Foucault’s Core Project: Power/Knowledge and Discourse Analysis

Foucault’s central agenda was to show how “power is everywhere,” diffused and embodied in discourse, knowledge and “regimes of truth,” rather than simply being wielded by specific actors or institutions. His concept of “power/knowledge” aimed to demonstrate that power is constituted through accepted forms of knowledge, scientific understanding and “truth” . Foucault suggested inverting the Kantian philosophical project: rather than asking what, in the apparently contingent, is actually necessary, he proposed asking what, in the apparently necessary, might be contingent, particularly focusing on the modern human sciences that purport to offer universal truths about human nature .

Through discourse analysis, Foucault believed hierarchies could be uncovered and questioned by analyzing the corresponding fields of knowledge through which they are legitimated . His archaeological and genealogical methods aimed to reveal how institutions like medicine, psychiatry, criminal justice, and sexuality studies function as systems of social control and subject formation.

Major Criticisms and What “Went Wrong”

1. Methodological and Empirical Problems

Historians have frequently criticized Foucault for what they consider a lack of rigor in his analyses. Hans-Ulrich Wehler harshly criticized Foucault’s works as “insufficient in their empirical historical aspects” and “often contradictory and lacking in clarity.” Wehler argued that Foucault’s concept of power is “desperatingly undifferentiated,” and his thesis of a “disciplinary society” only works because he fails to properly differentiate between authority, force, power, violence and legitimacy .

From a sociological theory perspective, Foucault’s concepts of power, power-knowledge, and discipline are one-sided. While Foucault contends there is no center of power, his account remains top-down or structural, missing the interactive and enabling aspects of power. His training as a philosopher, rather than a sociologist, meant he confronted sociological issues without sophisticated grounding in sociological theory .

2. The Problem of Normative Foundations

The famous Foucault-Habermas debate centered on whether Foucault’s “power analytics” could provide adequate normative foundations for criticism. Nancy Fraser’s influential critique claimed Foucault’s work was a mixture of “empirical insights and normative confusions” . A common complaint is that Foucault owes his readers some explanation for why one ought to accept his evaluations of modern ethics, since he steers clear of providing analytical foundations for his critical philosophy .

3. Charles Taylor’s Critique of Incoherence

Charles Taylor argued that Foucault’s concept of power is incoherent because he uses the term in a way that does not oppose it to freedom, wanting to “discredit as somehow based on a misunderstanding the very idea of liberation from power” . Taylor critiqued Foucault’s understanding of historical change, arguing that while Foucault claims there was no intentional plot, “the dominating thrust of the constellation which uses them is not humanitarian beneficence but control” .

4. Totalizing Claims Despite Anti-Totalizing Rhetoric

Foucault violated his own methodological imperative to “respect differences” by making totalizing claims about power and domination that apply to all societies. He utilized global and totalizing concepts while simultaneously prohibiting them, resulting in what Habermas called a “performative contradiction” . His critique of modernity remains too one-sided in its focus on repressive forms of rationalization and fails to delineate any progressive aspects of modernity - bringing no advances in medicine, democracy, or literacy, but only in the efficacy of domination .

5. Contemporary Criticism: Post-Truth Implications

Some contemporary critics argue that Foucault “doesn’t believe in human agency or human consequences” and that his approaches “have far, far weaker explanatory power than more materialist approaches like Marxism” while being “more often than not nearly inert when it comes to confronting actual concrete power” . There’s ongoing debate about whether Foucault’s critique of truth and power has contributed to our “post-truth” era, though defenders argue this fundamentally misunderstands his project .

Video and Documentary Resources

Primary Documentaries:

• “Michel Foucault: Beyond Good and Evil” (1993) - BBC documentary directed by David Stewart, available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQHm-mbsCwk and archived at Internet Archive

Lectures and Interviews:

• UC Berkeley Lectures (1980-1983) - The most comprehensive collection of audio recorded lectures, including “Truth and Subjectivity,” “The Culture of the Self,” and “Discourse and Truth: the Problematization of Parrhesia.” Available through UC Berkeley’s Media Resources Center and mentioned on Open Culture

• Collège de France Lectures - The Collège de France has made available online recordings of Foucault’s lectures, made by listeners and archived, with the permission of his heirs and Editions du Seuil

• Foucault-Chomsky Debate (1971) - Complete recording available on YouTube of the famous debate on human nature between Foucault and Noam Chomsky from the Dutch television program “Human Nature and Ideal Society”

Additional Video Resources:

• Progressive Geographies maintains a comprehensive chronological list of Foucault audio and video recordings, including various interviews and lectures from 1961-1984

Free Online Academic Sources

Internet Archive Collections:

• The Foucault Reader - comprehensive introduction to his work with selections from each area of his thought

• The Essential Works of Michel Foucault (3 volumes) - includes course summaries from Collège de France and key writings on ethics

• Individual works including “Discipline and Punish” and “The Order of Things” available for free borrowing

Academic Resources:

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Comprehensive academic overview of Foucault’s work and methodology

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Detailed analysis of Foucault’s ethics and major criticisms

• Foucault News (michel-foucault.com) - Extensive resource with key concepts, bibliographies, and ongoing scholarship

The Fundamental Problems with Foucault’s Project

Bottom Line: While Foucault’s insights about power and discourse were groundbreaking, his project ultimately suffers from irreconcilable contradictions between his critical stance and his rejection of normative foundations, leading to methodological incoherence and political ineffectiveness.

The core problem lies in what critics call the “normative deficit” - Foucault’s recognition that his theory of power undermined the normative standards that could be used to criticize the functioning of power relations . His inquiry focused not on “What is knowledge?” but “Why do we value knowledge?” - essentially questioning the very foundations of truth-seeking that his own critical project depends upon .

Historical Accuracy Issues: Professional historians have consistently criticized Foucault’s empirical claims, noting insufficient historical evidence and contradictory assertions . His archaeological method often imposed theoretical frameworks onto historical evidence rather than deriving conclusions from careful empirical study.

Political Paralysis: Critics argue that Foucaultian approaches have “weaker explanatory power than more materialist approaches” and are “nearly inert when it comes to confronting actual concrete power” . By making all knowledge claims suspect, Foucault inadvertently undermined the possibility of effective political resistance.

Contemporary Relevance: Modern progressive movements that draw on notions of truth - whether scientific (“believe science”), historical (getting slavery “right”), or moral - find themselves in tension with Foucault’s thoroughgoing skepticism about all truth claims .

The tragedy of Foucault’s project is that while it provided valuable tools for understanding how power operates through knowledge systems, it ultimately consumed its own foundations, leaving us with penetrating critiques but no coherent basis for constructive alternatives or effective resistance.