What Power Is - Michel Foucault
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- For Michel Foucault Power is critical to understanding the world we live in. Foucault's theory of power revolutionised the way we look at power from being a top-down domination to being an omnipresent force of nature. This episode is an introduction to the Foucault theory of power. We'll be explaining Foucault's theory in simple terms using examples from everyday life to show how revolutionary this new understanding of Power truly is.
A critical distinction in approaching Foucault's work on Power is the distinction between the Empirical and the Theoretical levels of Power. The empirical level is the study of historical crystallisations of power (for example disciplinary power or biopower). The Theoretical level of power however is the study of power in itself - what is common to power across all historical instantiations.
What we end up with is a Foucault theory of power that stands apart from all conceptions of power that went before. Instead of a top-down hierarchical domination hierarchy, Foucault's Power is an immanent, omnipresent force of nature like gravity or magnetism. For Foucault Power is everywhere from the interactions of lovers to those between states or colleagues. The fundamental atom of this force of nature is Foucault's Force Relations.
____________________
⭐ Support the channel (thank you!)
▶ Patreon: / thelivingphilosophy
▶ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
________________
🎶 Music Used:
1. Anguish- Kevin MacLeod
2. Lost Frontier- Kevin MacLeod
3. Despair & Triumph - Kevin MacLeod
4. There's Probably No Time - Chris Zabriskie
5. End of the Era - Kevin MacLeod
6. Lightless Dawn - Kevin MacLeod
7. Allegro - Emmit Fenn
8. Juniper - Kevin MacLeod
Subscribe to Kevin MacLeod [ / kmmusic ]
Subscribe to Chris Zabriskie / chriszabriskie
Subscribe to Emmit Fenn: / emmit fenn - topic
_________________
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:59 Empirical vs Theoretical
1:57 What Power Isn't
3:32 What is Power?
4:12 Traits of Power: Immanence
5:04 Traits of Power: Intentional and Non-Subjective
6:19 Traits of Power: Resistance
7:35 Force Relations
9:23 Dynamism of Force Relations
11:52 The Alliance of Force Relations
_________________
#foucault #thelivingphilosophy #philosophy #michelfoucault #power #postmodernism #theory #history
Love the channel? Love supporting things? Check out the Patreon page:
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:59 Empirical vs Theoretical
1:57 What Power Isn't
3:32 What is Power?
4:12 Traits of Power: Immanence
5:04 Traits of Power: Intentional and Non-Subjective
6:19 Traits of Power: Resistance
7:35 Force Relations
9:23 Dynamism of Force Relations
11:52 The Alliance of Force Relations
Can I ask about your religious views. What religion do you follow?
@@ivankomadanvonrakovac8415 You can ask but I'm afraid I don't have a particularly short answer to offer. I guess it is simple since I don't follow any religion but as for my views about the transcendental and the metaphysical it's really not easy to answer. I don't know I guess would be the easiest way to put it
I love supporting things, big supporting fan
the joy on your face in exploring connections in Jung and Foucault is gold. I love how much this interests you, because it's exactly the sort of thing that brought me here. That underlying feeling of interconnection within different schools of thought feels like uncovering ancient knowledge. I love it. Thanks for another great video. Looking forward to you exploring Jung/Foucault. It'll be awesome to see how someone who was so driven to concrete explanations like Foucault will mesh with someone like Jung who tried to realate/sciencify (not sure of the word to use there) mysticism and spirituality.
Haha yeah I got very excited there. That's the real nectar for me - the cross-pollination between great systems of thought that usually aren't cross-pollinated. It's very exciting to see what new combinations of insight they can bring together. I'm delighted to have found people who share that joy in exploring these thoughts
Foucault copies and twists jung to his purpose….how are u impressed by that?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy yes! ill wait for the jungian video approach
Waiting for that video!
Have you seen much of John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis? I'd be interested in your thoughts relating to his attempt to bring together realms of cognitive science, as I think one area he could explore further is the impact on power politics
Just because you’re misunderstood doesn’t mean you’re great.
I think you misunderstood the point.
Great point
Foucault considered himself a misunderstood genius
@@BipolarBear-tc5oethat's a misunderstanding of Foucault.
@@sgt7 It's not
Notes
- Our “free” decisions are influenced by thousands of societal factors.
- These factors are forces that can counteract or supplement each other
- These forces can cluster together to form institutions
- Social relations often function autonomously and bottom-up
- Social power isn’t always wield by a specific state, class, organisation, leader etc. who make deliberate decisions to subordinate others, they’re often emergently complex, organic and unintentional.
- Although events are comprised of deliberate decisions that constitute or influence it, no one person makes all those decisions and has the knowledge that those decisions will be made so no one person controls nor knows what will happen in the future
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Indeed.
ps. Which really interesting why Foucault is the only one who seem to take full credit on this subject.
@@alwaysgreatusa223Why are you taking the first point here and acting like that is the extent of the theory? seems a little dishonest
The fact that it was HERMETICISM and Gnosticism, that was integrated within w. Tradition of all encompassing ideologies' fusion.
The fact that it was HERMETICISM and Gnosticism, that was integrated within w. Tradition of all encompassing ideologies' fusion.
I like that u put the video in chapters. It really helps not just for understanding the concept but also for writing academic answers.
Yes! I've always felt that the idea that power is purely top-down is not quite right. Taken to its logical extreme it inevitably leads to paranoid ideas that our lives are entirely controlled by the whims of a few powerful people (insert your favourite conspiracy theory here). I've always felt that in reality it is a much more complex dynamic system which cannot be controlled by any individual, but I have never been able to put it into words. It seems Foucault did exactly that, this video inspires me to dive into his work. Thanks again for the fantastic content, best channel on youtube.
Exactly Bram! It's a way of approaching power without descending into disempowered conspiracy theorising. Thanks for the kind words and glad the video inspired something in you!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I find Foucault the man to be distasteful, at best. (Honestly, that is the kindest I can be about him as a person.) But I am aware that it would be fallacious to say that his message should be discounted because of that. Even to me, some of what he said fits and is true. Still, I have to wonder how much of what he says comes from who he is.
Isn't it being controlled?... Chomsky and zizek who are like to poles of left wing .. came to same ground on this however it was not power it was the idea of "manufacturing consent"
@Bram de Jong
POWER is always TOP-DOWN .
You’re confused about the huge number of USEFUL IDIOTS at the bottom , who will insist on doing the bidding of the Power-Structure
Thanks for the video, and congratulations on reaching 30k!
May the power of love overcome the love of power.
Ah thanks a million! Just crossed the line this morning it's exciting times!
the examples and analogies that you use are so helpful to understand the bigger theories
This theory is central to my coursework and it has been confusing me so much. This video is so good, it has alleviated so much of my stress. The analogies were so good.
You're a wonderful communicator. Thank You 💜
Really loved the video, and your passion for the subject is apparent.
I first discovered Foucault myself, and found him fascinating, because he is great at approaching things from a nearly "neutral" point of view. He avoids putting things into boxes of "good" or "bad", and focuses more on exploring and explaining the mechanisms, which feels more complete and honest to me. Learning about his philosophy surrounding power really helped answer a lot of "why" questions that I had about how the world, society, and culture functions the way it does.
Thanks a million Samantha and I totally agree he's someone that was trying to go beyond good and evil and it's something he got a lot of flack for on the Left - not giving clear enough prescriptions and condemnations in his work but instead merely unearthing, reporting and investigating
@@TheLivingPhilosophy such as his penchant for teen boys, why judge that as "good" or "bad" its just a mincing boy hungry bald dandy participating in an act.
And he died of aids? What a surprise
Did you know he was a pedophile?
What literature is best to understand Foucault
Really fantastic stuff, James.
Thank you for all your effort. I'm super keen to explore the quadrants with you and look forward to future videos 🙏✨
Thanks Kaleb!
Wonderful work. Lucid and arresting.
Thank you for another wonderful video. The panopticon is everywhere and most are largely unaware. Again, thank you for what you do.
Thanks a million Dennis!
Concise, clear and stimulating. Great presentation.
Thanks Louise!
Interconnection within different philosophy feels like uncovering ancient knowledge. I love it. Thanks for another great video.
My pleasure!
The analogies in your teaching are great!
Great stuff! I’ve struggled w a few of Foucault’s books but find his writing style a HUGE challenge. Some of his contemporaries are often easier to understand I feel like. But this helped a LOT.
From the first minute of your perfect analysis I had Jung in my mind. When in the 14th minute of your video you said about the relativity of theories between Foucault and Jung made my dopamine release like a rocket. I feel so lucky and honored to find you in utube❤❤❤❤❤
You are a very sofisicated thinker and a joy to listen to. It's a treat to hear your work in an accent the same as my own. Brilliant densely packed videos. 👏
Thanks for the kind words Richard it means a lot
Clear, succinct and VERY useful. Thank you
Another brilliant lecture, thank you so much
Wow! What an explanation on Foucault? Hardly heard about this philosopher, but will surely read his work. Thanks a lot for introducing me to Foucault
be prepared for pedophilia
He was a child rapist lol you probably want his thoughts floating around in your head
You live in Mars maybe.
Great video, you splendidly and succintly presented Foucault's theory of power.
I'd like to suggest Bertrand De Jouvenel's "On Power", he focuses more on institutions but it is a masterpiece in the study of power, its genealogy and evolution
People with too much focus on power usually suffer from a severe lack of it. A bit like the 'lady' who's focused on projecting an image of chastity.
Amazing lecture. Thank you!
I have an interest in politics which led me to revisit what I leaned over 60 years since I was a child. I love this series.
I have really never understood Foucault until now, thanks!
I love how your channel has grown, congrats, I know it's a lot of work.
I'm interested to see if you also dive into discussing the overlap between this theory and that of Dawkin's memetics theory from The Selfish Gene.
Thanks Drew! The Selfish Gene is very high on the reading list and there's a lot to tie it in with so hopefully we'll get to it in the next few months I suspect it'll be one of those cornerstone ideas
Concise, clear and stimulating. Great presentation.. Concise, clear and stimulating. Great presentation..
your videos are such a blessing
Thanks Jorge that's a joy to hear
Great video. definitely will help for my midterm !
Great presentation. Big thanks to the YT Algo for sending you my way. Got my sub. Thanks for the great work!
Excellent video on Foucault. Thank you for this.
Very well made video, and good work on explaining it all clearly. Well done :)
Awesome stuff as usual! Thanks for making such great content! Have you ever looked into American pragmatism? Thinkers like John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and especially William James seem right up your alley.
Thanks Anders! I did a bit of delving into Peirce during the Semiotics study of Saussure but never went too deep. William James however is someone that I've been wanting to read for well over a decade now. I really think he'll be a big one for me. Seems to have a similar portfolio of interesting and yet I know so little about him
Super nourishing food for the mind!
I just love your videos. Impatient to watch the follow up on Jung/Foucault 🙌
Thank you!
I’m a complete amateur but the idea of force relations really reminds me of the Hegel dialectic. Is there any connection? The constant thesis, antithesis, synthesis idea. I’ll refer to the four quadrants video to try and position myself here. These videos are awesome, amazing work man.
Very much looking forward to the Jungian take on this. I'm currently reading Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas, where he makes a really interesting case for astrology as a kind of giant synchronistic map of the archetypical forces shaping global human experience at any given time. Seems like it could have a lot of overlap with the Foucault/ Jung exploration of the Gods.
Great recommendation thank you!
Yeah! Thank you have subscribed wonderful work
I don't know why but I was so taken aback when you with your gorgeous locks entered the frame. Rock on.
Haha beyond the power of the locks 😆
Subscribed, thanks for the great content
Thank you Love your analysis.....It gives me a better understanding of modern philosophy!!!!
I was thinking Jung durn this episode. I see them put together in one episode. I loved you put Nietzche in there too. Nicely done and Thank you. 🔥💖
I learned something here. Foucault has been on my bookshelf for a while. Now you've given me a doorway into that writer. Unexpected. Cool. Peace.
Delighted to hear it Oswald!
Beautyfull, really Beautyful. That offert such a great view of the power and offert à far more coherent power definition with some historical events. Thank you
Thanks a million Antoine!
thank you, very insightful.
I love your channel, you always distill such dense concepts and readings into great insights. Are there any other philosophical channels of top quality like yours that you would recommend too? 🙂
Thank you so much! There's a few channels I love Eternalised is great for Jungian deep dives; Seeker to Seeker is a great one for Buddhism. I love Sisyphus 53 though they are shorter pieces. Plastic Pills is another good one if you're looking for more Continental Philosophy. Then & Now is also fantastic stuff
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Awesome awesome, thank you so so much!! As a aspiring philosophy student and as well independent creator, what are some words of advice you would give for starting out? I'm paralyzing anxious about not being able to make enough to take care of myself, could you maybe share some insights you've gained on your path to financial stability? And if it's alright to ask, could you share maybe a ballpark range that your channel brings in nowadays? Again, thank you so so much. Have a lot more videos queued up that I need to absorb!!!
Gave the video a like mostly because of the last idea of making a video about the connection between Focault and Jung. I really look foward for that!
Thank you! I look forward to making it!
Informative. Thanks.
Please don’t forget to give a detail video on a the sorcerer’s explanation of power, how one must learn to “see” the invisible threshold of power to understand the totality of ourselves
Thanks for this video.
Oh wow thank you for your generosity 🙏
great video dude, thx so much, any video on jung is great and I'm sure foucault thrown in there would be uber spicy, nice
A fascinating discourse - one can also liken the idea of force relations to the function of the superego in psychology. This is building on top of Freud's interpretation of the superego with Anna Freud, Jung, Rank and Reich.
Hi mates!
In my experience, it seems as though the less power individuals have over their own existence in the modern era, they intrinsically feel the need to instill their own ideals or beliefs of power upon others (which they were more than likely brought up or raised with, and thus truely think they are doing the right thing etc). 🤔
Incredible, thought provoking content as usual bro. nicely done!
You deserve far more subscriptions in my opinion! This content is gold 👍
Awesome, thank you!
Thanks for the video. I always found descriptions fo Foucault's work very confusing, but your summary is very good. I found that the argument about power (given the specific definition given by Foucault) is a interesting argument about certain aspects of social interactions. I am usually a bit biased against Foucault, in the sense of taking his a ideas with a "pinch of salt". Mainly due to some commentaries regarding his ideas about science. It would be nice if you could comment more about Foucault's ideas about science.
Disclaimer: I am scientist, and I might fall in scientism sometimes :) . But I genually think science and empirical based fields are the best way to know about the world. Mainly because I think deductive reasoning is flawed as you need to start from general principles or core ideas, that are usually assumed. Most of the issues in human ideologies and sciences are mainly a conflict of different principles or ideas pushed forward by different groups. The power of science is the constant testing of the core principles. We have the test of external reality. Nature decides who is more right. But we know we are never completely right. But we know what ideas are wrong. You don't have that in some fields.
Fascinating stream of thought.
Thanks, it really helped a lot....
please continue your videos. I find you very good at explaining philosophy
Thanks a million Ali!!
yes more Foucault please
I can finally explain to my roommates why I take so long to pick out an outfit
And ain't that what philosophy is all about!
Hello there, many thanks for this very nice overview of Foucault's concept of power. It was really liberating for me since I have always been confronted by Jordan Peterson's negative (to put it mildly) view of Foucault's work (thanks also for the video about Jordan's Jungian shadow ;) ).
On another note, I see a striking similarity in Foucault's multiplicity bottom-up concept of power with the scientific theory of self-organization. There are numerous concepts that are associated with it: emergence, feedback effect, non-linearity, micro-macro interactions, chaos, etc. If I am not mistaken, these theories were developed in various fields of science (chemistry, physics, informatics, but also in social sciences) during the mid-century, at the same time post-modernist philosophers were at work.
Looking at the Wikipedia page of one of the pioneers in the field of self-organization theories (Ilya Prigogine), I found that his work has influenced Gilles Deleuze!
I wonder if Foucault was also influenced by the rising of these new scientific theories during his time.
I am always fascinated by the connection between "hard" sciences and philosophy, and how they have been influencing each other.
I feel like many people want to believe they are powerless because it takes away responsibility. I assume this belief is being subconsciously promoted by well established people. Because if other people can't do what they do, come as far as they came, it means they themselves are very special and talented and hardworking or whatever they want to believe themselves to be. It would make sense if people in positions high up a hierarchy aren't eager to promote the idea that actual power is formed by the opinions and choices of anyone anywhere on that hierarchy... the poorest 50% of people collectively considered money valueless... the power yielded over them would dissappear like snow before sun... Thanks for another great video :)
subbed. nicely done.
wow, gave me an excuse to re watch the matrix. great video, thank you ‼️
Verry nice.
Amazing how different things look from a bottom up perspective.
Can you do seperate videos on the empiricists? locke, hume, Berkeley.
Thanks so much.
You're welcome!
This was an interesting take on Foucault
while you were telling about the external pressure for decision making I really start feeling that it is mathematically possible to model it, and perhaps it is quite similar to what Facebook and digital marketing does, quite interesting
Damn bro your voice narration is so soothing, absolutely perfect for narrating philosophy
Thank you so much that's so nice to hear (I hear plenty to the contrary so it's always nice to hear some positive ones!)
I’d be interested in your thoughts on camille paglia’s critiques of Foucault
I'd be curious to read them. I enjoyed her talk with Peterson when it came out back in the day
This video is very good
I'm so glad the algorithm delivered me you! 🙏🏼❤️
Fortuitously, or perhaps the heuristic algorithms do work 😅, you came along and dissect and analyse in precisely the way I didnt know I needed until hearing you.
An open mind coupled with erudite humility - golden.
Thanks mate 🙏🏼🇦🇺🖖🏼
This brought a smile to my face Justin so thank you!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy mate, and so you have bought a smile to mine. I'm a biochemist/structural biologist and busy jazz/classical guitarist. I wish I had more time to read and learn further.
So when I get the opportunity to digest the gift of great thinking and concise synopsis I'll eat it 🤣
@@justinludeman8424 Well now that's an interesting combo! I'd love to a better classical guitarist (never mind jazz) practice practice practice I guess. Anyway I'm happy to throw some extra ingredients in the the mixing pot of your psyche!
Thanks!
Great Scott!! It's so great to see you here again! I was only replying to a comment on one of the 100 days videos last week and saw your name and was thinking of you. How have you been?
Very interesting
The way the Internet allows certain opinions, phrases, and ways of framing issues to go viral is one of the most interesting things about this dynamic. I have often wondered if it will eventually result in the emergence of a globally agreed-upon set of norms and values, once power has had sufficient time to equalize more broadly.
It depends on how the algorithms are written
Very good - ❤
Fascinating analysis of a distillation of power. it feels like he is saying we are free agents but are driven by elements that are not free) (bound in a manner) to offer self-freedom. The joining together and dissolution of power, in this analysis feels like fractals of chaos that collect or are in the end an apparent, unexamined movement into a decision. Did he believe that power was in essence outside of human conscious action?
BRILLIANT
I found the video leaning more to social power and social constructs that either advance or inhibit the extent of power.
I think the element of personal power beyond social constructs, and how that is a subject worth a deeper look . As an example finding power by limiting the way society creates conformity in an individual and how that offers a freedom to operate in the world without being bound by traditional lore.
As an american only now discovering that her democracy is in fact an oligarchy, i'd like to know if Foucault ever positied how his theory of power might be used practically.
(I'm a first time viewer and new subscriber, btw.) Thank you for this great content.
Hello Jayanti and a very good question. It's something that Foucault gets a lot of hassle for since most of his work is descriptive rather than prescriptive (he was a reader of Wittgenstein so I wonder whether that might have been some element of influence in that). But his 1980s work takes a turn towards the care of the self and this is very much a practical application grounded in ancient philosophy and so will definitely be a theme we'll be returning to in future
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I will greately appreciate any of your content on this topic -- theories of power, systems, change.
It honestly never occurred to me (until watching your video) to try to conceptualize power itself in "new" and fresh ways -- and to stop letting the powerful themselves to dictate to us where the levers of power are. If we are going to dismantle the entrenched structures at the heart of everything from homelessness to endless war to environmental collapse -- we will have to dismantle our own utterly useless worldview, first and foremost. Thanks again.
When post-modernism is treated as a critique of modernism (which was the goal of the post-modernists) it works and can be tremendously helpful. However, when what it critiques suddenly becomes obscure and it takes over as *dominant* ideology, it does not work anymore.
I think there is definitely something in this. Postmodernism was primarily a critique of modernism. Thats true. It only emerges in cultures where modernity has developed to a high degree..
However, those who came later and used it as a platform for radicalism were themselves critical of postmodernisms relativistic lack of certainty, especially in earlier versions of postmodernism. So I think that's why you get these phases in the development of postmodernism over the years, some more helpful than others.
Wilber apparently said the problem with postmodernism is it can transcend, but it can't include. It's always negating and attempting to transcend, but it seems unaware of what it has emerged from (modernity) and it has no developmental model.
Yes. It deconstructs without constructing a damn thing. Its causing chaos ....WOKISM. -Foucault's Fault.
To their credit they didn’t even considered a developmental model. For them the criticism was what is all about. Today better look at metamodernity and wilber less the personality proto cult.
@@yooohere well, actually they did look backwards though (in a regressive way) back to totalitarian tribal mobs as their ideal models of social organisation haha
@@yooohere this is especially true in Wilhelm Reich and George Bataille, but carries on to the later derivations. Something about postmodernists, like the hippie movement that glorifies tribal culture, especially its matriarchal forms.
I think many of these social phenomena can be explained in more detail by Rene Girard's theory of mimesis and mimetic rivalry. Why do we care so deeply about what others think, for example. The existence of social expectations does not explain why we pay so much attention to them. Girard helps here.
Hey so I’ve been thinking about this video a lot lately.
Touching on what you said about Force Relations. I think this is best illustrated by the phenomenon of fields in physics. Think of the electric and gravitational fields and how they interact with charges/masses in space resulting in forces. These fields are everywhere, they emanate from different sources and interfere with each other. Their magnitudes diminish and increase as a function of measures like distance, permeability of space, etc. They are continuous and present at every point in space. These fields don’t act on everything universally, electrical fields do not act on mass and gravitational fields do not act on charge, yet things are capable of having both properties with various magnitudes. Lastly they have direction which influences the resulting direction of the force acted upon the thing they interact with.
But to Foucault, these fields emanate from people, institutions, culture, media, etc and operate on people much like the electric field acts on charges. The interaction of force relations on people results in the decisions we make and arguably our thoughts too. Like masses/charges people are influenced, acted upon to move, think, do in certain “directions”, and our intrinsic properties as individuals provide us a means to resist these forces while also influencing how we interact with them.
Nice
The problem with Foucault is that it seems to follow from his analysis of power that power and truth are coterminous. The journey of the individual in pursuit of truth is therefore a deconstruction of power relations which is nevertheless, self defeating, unless it constructs a new system of power which can only be done socially. There is no individual liberation. This was the heart of the debate with Chomsky. IMO this view is both depressing and wrong. It is at the heart of so much that is wrong with the modern left, which seems contemptuous of progress that is not collective. And so we get identity politics which contains the core nihilism for which Foucault is criticised.
The more affirming approach is that power operates through the manipulation of fear and desire, and liberation is for the individual, an engagement with the world which progressively masters this problem. Only the individual can pursue this within their own psyche. As an individual pursuit, there is a ray of hope that political action cannot provide, valid though such action may be for other reaons.
Exactly right. This goes back to Schopenhaur's dispute with Hegelianism too.
Good and it comes down to whether the sufferers really believe they have a choice. Otherwise, we would all be living in little Empirical vision quest Capitals of our own gated community personhoods by our own selves interred in almost a mortuary style of disinterested relationships, but who wants it to be that specific?
I feel like what Foucault is talking about is way more general than that - it’s like calling CERN and standard-model-breaking-physics “woke” compared to the “golden age,” of Newton. You’re mapping your conception of western politics onto something that says nothing of the root of human experience, value, or ethics. It’s just some terms of the human condition that are inescapable. Nothing has been said in this video regarding liberation of the individual or engineering alternate structures of collective power. Those are concepts to be built on top of, and through the constraints of, power as a universal force. If you believe power is secured only through “manipulation of fear and desire,” than you’re missing the point entirely and haven’t changed your internal definition of the word power. The creator here mistakenly calls power akin to a force of nature, which is incorrect. Forces of nature, and human beings, all have power over their environment, it’s an intrinsic property baked into everything that happens. Power can be exercised without fear, without cynical manipulation, without hedonistic desire. Trust, love, fraternity, respect, and friendship are themselves a medium for power. One who trusts their spouse to make financial decisions on their behalf cedes power. One who trusts you in regards to life advice is ceding to you the ability to shape their future. Healthy children ultimately cede power to their parents out of a feeling of safety and fostered ambition. Power is simply a measure of how quickly you can perform a set amount of work, how quickly can you change things. The more someone loves and trusts you, the more people respect you, the more people listen to you, the more you can change in your environment and the faster you can do it.
Individuals are liberated from the power in their environment acting on them to a variable extent due to an incomprehensible amount of factors, not all of which come from the individual’s perception and will. What you are describing as an individual pursuit is the drive to godhood, in which one, through their own free will, separates from their environmental influence to such an extreme degree that it is negligible. But that is impossible, everyone will always be dependent upon their upbringing and environment to form their identity and to enjoy life. There is a finite limit to what your will can do, human beings are fundamentally collective, social creatures who use communication to sort roles for each other and create structures larger than anyone human, regardless of the will to power of the strongest individual. Nothing about this is nihilistic. There is a balance to be struck in the mind of each individual, decided at each moment, a decision that impacts everyone around them. This has nothing to do with the left or the right, both of which are incomprehensible and philosophically incoherent. Neither are built out of philosophy, they are social, animalistic constructions like all human power structures. They are organic hodge podges of reactionary rhetoric and emotion. Some ideas are better, some worlds are better to live in than others, but hegemonic politics are incomprehensible if you try to make them internally consistent. If you end up believing something along those lines, you’ve yet to escape personal confirmation bias. The irony, of course, being that most people who believe exclusively in an individualist framework don’t realize how much their beliefs are simply a testament to the incomprehensible power of the hegemonic politics they have been exposed to during their development. Both the left and the right of Western politics, as well as every mass political movement in global history, is deeply nihilistic in this way. We’re all sheep to varying extents, doomed to betray our beliefs within every moment in at least one way with no awareness of doing so. Both the individual and the collective are inseparable. There is no collective unscarred by the strongest individuals, and no individuals yet to be molded by the collective. It is symbiotic. The only true life affirming aspect, is that most human beings will grow to decide what it is that’s important to them by middle age, and exert their power to shape their own individual environment over time, and allow themselves to only be shaped by others whom they love and trust, in so far as all existential threats have been accounted for and placated (pay your taxes, avoid dangerous locations/people/situations in general). You decide upon a framework of ethics, you do your best to abide. You expand and exercise your will at times, you cede willingly to the will of others at other times, yet you act on instinct or at the behest of a larger power structure most of the time. This is to say, human will is ultimately always finite, which is what defines the human individual’s metaphysical condition. We always rest between object and god, zero will and infinite will, no matter how clever or how powerful we grow to become. This is simply an unavoidable reality, not a political statement. Individual focused people will always be blind to the power that compels them, collective focused people will always be blind to the power they possess in the moment to resist their environment. Thus, like a debate between two religious beliefs, nothing about western politics could be called postmodern or relevant to truth itself, in fact there has yet to be a society or political ideology with any substantial cultural hegemony which can be called postmodern. Left vs Right can only be argued on a practical, outcome oriented level, not an ideological one. Both the study of the environment and collective structure as well as the will of the individual are valuable studies and are inseparable.
There is an inherent presumption and arrogance whenever proposing individual solutions to collective problems, though.
Why shouldn't I be just as suspicious that you choosing the individual as thd fundamental unit of analysis is an excuse to abdicate your social duty?
I don't get the feeling the application of his manner of thinking fails to entail liberation of the individual at all. See "the lost interview of Foucalt" youtube vid.
For a long time I've seen life as an interconnected web of centers of power - physical, vital, personal, social, legal, political, cultural, natural and even planetary and universal. Every stone thrown ripples in a nearly infinite number of ponds.
I’m new to Foucault. And I completely understand this episode. QUESTION. Why does Jordan Peterson demonize Foucault so vigorously? Would love your thoughts. And as always keep up the good work!🌻🌼💐👍🏾✌🏾❤️
Delighted you enjoyed it! I actually explored this exact topic in the video on JP's shadow where I focus particularly on his handling of Foucault so you might find that interesting if you really want an in-depth exploration of that question (link here: ua-cam.com/video/3kDpEKM7ZBI/v-deo.html)
Nice hair dude! What conditioners do you use?
You're absolutely correct re-KMS; Fu-Gee-La is demonstrably the very essence of The Will To Party.
Does Foucault ever write anything about how the individual makes decisions based on this model? Are the individuals decisions just a reflection of the strongest string of force relations? Really curious to know what exactly Foucault though of the person’s role in regards to his theory of power. If anyone has any knowledge on that it’d be greatly appreciated.
It could be that those who do not have power will resist and force the powerful to carry out their power in a different way with the use of knowledge. For example, the cruel treatment of the insane during industrialization led those in mental institutions to act out in fear and rage. This led to modern psychiatric facilities that take a more humane approach to treating the mentally ill.
I ignore how sofisticated the theory actually is, but it feels like talking about power as we talk about clasical conceptions of partículas in physics.
Imagine when modern physical analogies were to be understood by most academics...
I have always wondered how different disciplines interact with each other.
Ps: I didn't watch the entire video and didn't realize that the analogy was in the video, jeje.
I suggest a very useful collaborative work on this topic, namely "Michel Foucault-Key Concepts" (Edited by Dianna Taylor, Routledge 2014). I think this video probably draws upon that work.
Foucault with Deleuze for me are two exceptional modern investigators of the psyche. When I disagree with something they wrote I realise it's a boundary of for ignorance, only to find an opening into another maze. Thinking sight isn't the same as inner sight and society is completely blind.
I think this is called obscurantism.
@@jaylinn416 Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."
@@the_famous_reply_guy Well, if Foucault teaching helps you to lead a better life, there may be some value in it. I remain very skeptical. I would not waste my time trying to understand what he is talking about. I am not sure that even the living philosophy guy can explain.
@@jaylinn416 the debated with Chomsky was the moment I saw Foucault desire to explore all dimensions where Chomsky was fixed in all his linear philosophical positions. Foucault asked difficult questions of himself and gave interesting replies at the least, who amongst us can say this sincerely.
@@the_famous_reply_guy I can agree on the incessant need of insight that Focault and his philosophical theories seem to give off, but, at the same time, I do not understand how one could consider them anything rather than mere poetry.
A description of the world which is unverifiable is, to me, nothing more than a narration.
Those theories hold no predictive power, they seek some kind of insight over phenomena, and try to give us some "sensation" about the world, but this is all mystical, artistic.
In truth, nothing which he says can be considered "true".
By studying such matters, I believe, you condition yourself to have a more articulated, complex viewpoint: but, still, it can't be verified.
Interesting
Is there some part of force relations that are kept or held in the collective unconscious since everyone must be born with the ability to recognize and process force relations?
Tom Sisson
Genius
Power is the ability to effect change. The competition for power comes the fact that we are all different and we all want different changes