Foucault Flashcards
(8 cards)
Explain Foucault’s concept of “power-knowledge.” How does it challenge the traditional view of science as objective and neutral?
Foucault’s concept of “power-knowledge” asserts that knowledge and power are interdependent: power produces knowledge, and knowledge reinforces power.
This challenges the traditional notion of science as neutral and objective by showing that scientific disciplines (e.g., psychiatry) emerge from and sustain systems of exclusion and control.
For example, psychiatry developed through the institutionalisation of the mad, shaping what counts as mental illness and who has authority to define it.
How does Foucault describe the historical transformation of madness from the Renaissance to the 19th century? Highlight key shifts in how madness was understood and treated.
In the Renaissance, madness was part of culture and seen as meaningful.
In the 17th century, mad people were locked up with the poor to control social disorder during crises like poverty and urbanisation.
In the 18th century, doctors took control in asylums, claiming to “humanise” treatment—really to moralise and normalise behaviour.
In the 19th century, psychiatry turned madness into a scientific object to study and classify it, reinforcing medical authority and silencing patients.
What is the “great confinement,” and how does it reflect broader social and political changes in 17th-century Europe?
The “great confinement” refers to the mass institutionalisation of people deemed unproductive—beggars, the poor, the mad—into workhouses and similar institutions.
It was not a medical initiative but a moral and administrative response to crises such as urbanisation, poverty, and the collapse of feudal charity systems. It reflects the emergence of modern state control and the desire to manage social disorder through confinement and forced labour.
Compare Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical methods. How do they differ from traditional historical approaches?
Archaeology examines the underlying discursive structures that shape knowledge, treating texts as artefacts rather than narratives.
Genealogy traces the historical emergence of concepts through power relations and discontinuities.
Unlike traditional history, which often seeks linear causality and authorial intent, Foucault’s methods focus on ruptures, silences, and the contingent nature of knowledge production.
Why does Foucault describe his work as a “history without a subject”? What are the implications of this for understanding marginalised voices?
Foucault avoids centring individual agency or authorship, focusing instead on how subjectivities are constructed through discourse. This allows him to uncover the conditions that silence marginalised groups, such as the mad or the poor, who do not leave traditional archival traces.
His method reconstructs their historical presence indirectly, giving voice to those excluded from dominant narratives.
Summarise Foucault’s critique of psychiatry. In what ways does he argue that psychiatry reproduces structures of exclusion?
Foucault argues that psychiatry emerged from practices of confinement and continues to exclude by defining who is “normal.” It positions the psychiatrist as the sole authority, rendering the patient passive. Psychiatry claims scientific neutrality but is rooted in historical power relations that marginalise the mentally ill and reinforce institutional control.
Evaluate Foucault’s ambivalent stance on psychoanalysis. How does it both challenge and reinforce psychiatric authority?
Psychoanalysis reintroduces dialogue by allowing the patient to speak, seemingly bridging the gap between reason and unreason.
However, it still operates within a framework controlled by the analyst, who interprets the patient’s speech through a pre-established discourse.
Thus, it reinforces the authority of the psychiatrist while appearing to empower the patient.
What does Foucault mean by “historical contingency,” and how does this concept open up possibilities for alternative forms of knowledge and subjectivity?
Historical contingency means that social categories and institutions are not inevitable but the result of specific historical processes.
Recognising this allows us to imagine alternatives—different ways of organising knowledge, care, and identity. It challenges the naturalisation of current norms and opens space for more inclusive and democratic practices.
