Talk:Power-knowledge

message: This article relies too heavily on sociological buzzwords. It's extrapolation of Foucault's idea is without any real conclusion but only seems to grace its most general aspects. This is coming from a reader not expert in Foucauldian thought. I was frustrated that the article danced around the centre without alighting on any concrete explanation. Please clarify!
:It's philosophy, not Good Housekeeping and has a jargon of its own. This really isn't that bad. Broadly it means that knowledge is largely ideological, subjective, and relative. Learning this knowledge leads to power (think cultural capital). The reproduction and mechanism of power is sociological. Gutting explains it fairly succinctly 50-53 of his Very Short Introduction (though I don't think it's critical enough). Oh, and Foucault also does a nonsensical endrun around practical knowledge and mathematical knowledge by excluding them from what's "archaeological" knowledge. He never says exactly what "knowledge" is. A bit of a problem, methinks.
:It's somewhat similar to Weber and Dewey i.e. Democracy & Education. Social forces largely act to reproduce social forces e.g. In laymen's terms, "Education (or more accurately, knowledge) leads to more of the same old." or "Might makes right." 
:It's not really a particularly profound insight, in short there is no "center". The term itself IS more of a buzzword than anything else. Academic administrators frequently cite Power/Knowledge whenever doing something unethical, illegal, or immoral e.g. suspending First Amendment freedoms with speech codes, banning legal handgun carry, barring political speakers/clubs etc. This isn't from a major work of his but a post-mortem set of interviews that are largely philosophically worthless. 
:From a philosophical perspective, the difference between Foucault and other sociologically inclined philosophy types is in the details in that he looks at "power" in smaller groups between people (and does so in terms of larger systems). Read "Discipline and Punish" or "The Birth of the Clinic". It'll make sense after that. HTH  Guinness4life (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought he did define knowledge, as what is agreed to be true --81.111.95.42 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buzzwords 

message: can the word "power-knowledge" have anything to do with sorcery? or manipulation of people in power? Fegor 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorcery 

message: power-knowledge refers to the fact that when a word is defined, it automatically includes a group and automatically excludes a group.  For example, when the word homosexual was invented by scientists, it automatically excluded heterosexuals from the meaning of the word, and in effect creating an accepted practice (heterosexuality) and an abnormal practice (homosexuality).  The power to define and accept these terms and definitions lies in society, but the words themselves and their relations are invented by individuals.  This placement of relational information exists in every form of human creation and are called discourses.  These discourses provide information about what is in power and what is not.  When describing these types of abstract ideas, sociological buzzwords are a necessity because they are very specific interactions that have to be well-defined.  This article hardly dances around the subject, it is just a very difficult concept to explain concisely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.63.181 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're expressly defining "power-knowledge" in terms of the "Repressive Hypothesis" without realizing it which will confuse anyone not familiar with the RH. You should link to the article on the RH or its section in the "History of Sexuality" article. Guinness4life (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining the Term