Analyzing Michel Foucault's Perspective on Subject and Power Dynamics

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of Michel Foucault's perspective on the relationship between subject and power. It begins by introducing Foucault's statement, "It is not power, but the subject, which is the general theme of my research," and offers a detailed explanation. The essay explores Foucault's key ideas, including the omnipresence of power, its embodiment in discourse and knowledge, and its role in shaping individuals as subjects. It examines the modes of objectification, such as inquiry, dividing practices, and self-subjectification, and connects these to political rationality. Furthermore, the essay discusses Foucault's views on power as a strategy and the importance of studying the subject to understand power relations. Examples from Foucault's other works, such as *Madness and Civilization*, and the works of other theorists are used to provide a deeper understanding of his arguments. The essay concludes by emphasizing Foucault's focus on the subject and his understanding of power as discursive and pervasive, highlighting the importance of considering individuals and society when analyzing power dynamics.

Running head: FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
Introduction
The essay aims to explain the statement made by Michael Foucault on subject and power.
The essay will first introduce the statement provide a brief explanation. The explanation will
include a breakdown of the statement and understanding of each part. Further, it will include
examples from Foucault’s other related works and the works of other theorists to provide a
deeper understanding of the statement.
The statement
“It is not power, but the subject, which is the general theme of my research” (Dreyfus and
Rabinow 2014).
In order to understand the meaning behind this statement, it is important to do an
extensive research on the work by Foucault relating to subject and power. This statement could
be found in a book authored by Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow titled Michel Foucault:
Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. The book provided an edited version of some of
Foucault’s major works that included The History of Madness and The Archaeology of Medicine
amongst others apart from Afterword: The Subject and Power (Dreyfus and Rabinow 2014). The
following section shall attempt to explain the statement in details including examples specific to
the topic.
Discussion
The idea of power has always fascinated Foucault and that is evident from the kinds of
work he has published throughout his career. The main premise of most of his works revolves
around the concept of power. To Foucault, power is omnipresent, possessed by everyone but

2
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
realized only by a few. He believed that power is embodied and diffused in discourse and
knowledge. According to him, power makes human beings who they are, functioning on a
markedly “different level from other theories”. Further, Foucault maintains that the subjective
facets of individuals are described through social and power relations. It is through these kinds of
relations that humans are categorized as different kinds of subject. Foucault states that humans as
subjects emerge at an intersection point of power relations bearing attributes, symbols and
meanings that make them subjects. The fact that power is not concentrated or coercive
challenges the very idea of power being concentrated or embodied in one individual or
institution. He proposed the ideology that humans have been for long seen as objects of power on
whom; it is applied but never the subjects of power who apply it. Foucault’s views on power also
reveal that it is not something that someone can possess. Power is more like a strategy, a tactic
that one can employ after proper analysis of the situation and then circulate it. “Individuals are
the vehicles of power, not its points of application”, he states (Dreyfus and Rabinow 2014).
Understanding power in this way brings out two key points; first, power is a scheme, a complex
of relations encircling the entire society, second, humans are not merely the objects of power but
the key position where the “power and the resistance to it are exerted” (Dreyfus and Rabinow
2014).
Foucault maintains that the main purpose of his studies throughout the twenty years of his
career was not to analyze power phenomena but to “create a history of the different modes by
which, human beings are made subjects” (Bergesen et al. 2013). One of the key assumptions
made by Foucault in his work on subject and power is that power is not exercised through
coercion but rather through the mechanization of individuals. He notes that the term ‘subject’
possesses double meaning – one that refers to self-awareness and the other that refers to

3
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
something being controlled or subjected. Both these meanings entwine in a way Foucault
analyzes the relations between the subject and power. He talks about the three modes of
objectification that he states, have changed human beings into subjects. The first is the mode of
inquiry, second is the “dividing practices” and the third one is where humans turn themselves
into subjects (Dreyfus and Rabinow 2014).
In the first mode of inquiry, human beings are given the status of science for instance,
objectivizing them as speaking subjects in linguistics and grammar. In addition, human beings
are objectivized as productive subjects while analyzing the topic of wealth and economics. Here,
the human being is used as an object with which wealth and economic studies are performed.
Further, objectification of the humans as subjects of biology and natural history is also a result of
the first mode of inquiry (Parker and Rosamond 2013). The second mode is where humans are
divided either from the inside or from others. In other words, the second mode attempts to define
humans from the perspective of separation and distinction. Human being is considered a mad or
a normal subject, a criminal or a good person and a sick or a healthy person. In all the cases, the
human is a subject on whom; the various studies are performed to find out to which side of the
spectrum it belongs. The third mode of inquiry states the way human beings turn themselves into
subjects by associating them with different fields of study. An example of that, as given by
Foucault is sexuality and the tendency of the humans to see themselves as subjects of sexuality.
The philosopher further states that the three modes of objectification are linked to precise
structures of political rationality, a style of thinking that Max Weber proposed, which associates
means to ends. However, Weber described rationality as the markings of modernity but Foucault
stressed more on the types and styles of rationality that developed in fields including psychiatry,
sexuality and science.

4
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
While dwelling upon the issue of power and the subject, Foucault seemed to accept that
his initial works had neglected the significance of the individual as he concentrated solely on the
question of power. Gradually, he realized that apart from the placement of the human subject in
the production and signification relations, they are also placed in the complex power relations.
He further adds that the economic history, semiotics, and linguistics provided for relations to
production and signification respectively, no tool was available to find the human subject’s place
in terms of power relations. Due to this specific reason, Foucault states that he had to recourse to
the ways of thinking about power in terms of legislation and institutionalism. He proceeds
explaining human subjects as positioned in power relations by asking what gives power the
legitimization. Further, he also asks the question as to what constitutes the state. Foucault
mentions that it was important to increase the scope of an explanation of power if someone
desired to used it in learning the “objectivizing of the subject” (Lemke 2015).
Foucault raises an intriguing question as to whether one needs a theory of power. He
states that the question arises out of the doubt that theory also “assumes a prior objectification, it
cannot be asserted as a basis for analytical work” (Bergesen et al. 2013). Analytical work, he
further adds, requires conceptualization and conceptualization refers to critical thought. A
person has to check and recheck the analytical work and this involves checking the type of
reality with which people are familiar. He provides example of a writer in a reputed French
newspaper where the writer expresses surprise over the obsession with power. The writer
questions whether power is such an indispensable topic that it cannot be neglected and is so
independent that it needs no other factors to be discussed (Cheong and Miller 2000). Here, it can
be clearly seen from the example that Foucault wanted the reader’s attention to the concept of the

5
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
subject in relation to power. As discussed in the above sections, Foucault viewed power as
discursive, omnipresent, and not just limited to one entity.
With a view to further explain his position, Foucault talks about Fascism and Stalinism
and refers to these as the two “diseases of power” (Foucault 1982). He states that these two
powers had nothing unique or original and that these were derived from the already available
mechanisms of power from the earlier societies. He further asserts that despite the internal
madness present in the two powers, their use of the ideas and devices of people’s rationality
made them indispensable. In order to understand the reason behind the existence of such powers,
the society needs a “new economy of power relations” (Foucault 1982). People do not need to
wait for concentration camps and bureaucracy to understand the power relations and their
existence in the modern world. it is evident from this discussion by Foucault that he questions
the conventional norms by which power relations are examined and discussed. To him, reasoning
is sterile in examining the new economy of power relations because it would only trap people
into playing the random and boring section of the rationalist or the “irrationalist” (Foucault
1982). He suggests that one should investigate the interrelationship between rationalization and
power. However, it would be a bad idea to investigate the rationalization of an entire society or a
culture. Investigating fields that refer to the basic experiences like madness, crime, illness, death
and sexuality would be a good way to understand the power and its rationalization.
He suggests an improved way to study the new economy of power relations and that is to
take the forms of resistance in opposition to the various forms of power as the point of
commencement. Instead of analyzing power from the internal rationality standpoint, it would be
better to analyze from the opposition of strategies perspective (Nicoll et al. 2013). To cite an
example, if one wants to find the meaning of sanity in the society, one must search or investigate

6
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
the field of insanity or if one desires to understand legality, one should investigate illegality. In
similar ways, one must investigate the forms of resistance and the efforts made to separate these
relations to understand the new economy of power relations.
In Foucault’s other seminal works such as Madness and Civilization, he presents
numerous examples of power being exercised from a single viewpoint (McHoul, McHoul and
Grace 2015). He associated power with madness and asserted power was exercised in the
confinement houses during the 20th century Europe. Foucault has published numerous other
works that discuss about power and its relation to individuals, society, institutions and groups.
Power, in his views, work as a concept that attempt to comprehend the way social practices
function without “falling into traditional theory of history” (Caputo 2017).
The statement therefore, made by Foucault in his work on the subject and power explains
his stand on the new economy of power relations and the need to study the subject and not just
the power. Foucault provides various examples that help explain his statement (Daldal 2014).
While discussing about truth in relation to power, Foucault criticizes the so-called masters of
justice and truth who make claims about speaking truth to power and resist its assumed
oppressive effect.
Foucault has always perceived power as an inseparable characteristic of social
interactions. This view of power has always caused scholars having diverse views on power to
indulge into debates regarding the political implications of Foucault’s views. However, these
critics have delved into the works on power from those same perspectives that Foucault was
trying to surmount. These traditional perspectives include reasoning and investigating the entire
society and culture as discussed in the previous sections

7
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
Conclusion
Michel Foucault’s views on power and the subject shows that his declaration that his aim,
to study the subject and not the power is established. With the help of examples showing the
power relations and the new economy of power relations, Foucault has been able to stand his
ground. According to him, power is a concept that cannot be discussed in isolation and other
factors like the individuals and the society need to be considered. He holds that power is
omnipresent; it is not coercive but discursive and pervasive. In the given essay, attempt has been
made to understand the statement made by Foucault regarding the subject and power. In doing
so, the essay provided an elaborate discussion on the objectification of the subject. Foucault
maintained that humans have been made subjects upon which power is exerted from the ancient
times until the contemporary era. He provided three modes of inquiry to explain his point of
using the subject as the central theme of his research rather than the power. Further research on
other works of Foucault is suggested to understand his approaches and ideologies regarding
power.

8
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
References:
Bergesen, A.J., Wuthnow, R., Hunter, J.D. and Kurzweil, E., 2013. Cultural Analysis: The Work
of Peter L. Berger, Mary Douglas, Michel Foucault, and Jürgen Habermas. Routledge.
Caputo, J.D., 2017. On not knowing who we are: Madness, hermeneutics and the night of truth in
Foucault. In Michel Foucault and Theology (pp. 129-152). Routledge.
Cheong, S.M. and Miller, M.L., 2000. Power and tourism: A Foucauldian observation. Annals of
tourism research, 27(2), pp.371-390.
Daldal, A., 2014. Power and ideology in Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci: A comparative
analysis. Review of History and Political Science, 2(2), pp.149-167.
Dreyfus, H.L. and Rabinow, P., 2014. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics.
Routledge.
Foucault, M., 1982. The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), pp.777-795.
Lemke, T., 2015. New materialisms: Foucault and the ‘government of things’. Theory, Culture &
Society, 32(4), pp.3-25.
McHoul, A., McHoul, A. and Grace, W., 2015. A Foucault primer: Discourse, power and the
subject. Routledge.
Nicoll, K., Fejes, A., Olson, M., Dahlstedt, M. and Biesta, G., 2013. Opening discourses of
citizenship education: A theorization with Foucault. Journal of education policy, 28(6), pp.828-
846.

9
FOUCAULT’S VIEW ON SUBJECT AND POWER
Parker, O. and Rosamond, B., 2013. ‘Normative power Europe’meets economic liberalism:
Complicating cosmopolitanism inside/outside the EU. Cooperation and Conflict, 48(2), pp.229-
246.