Unlike Habermas whose account is very abstract -- if you noticed -- Foucault enters his topics through the avenue of what might be called histories, but they cannot be understood as history in the traditional use of that word and so I will start by giving a brief account of some of the jarring things about Foucault. One is that Foucault is infamously known for holding the view that there are no facts apart from interpretations. So for Foucault there are no bare facts in history . In other words there aren't just little facts you run across separate from the interpretations within which the facts were embedded. So this makes history look like a kind of battleground. In other words "you have got my story and I have got mine". As a matter of actual historical practice, when you read historians, I don't think this is a bad description of the way they actually work. I don't know why certain neo-conservatives like William Bennett find this to be relativism, when I see it as a just good description of the way historians actually practise their craft, and its not a simple minded thing like "everyone has an axe to grind", it's not like you don't get surprised even based on your own interpretation and its also not the case that as you work through your interpretation you do not change it radically and change your mind and your prejudices, in fact, when you do that, that's when you are