Power being an act of knowledge
Michael Michel Foucault states that the institution, which is the source, is what artificially creates the power. According to him, power originates from the aspect of a net-like structure where the people are rotating in between the threads. Another post-colonial therapist by the name Edward Said, back him up with the idea that the institution is what forms and creates the power in addition to further analyzing the authority about the real effect of the theory also known as Orientalism. In his works, Edward Said digs into power struggles between the colonized and the colonizers, though not clear on how to dominate the resistance to power dominion. Even though they both agree on the importance of power between the people and the institutions, Edward Said eyes to create the relationship between the individual and the institution so as to overcome the challenges in the power concept. This work seeks to compare and contrast the theories between the two men, Michel Foucault and Edward Said.
To begin with, Edward Said and Michel Foucault share the same idea that the institution is what builds the institution, about power being an act of knowledge. In his book The History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault states understanding of power should happen at the first look at the sphere multiplies constituted by the organization. Michel Foucault explains that the idea of authority has to be understood by an in-depth look into how the power acts on the “sphere” and the social circle that is around the person. Also, he explains that power comes from various places and their own relationship to each other. According to him, power comes from various areas and have relationships with each other in many ways. This happens from forces in different places that act upon the individual and not the top to bottom levels relationships, and which can be very dissimilar in any context. According to him, power comes imminently, which means that it is from one place and then extends to all parts of the scope. This act is noted when he suggests that power is pervasive. In his definition, power is the ability to enforce, change, and control the situation. Thus, power can be seen as something that is ever changing since it can be termed as the struggle and transformations process in itself. This notion of power is in favor of Edward Said.
Similarly, Edward Said is in favor of Michel Foucault’s notion of power, that it is disseminated, persuasive, irradiated, instrumental, and has status. Also, according to Edward Said, power creates the canon of value and taste, which cannot be distinguished by the ideas that dignify the truth. His definition of power is further engaged by using the rhetorical device as the anaphora. Also, the author uses the word “it is” repetitively, which emphasizes the importance of his claims in the definition of power. Power is inferred to truth and knowledge as a measure of leadership. Therefore, power has direct control and influence over the ideas and their facts, which is a vital aspect of building on the conceptualization of the web as a whole which is the effects and reasons for the social sciences. There is a similarity with Michel Foucault’s statement that it would be impossible to exercise power without including knowledge in the aspect as well as the knowledge being impossible to engender the power. Hence, from the study of the two men, it is clear that knowledge is persuasive and instrumental to power, which can be subjective. Thus, the power source or the institution, due to its values, tastes, and canons can be dangerous due to its subjectivity. According to Edward Said, the power is influencing the sphere perspectives norms since it is established upon the knowledge which makes the truth.
In contrast to Edward Said’s works, Michel Foucault terms power as the omnipresent agent. In his book, Michel Foucault states an important note that not embracing everything is what makes it appear everywhere but due since it is from all over. In his reasoning, he says that having power everywhere and at all the times simply means that it can be as well be nowhere. Thus, if anyone dared to reject or oppose the powers would have an extension of oppression on their consciousness. According to Michel Foucault, power is biased and elitist since it cannot “embrace everything.” Further, society cannot be held accountable since it is the society that is faced by all the forces and the rebellions against it. Besides, for the society, it cannot escape the factors having nowhere to run to. The author further raises the question as to who shall be entitled to correct the society since it is the knowledge that is omnipresent and influences the power in store.
In the beginning, Edward Said is in agreement with the Michel Foucault’s idea of power in terms of its development and conceptualization, which states that orientalism is a western style of restructuring, giving authority over the Orient and its domination. This is explained by the fact that corporate institutions by its description, settling, ruling, making statements, or making an authorized view of the power when handling the matter of power by the style of having authority over the orient or the individual. Edward Said defines orientalism as the power that is subjective towards individuals or the orients. According to his elaborations, he says that his discourses acts as a network and further how the active forcefulness has caused a problem influence in the orientalism subject. The power is believed to be ever changing and having influence in the shape of an individual in a variety of ways which seem to be everywhere or omnipresent. However, Edward Said is most concerned by the real knowledge and the cultural production of the power determination. While cultural change relates to the truthfulness and the purity as a result of orientalism being referred to the higher power or the institution, just like Michel Foucault, power can be equated to knowledge. Also, it can be seen that the relationship between the colonizers and the colonized as being complicated since the relationships are not one directional.
Later in the study of Orientalism, Edward Said talks of the mutual relationship between the individual and the authority. He talks of support and the reflection of the individuals that are supported by the two entities. He further deconstructs the real life from the places and the ideologies of the narratives. The terms orientalism and orient can be understood before the study of the power conceptualization. Orient in the orientalism is taken as an individual entity. The power creates systems of cultures and thoughts which extends further than a place. Edward Said further explains that orient is not a reality but an idea. From Edward Said’s evidence in the novel “Tranced,” which was a career in the east, the bidirectionality theory connects the career pieces. In his notion, he states that it is in the interest of the Disraeli in the east, which was not meant to trivialize the culture of the east. By researching on the topic, it is the only way for the orients to accept it, even though they cannot present the passion of the orients to portray the orients adequately. Also, Edward Said presents the idea that without the authority, an individual cannot be studied. According to Edward Said, orient presented a different look that had to be portrayed as oriental. In his topic of creation artificiality, the authority is seen to speak for its orients. Orientalism can be understood by determining why power can be placed and oriented through knowledge. Edward Said further suggests that a person that is dominated retaliates with resistance as a measure to counter the orientalist. However, Michel Foucault describes the domination of an individual by the authority in a single directed force.
Lastly, Michel Foucault has faced many critics and theorist who question if his power agency can give any directions as to when and how orients can resist oppressions. In his book, Michel Foucault prefers that future in terms of what he wants regardless of the conceptualization of power. However, he does not go into depth when it comes to determining how to go about to achieve the future. The question the pops up is whether anything can be done to attract much power, now that power can be regarded as pervasive in every aspect of our lives. Edward Said employs, in accordance to Raymond Williams theory that unleashes the dominative mode, to resist the idea of Michel Foucault concerning power that excludes the idea of occident, orients, and orientation as a whole. Occidentalism can be described as the opposite of orientalism, consisting of the perceptions of the westerns who are stereotyped. Raymond implies that the truth can be limited by the minds so that we can understand the little aspects as someone uplifting himself in the position of power. Edward Said also suggest that in order to eliminate ourselves from the power, one should first disengage themselves from the ideas of orients and occident, which is done by removing the problems associated with them as a whole. In this vision, Michel Foucault suggests that to achieve a future that is perfect; people should be way past the racists acts like the texts. Likewise, he advises on objective learning to escape the ability to trivialize the texts. Comparatively, as Michel Foucault explains how the conceptualization of power might work, Edward Said presents an alternative of the solution to the case. Michel Foucault
In conclusion, the works of the two scholars Edward Said and Michel Foucault presents a lot of similarities and differences. While both Edward Said and Michel Foucault describe power as a network that originates from a single source called institution and knowledge. The introduction of Michel Foucault’s work in the education system in the United States of America. Edward Said has had disenchantment with the thinking of Michel Foucault as described by the misunderstandings about Michel Foucault’s purpose. These actions have prompted Edward Said to offer an eloquent analysis of Michel Foucault’s contributions to the theory of the French thinkers.