'knowledge, the word is thus used to refer to all knowledge processes and effects, in a given moment and acceptable in a particular area. And secondly, is the term used power that defined many individual, covering mechanisms that seem to be able to induce behavior or discourse. Obviously, these two concepts have only a methodological function: with them are not really general principles had been identified, it is to some extent the analysis front, it is to type the relevant elements are fixed. This is to be avoided from the outset that the perspective of legitimacy is introduced - such as the tag suggests knowledge and power. Those two words are in every moment of the analysis of a particular content, a particular element of knowledge, can designate a specific mechanism of power precisely; never be allowed to creep into the view that a knowledge or a power exists - or even the knowledge or power, which would operate independently. Knowledge and power - this is just an analytical framework. And this pattern is not composed of two strangers to each other categories - the knowledge on the one hand and the power of the other (like the one just suggested wording used). For nothing can occur as a knowledge element, if it is not a system of a particular scientific discourse in a particular period, and if it is not on the other hand, just because it is scientifically plausible or rational, or simply to coercion or incitements capable. Conversely, nothing will work as a mechanism of power if it is not in procedures and means-end relationships unfold, which are grounded in knowledge systems. It is not a matter of describing what knowledge is and what power is and how the one the other oppressed or abused, but it's about a characterization of a nexus of knowledge-power, by which the acceptability of a system - be it the system of mental illness, criminal justice, delinquency, sexuality, etc. - can be detected.
[Michel Foucault: What is Critique?]
0 comments:
Post a Comment