are minimal ,and acting on their own behalf benefits everyone is society.

I hardly like philosophy videos but I just had to like yours... I came here because i have exams today on this complex topic but you made it look too easy and interesting... I'm almost forgetting that I'm studying this for exam, its too interesting 😂😂😂...

Thank you. great explanations. clear and well spoken. well done.

This lecture is methodologically super organised, I really liked the end of the video where I can breathe to have a moral vigor to have a relative free will as its extrapolated by Immanuel Kant‘ s definition enlightenment

The best explanation ever! Thank's man.

Love, gratitude and regards from India 🇮🇳❤️

Excellent.

Humanity is on its way back to Eden. A 'theocracy' is coming, with each human governing himself through insight and wisdom in harmony with natural law.

Today i got mad cuz my mom was backseat driving again, but then i realized "why should i act up? I'm the one driving the car. I'm the one with the power. I can't act like someone who's about to lose it." Now i'm wondering if this video, which i saw months ago, played a role in that.

Thank you very much for this series. It is really helpful.

*semoga gak salah translate* Dalam perkuliahan kali ini, kita akan melihat pemikiran Foucault tentang kuasa (power) serta bagaimana Foucault menemukan kaitan antara kuasa dan ilmu pengetahuan (power and science). Kita juga akan melihat bagaimana Foucault memberikan kepada kita perspektif baru tentang kuasa (power). Perspektif itu menuntun kita untuk menemukan kuasa (power) di tempat-tempat yang tidak pernah kita kira sebelumnya. Termasuk di universitas dan di pengetahuan ilmiah (scientific knowledge). Untuk memahami cara berpikir Foucault, kita terlebih dahulu membedakan dua jenis kuasa (power), kuasa represif (repressive power) dan kuasa normalisasi (normalizing power). Berpikir tentang kuasa represi termasuk cara berpikir tradisional. Berbeda dengan cara berpikir tradisional, Foucault melihat bahwa kuasa dalam banyak hal--bahkan yang paling penting--dalam masyarakat modern saat ini tidak represif sama sekali. Kuasa dalam masyarakat modern bekerja lewat cara yang lebih halus dan dengan cara yang kurang terlihat. Kuasa inilah yang diterjemahkan oleh Foucault sebagai kuasa normalisasi (normalizing power). Mari kita mulai dengan kuasa represif (repressive power). Ketika kita berpikir tentang seseorang yang menggunakan kuasa, imej yang muncul di benak kita adalah seperti ini: hakim memerintahkan terpidana dijebloskan ke penjara selama 20 tahun; suatu negara menggunakan kekuatan militer yang unggul untuk menaklukkan negara lain; bos yang marah memerintahkan pegawainya untuk mengerjakan tugas sesuai dengan yang ia titahkan kalau tidak ingin dipecat, dan masih banyak lagi. Ketika kita membayangkan kuasa (power), yang cenderung muncul ialah kekerasan baik itu secara fisik maupun mental baik itu nyata atau sekadar ancaman. Inilah ide tentang kuasa yang represif. Anda ingin melakukan satu hal, tetapi orang lain menggunakan kuasanya untuk memaksa Anda melakukan yang ia mau. Kuasa represif tidak dapat dibantah lagi memang sangat efektif. Tetapi ada juga anggapan bahwa kasus-kasus tersebut di atas muncul karena adanya kegagalan. Negara memenjarakan pelaku kriminal karena ada hukum yang dilanggar; negara yang lebih besar menginvasi negara lain yang lebih kecil jika gagal membuat negara lain yang lebih kecil tersebut melakukan yang diinginkan; dan bos yang mengancam seorang pegawai sejatinya tidak benar-benar memegang kontrol. Bos yang benar-benar memegang kontrol tidak perlu sampai mengancam anak buahnya. Kuasa represif (repressive power)--yang tidak sudah diragukan lagi sebagai wujud kuasa yang paling nyata--sebenarnya tergolong dalam tingkat kedua. Jika Anda benar-benar berkuasa penuh (powerfull), Anda tidak perlu sampai menggunakan kuasa. Hidup kita dibentuk berdasarkan kuasa represif (repressive power) atau di bawah ancaman kuasa represif hanya terjadi dalam peristiwa tertentu. Sebagai contoh: mencuri. Hanya sedikit dari kita yang dipenjara karena mencuri. Dan sekali lagi, bukan itu masalahnya di mana sebagian dari kita tidak ingin mencuri karena takut dipenjara atau takut akan bayang-bayang penjara. Kita tidak mencuri di supermarket hanya karena rasa takut bakal tepergok polisi. Tidak, kita bahkan tidak berpikir untuk mencuri. Jika kita menemukan dompet yang jatuh dan di dalamnya ada uang 100 euro, kita akan mengembalikan kepada si pemilik secara utuh berikut seluruh uang di dalamnya. Kita adalah tipe orang yang seperti itu. Dan itulah ide Foucault tentang asal mula kuasa normalisasi (normalizing power). Kuasa represif memaksa kita melakukan yang tidak ingin kita lakukan, di sisi lain kuasa normalisasi membuat kita melakukan apa seharusnya kita lakukan. Kuasa normalisasi membuat kita menjadi orang yang secara otomatis atas kehendak sendiri melakukan apa yang masyarakat inginkan. Jika orang tua kita, sekolah, dan sebagainya, sukses mengajarkan kita untuk tidak mencuri, itu artinya kita telah masuk dalam golongan orang-orang yang baru saja dideskripsikan. Orang yang tidak bisa membayangkan dirinya mencuri apa pun. Jika mereka sukses menanamkan pentingnya pendidikan dan gelar, itu artinya Anda sekarang menjadi mahasiswa yang termotivasi belajar dengan baik di kampus dan meraih gelar dalam empat tahun. Dan tentu saja, ketika Anda menjadi mahasiswa, masyarakat mengizinkan Anda melakukan hal-hal bodoh seperti terlalu banyak minum-minuman berakohol, menghisap ganja, gagal dalam mata kuliah. Masyarakat bisa memaklumi hal itu. Karena masyarakat menyadari ketika Anda telah selesai berkuliah, Anda tidak sekadar siap tetapi juga bersemangat untuk bergabung dalam angkatan kerja. Buat diri Anda bermanfaat, bayar pajak, tidak melanggar hukum, atau dalam kata lain Anda menjadi anggota masyarakat yang normal. Normal, itu kata kuncinya di sini. Kuasa normalisasi adalah kuasa/kekuatan yang menentukan apa yang kita lihat sebagai normal. Kuasa normalisasi mengkonstruk cara pandang kita terhadap dunia dan diri kita sendiri. Kuasa normalisasi membentuk apa yang kita percayai, apa yang kita inginkan, dan apa yang menjadi keputusan kita. Di saat yang bersamaan, kuasa normalisasi memberikan kepada kita ide bahwa hal-hal itu merupakan keyakinan kita sendiri, hasrat kita sendiri, dan keputusan kita sendiri. Tidak ada satupun yang memaksakan hal-hal tersebut (keyakinan, hasrat, dan keputusan) kepada kita. Dan kondisi tersebut memang benar. Sekalipun hidup kita telah dibentuk oleh kuasa normalisasi dari masyarakat, itu tetaplah hidup kita. Foucault skeptis dengan begitu ekstremnya terhadap konsep bahwa ada "Anda yang sesungguhnya" yang bersembunyi di bawah lutut terhadap apa yang telah dibuat masyarakat. Tanpa masyarakat, Anda tidak akan menjadi seorang pribadi sama sekali. Kita semua selalu dan akan ternormalisasikan dalam cara-cara yang lebih luas. Saya katakan sebelumnya bahwa kuasa represif masuk dalam jajaran kuasa tingkat kedua. Jika Anda menggunakan ancaman atau kekuatan untuk membuat orang melakukan apa yang Anda inginkan, Anda telah menyelesaikan persoalan yang secara ideal sebenarnya tidak beralasan. Idealnya orang melakukan apa yang Anda inginkan tanpa ancaman. Mereka melakukan apa yang Anda inginkan hanya karena itulah yang menurut mereka hal yang seharusnya mereka lakukan. Ini, tentu saja, merupakan pencapaian kuasa normalisasi. Kuasa normalisasi merupakan kuasa tingkat pertama. Kuasa yang memastikan Anda dan saya tidak harus dipenjara karena bagaimanapun juga kita tidak akan mencuri. Kuasa yang membuat kita melakukan apa yang bos kita inginkan karena kita percaya dengan adanya hierarki dan hasrat untuk mencapai hierarki yang lebih tinggi tersebut serta menjadi bos di masa depan. Lebih jauh Foucault mengatakan, ketika kuasa represif bekerja dalam institusi dan individu yang lebih spesifik seperti kekuatan polisi, tentara, bos, hakim, politisi, kuasa normalisasi ada di mana-mana. Keluarga adalah sumber kuasa normalisasi. Begitu juga dengan sekolah, universitas, rumah sakit, klinik psikiater, bahkan iklan televisi yang memberitahu saya agar saya seharusnya mencium aroma kesturi dan jahe. Jika kita ingin memahami bagaimana kuasa beroperasi, itulah institusi-institusi yang harus kita analisis dan pahami. Kerja Foucault dalam banyak hal didedikasikan untuk menguraikan bagaimana kuasa beroperasi. Dua hal menyertai cara pandang Foucault. Pertama, kuasa tidak dimiliki oleh beberapa individu atas banyak orang, tetapi setiap orang tunduk pada kekuasaan. Masyarakat memberikan ide kepada karyawan bagaimana seharusnya bersikap serta kepada bos bagaimana bos seharusnya bertindak. Sang bos mungkin lebih memiliki kuasa represif, tapi kedua belah pihak sama-sama tunduk pada kuasa normalisasi. Itu juga berlaku kepada semua orang. Bahwa tidak ada seorang pun yang terbebas dari kuasa normalisasi. Kedua, pengetahuan ilmiah (scientific knowledge) tidak bisa dilepaskan dari kuasa. Di satu sisi, institusi yang menghasilkan dan menyebarkan pengetahuan ilmiah pada saat bersamaan menjadi sumber kuasa normalisasi. Pendidikan universitas mengubah mahasiswa menjadi pribadi yang berpikir dan bertindak dalam cara tertentu. Dan pada saat Anda bekerja sebagai ilmuwan, Anda akan memiliki cara berpikir yang sangat mendalam sampai Anda tidak akan pernah menyingkirkannya lagi. Tapi mungkin yang lebih penting lagi, pengetahuan ilmiah itu sendiri menjadi standar normalisasi yang begitu ekstrem. Berdasarkan ilmu pengetahuan, dokter menentukan apakah saya sehat atau sakit. Dan itulah yang normal berdasarkan masyarakat. Berdasarkan ilmu pengetahuan, psikiater menentukan saya sehat atau memiliki gejala penyakit mental. Berdasarkan ilmu pengetahuan, ekonom menentukan pada umur berapa saya berhenti bekerja. Berdaarkan ilmu pengetahuan, sejarawan menentukan apa yang saya pikirkan terhadap asal usul masyarakat saya. Pengetahuan tidak bisa dipisahkan dari kuasa. Sebuah tempat yang begitu eksterm memiliki peran penting dalam struktur sosial di sekitar kita dan struktur sosial tersebut secara berkesinambungan mengerahkan kuasa normalisasi terhadap kita. Lalu apa gunanya kita mengetahui itu semua? Kembali, Foucault tidak percaya bahwa Anda bisa secara radikal membongkar hal-hal yang masyarakat telah terapkan kepada Anda. Karena dengan begitu, tidak akan ada lagi yang tersisa. Tetapi Foucault percaya bahwa dengan mengetahui itu bahwa kita tunduk terhadap kuasa, kita bisa sedikit otonom. Dan jika tetap tidak mengetahui tentang hal ini, ironisnya percaya diri kita bebas seperti burung.

From minute 2 I started thinking about how ridiculous my uni, tuter, and lecturer are. You said eveything in 10mins, they complicated things in 3 hours

Thank you

Thanks for your explainations, it helps me a lot. But i want to ask which Foucault's book discusses about normalizing and repressive power. Thanks

Isn't is idea of power the same as Gramsci and his concept of coercion?

In other sense, we may say that the suppressive power is like coercive power and normalising power Ian like non coercive power.

thank you helped while writing my thesis

Sounds like the concept of Will To Power by Nietzsche

In which book he says that?

Did Foucault believe in the blank slate?

The part about science is not true, it refers to his own negative experience with psychiatry and can not be applied to physiology or biochemistry. Scientific findings, like all other forms of information, may be abused by the people who have access to them or may be used to enhance life. Science in its pure form is not subjective and can not be demonised directly, only indirectly through human interference.

Foucault and postmodernism is to philosophy what Mr. Barnaby's magical elixir is to medicine.

Well, that was depressing! Or should I say... REPRESSING?? I'm not as free as a bird, yay!!!!!!!!!!! I'm gonna go cry now.

Normalising Power is then akin to Allthuser's Ideology and how it works is similar to gramsci's cultural hegemony concept???

If power is inescapable, then I consider it to be useless to talk about it as something that influences you, and not as something that you have and use. It's a matter of perspective. One can say, fishes are free when swimming in the sea, or we can say fishes think they are free when they swim in the sea, but due to the fact that the sea is limited, fishes are actually prisoners of the sea, and cannot live out of it. Now, if we say, fishes are part of the sea, and they are fee, when they are fulfilling they functional role, then the concept of power turns senseless. Power then, is a matter of perspective, but not of conditions themselves.

excellent

Thanku jesus

Isn't it a little ironic that Michel Foucault looks like Blofeld in the first picture?

Thank you!!!!

Great jobb it helped a lot ;)

smoking pot is not stupid that just comes from the society's perspective.

Do you happen to use a teleprompter

In which book can i find this ?

Foucault's vision of relating knowledge to power (of any kind) seems self-defeating. Is Foucault saying that we can _never_ just have a genuinely good reason for some belief, irrespective of whatever power lies behind it? If so, why should we accept Foucault himself as giving us anything that can be justified? If what we believe is determined by where we are in a power game, then why is Foucault any exception? Given this, why should we trust what _he_ says any more than those who occupy any other position in some power game? Wouldn't _he_ somehow be deluded, too, in what he believes? If not, why not? Such would hardly be a surprising fate for any thinker who bases knowledge and belief claims on anything other than justification and is fond of driving a wedge between normativity and knowledge. Note well: I am not denying the _existence_ of power games, I simply affirm that there must be more to knowledge and belief - and their transmission - than exercises of power, even if power games are going on as well. If not, then we could never be quite are of anything at all, including any truth in Foucault. Nor could we even be genuine sceptics, for even to be rationally sceptical about something requires that there be some other thing we can rationally hold on to and that justifiably grounds our doubts. On the other hand, if we can, at least sometimes have genuine justification. for the beliefs we hold, why should this be found _only_ in Foucault and like souls? Moreover, if justifying reasons for belief can be found, then such reasons would be the things that really matter. Some power game may still exist and may still have importance, but all that would fall out of the picture as irrelevant when it came to rationally assessing any claim to knowledge or justifiable belief. I can readily discern how Foucault became the darling of the rebels but it is hard to see what value there is to be found in him. But if I've got him wrong, where have I misunderstood?

How does power create knowledge and how does that knowledge reinforce power?

Normalized is socialized but not necessarily normal. A feral child released upon society would be a "true you and person" but not defined as such by others. They would be defined as less than human while remaining human. Society as "those who have accepted being socialized" would have a subjective opinion of the humanness of the feral child but this would still not make the child any less human. There are many mistakes of logic in this talk. Objectively any member of homo sapiens is a "true you and person" but is not subjectively seen as such within the group if they differ from that group. The reasoning in this lecture is what makes genocide possible.

I like your t shirt

I am pleasantly surprised by how succinct and high quality this video is.

I scored an A in my Philosophy course thanks to you. There are many philosophy channels but you are the best

this scholar was seriously headache for me! but you ,, have made things very simple ... thank u so much dude......

I wanna smoke ‘bot’ now, in a room fragrant with musk and ginger.

Actually, most things we can find online about Foucault are rather superficial. You did a great job explaining Foucault's views about how power works through many examples you gave. Thanks for that, it's much appreciated.

"Normalized Power" is just another way of describing hegemony.

Science is also subject to power. That is a very interesting thought, even tho i'm not sure to what extent it goes. It seems to me, that "science" has become the new religion for the people. If i may strawman it a bit: "Because SCIENCE!! Science said so..." etc... It seems awfully dogmatic, just like religion. I'm not a science denier. On the contrary, i believe there are universal truths in science, especially when things like mathematics is concerned. But science is often used as a tool for the exercise of normalizing power, come to think of it. I would argue that there are 2 notions being conflated here: 1st is the numbers, data, facts, mathematics, basically what i imagine under "science" 2nd is the interpretation For example, the easiest place to point to here is psychology/psychiatry. If we look at the history of how some people were institutionalized and treated, it's horrifying. All because "science". But just bcs something is not "normal" [science], does that mean that it's broken [interpretation]? Seems like that's what a lot people think when they're appealing to science. Even though the science said nothing about that. But i'm not sure if this is what Foucault meant (haven't read him at all, this video is my introduction)

From this guys videos on Foucault, I have come to the conclusion that Foucault just ripped off Jacques Lacan who said all this before.

Victor we love you. It's funny, when I was an undergrad I was obliged to follow this guy's course, and it got lost completely on 19 year old me. Now, years later, I come back here out of free will and I can appreciate much more of what Foucault was trying to get at. These videos are very helpful.

This just rescued my whole paper...thank you.

wow my dude - trying to get this a digestable way for students - this hit the spot

So, mathematics is is merely a cultural phenomenon. Good to know.

The irony...nowadays we are forced to believe and conform to Foucaul's pathetic twisted theories...

Foucoult made simple. I think I'll at least be able to swim through the exam rather than drown altogether

Reminds me of Sartre... "the self is the self to others. Without others there is no self."

The best you tube teacher i hve ever came across.this is the way a youtube teacher shld deliver a speech ..lucidly and articulately..thank you sir... Kindly make more video on sociology 😍🤗😘

These comments seem fake or nah? If i were trying to sell classes, these are exactly the comments i would have on my videos... "Saved my paper" "i learned more in 9 minutes than a whole 3 hour class".... I'm not sure who's buying, but it sure as fuck won't be me. Don't like it? Blame capitalism. In a video.

Brilliant. Thank you so much. Was dying under the complexity of Foucault's discourse. I would just suggest that you substitute 'science' for 'knowledge' in the last part of the video. This is because knowledge can apply to a broader field of human concerns which is why Foucault specifically uses this term.

I found the terms normalising and repressive power in the video confusing as in his book discipline and punish he used a different term. This lecture was great in understanding basic concepts but it was hard when I went back to Foucault's book used the term sovereign and discipline power instead.

Great stuff. I'm thinking about studying at Leiden after watching so many of these videos.

We build the Family, the Hierarchies, the Systems of Knowledge, those are not created by Society, Society merely has the role to reinforce some of them.

I somehow understood White's metahistory and Foucault's theory of power courtesy your lectures!

Can someone please help me on a essay I am writing, In my essay I have been tasked with analysing an organisation operations from a postmodernist perspective using a theme of power as context, I have talked a lot about the repressive power (as mentioned in the video)so managers exploiting workers, but not so much the normalizing power. What would be an example of this from an organisations point of view?

Wonderfully explained! Huge thanks and lots of best wishes, Dear!!

i've been searching, reading and try to understand this since yesterday. Finally! thank god i find this vids

It seems to me that, talking about the idea of power is subjective. Foucault describes how power is inescapable from all these different sources being science, sociological etc. The issue I have is that he frames it in a negative, pessimistic and nihilistic manor, as 'power' could also be viewed as competence in any hierarchy. Especially when a tyranny isn't present. (the premise of western culture.) with the information that he gives you, you are then left with the question of how you use and interpret that information in the world around you. And as it stands, he never quite seems to reach any ideas beyond the rather deconstructive nature of pulling everything apart. The logical utility in criticism isn't to pull everything to the ground so you don't have a platform to stand on at all. Criticism is there to pragmatically asses a situation so you can improve and tweak peaces of the circumstance of the situation around you. He just seems to never have any utility.

When he says “nobody’s free”, I think the more correct approach would be “no one is completely free”. There’s a lot of taboos we can break and still keep our jobs or stay out of jail despite doing so. And we all hold some power over other people, even if we don’t realize it.

This is GOLD!!! Thank you so much

I wonder what Foucault thought of normalising power on psychopaths. Are psychopaths really free from normalising power, and if so do they corrupt and mould the power to normalise?

He describes power of two levels: Empirical and theoretical. Empirical comprises three types: sovereign, disciplinary and bio power. In theoretical power, he illustrates the features, characteristics of power and its operation. Force relation is spread throughout the society and can only be seen in interplay.

Good job, you are a great communicator. I must challenge Foucault's views on power though. All human power over other humans is repressive, whether normalizing or not. We do not demand that the cashier at the grocery attend to us at check out and we do not threaten her, but there is always the implied threat that if dissatisfied we could get her in trouble or fired. I say human power is a threat, whether explicit or implicit.

Normalized power is nonsense. Us acting as upright citizens stems from our ego Centric and sociocentric selves. I treat you with respect and kindness because I believe I am worthy of respect and kindness (referring to Ayn Rand here). I treat you as I want to be treated. You are a mirror image of myself. This is why nationalism should work and is the best way to organize society. The values we share comes from treating others the way we want to be treated. But that only lasts so long as our environment makes this situation valuable. Bring on the Zombie Apocalypse and objectivism throws up its face (don’t get me wrong, objectivism always describes how we behave, but in extreme situations that threaten our lives, it really becomes obvious. Bring on zombies, a natural disaster, or some other apocalyptic situation, and I worry about feeding my own wife and child first. Strangers are way at the end of the line. Objectivism.

I think your presentation style is clear but it trying to explain Foucault in 9 minutes whilst a loadable effort it over is very much in danger of over simplifying and missing the subtleties in his theory on power. It seems that you give too much credit to institutions like universities /politicians and their influence on forming of societal standards which individuals then adhere too. This is too clean cut and does not deal more fully with the ‘circulation of power’ across society and its more mutually constitutional effect. I’m thinking particularly about the fight for power that exists within the hierarchy of social groups. What I mean here is the categorisation of objects, people, social behaviours and social conditions into what is currently considered as the ‘normal’ group and those that fall outside of that current classification into the ‘other’ group. An example would be gender classification where until more recently the ‘normal’ dominate group would be considered those that are considered as either male or female, the ‘other group’ would be all those that sit outside that description. However during the last 50 years we have witnessed the ‘fight back’ by those who no longer feel able to identify with this ‘normal’ group and who were totally absence from social policy. Through this power struggle we can see Foucault ‘circulation of power’ and the way that it has changed what is now considered as ‘normal’ and therefore a more mutually constructive than described in this video. The second point I would like to make is you portray science as the power base for normalisation without mentioning how power has its part to play within science. How much influence does the power of the pharmaceutical industry have in what is funded for research and despite acknowledgement of any potential bias researchers are keen to have research published as are universities. However the social environment often influences scientific progress. Think of the current need for more environmentally friendly products and the push for science to come up with the answers. Surely this exchange of who holds the power and what becomes socially ‘normal’ in the future is a two way street. For me this is what Foucault was suggesting in terms of power dynamics.

Actually normalizing power is necessary, after all, who believes that they aren't bound to uphold jus cogens (principles)...

OMG this playlist is just like a treasure. THANK YOU SO MUCH

Im the firstest guy in these video

How can we differentiate these two notions of powe from the Althusserean (spelling !!!) concept of ISA & RSA????

From which Foucault's book is the first quote at the end of the video? "Power is not wielded by a few individuals..."?

Is Foucault this self contradictory or is this guy just poorly articulating Foucault?

Anyone can summary the concept of power of Michael? I badly needed, hope someone will help me Thank you.

Very nicely and simply explained. I saw many videos related to this but they only used heavy words and made me even more confused than I already was.

found this www.indianfolk.com/power-focault-say-edited/ this guy transcripted (?) your speech in this video lol

Thank you! It helps for my exam.

Thank u so much ...for this amazing video ❤️...great explanation

Thanks a lot!! You really simplified Foucault for me!

The question next to this conclusion is that if The science and scientific knowledge is objective or subjective?

great to be aware of this but what options do we have not to be normalised if we want to live in and amongst people?