Michel Foucault: Truth and Power

The question of the day: How does truth relate to power in Michel Foucault’s words?

Foucault links truth and power in systems of power that are circular, that is to say systems that produce power and sustain it.

Foucault names this structure of power ‘A regime of truth’.

This regime is not merely ideological in nature, but it is the condition that is a necessity in the formation of the capitalistic society that Foucault was analyzing as a philosopher in the western world.

Foucault argues against the long-held beliefs that power is inherently coercive or dominating in nature, instead Foucault believes that power exists in everything and comes from everywhere in society.

The regimes of truth that Foucault uses as his argument for the link between power and truth are backed up by the way the education system and even the media, who one can argue are the key contributors of what society deems as truth, use their platform to determine how power is utilized in society.

This article will delve into Foucault’s thought process concerning truth and power, and his opinions on the shift of power and ‘truth’. This essay will determine how truth is related to the system of power according to Michel Foucault, based on Foucault’s assertions on the nature of power as he regards its functions and how it is utilized.

This essay will explain and analyze Foucault’s work to learn how Foucault explains the link between truth and power. This essay will seek to evaluate how the ‘regime of power’ has shifted from generation to generation, from society to society, and from forms of government to other forms of government.

Foucault argues that truth does not exist outside of systems of power nor is power an entity that deprives society of truth. In fact, Foucault’s argument is based off the idea that truth is a tool that is produced and employed through multiple constraints which produces a regulation of power which creates a regime of truth for each society, a ‘truth’ that differs based on the systems of power of that society (Foucault 1977).

For example, the United Kingdom will have a different ‘truth’ to what the French Republic might. By claiming each nation has their own ‘regime of truth’, Foucault attempts to explain, each and every society throughout history has methods of function and discourse that they regard as the ‘truth’.

The ‘truth’, Foucault argues, in relation to the systems of power, is a set system of ordered rules and regulations for the production and distribution that society deems to be the right thing, to be the ‘truth’.

Foucault argues that the ‘truth’ is something to be manipulated, that has been manipulated by the political systems of power. Neither through force or even coercion, governments have utilized power based on ‘regimes of truth’ to direct the flow what is deemed ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, what they deem to be the ‘truth’ prevents them the challenge of punishing those they deem to be ‘wrong’, as society itself will do that particular task for them.

For example, violence and the isolation of a certain group of people such as homosexuals might no longer be government-sanctioned, however the narrative of ‘truth’ concerning these groups leads to much of society deeming homosexuality as a minority group that opposes the ‘truth’ of their respective society.

Foucault adds to his argument by claiming that the ‘regime of truth’ should be altered to work on the grounds of ‘truth’ based on the forms of scientific discourse, so that a new, ‘better’ form of politics based on the ‘truth’ can be reached (1976 Foucault).

Foucault’s arguments on how ‘regimes of truth’ affect systems of power claims that even though Foucault does not view power as inherently coercive or dominating, the ‘regimes of truth’ can be manipulated in a way where power can be utilized in a coercive or dominating manner to negatively affect minority groups in society.

As Foucault argues that a ‘regime of truth’ is the way in which power is utilized in a modern society, it is clear that capitalism is the ‘truth’ that society currently knows and understands.

As Foucault argues, power is not utilized as a force of coercion or domination, but the system of power that the ‘regime of truth’ utilizes is a system of, if anything, suppression. Foucault attempts to fight against the current ‘regime of truth’ to a society that accepts a different ‘regime of truth’ that gives voice to others that lack a voice in the current ‘regime of truth’ (Foucault 1977).

An example of this, as stated earlier in the essay, is the suppression of the voice of the homosexual minority, especially as it concerns Foucault who lived in the 1970’s, a time where the derisiveness against homosexuals were at an all time high.

If history in general is to be studied, the old adage of ‘the winners write history’, is proven correct when Foucault’s link of power and truth is analyzed.

These conquerors, nations that have dominated other civilizations are able to force their systems of power and belief upon the conquered nations, thus forming a new ‘regime of truth’ upon them. They are able to project their values and processes of power and truth upon their conquered opponents. This hints at the fact that after each conquered enemy or nation, the ‘regime of truth’ continues to change until society has reached the state that it currently exists in, which are nations of capitalism.

Foucault’s view of truth and power leads to the idea that while society is definitely progressing, there is no penultimate goal of fairness and justice society seeks to reach and if there is any goal, it is determined by those who are in control of the dominant ideological structures that control the governments of the capitalistic societies of the world.

In general, Foucault does not believe ‘truth’ is the objective truth when concerning the systems of power that are utilized, but merely the reality that the dominant ideological forces have created within these societies (Foucault 1977).

As with most of Foucault’s work and opinions, Foucault views the concept of power and truth as something that is not naturally true, but something that has been engineered to be made true.

In conclusion, Foucault’s argument is based on the idea that truth is a tool that is produced and employed through multiple constraints which produces a regulation of power which creates a regime of truth for each society, a ‘truth’ that differs based on the systems of power of that society.

Foucault’s arguments on how ‘regimes of truth’ affect systems of power claims that even though Foucault does not view power as inherently coercive or dominating, the ‘regimes of truth’ can be manipulated in a way where power can be utilized in a coercive or dominating manner to negatively affect minority groups in society.

Foucault attempts to fight against the current ‘regime of truth’ to a society that accepts a different ‘regime of truth’ that gives voice to others that lack a voice in the current ‘regime of truth’.

There, of course, those who disagree with the method in which Foucault seeks to understand the relation between truth and power.

There are scholars who argue that Foucault does not take into account the individual will and actions on the people under these ‘regimes of truth’. Some scholars argue that the subjects under the ‘regimes of truth’ have the individual will to act independently and creatively.