WHAT CAN FOUCAULT’S ANALYSIS OF POWER CONTRIBUTE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?
According to Foucault, power is “the most hidden, the most occulted, the most deeply invested
experience in the history of our culture” (Smith, 2012: 3-4). Michel Foucault wrote expansively
regarding power relations in terms of the human social structures and as machinery of production.
He argued that these kinds of relations, however, also created a modern practice of domination
and power (Gordon, 1980). Power is everywhere says Foucault, and so is resistance. Defining
power has become a contested concept; many argued that power within international relations
could be likened to the weather which is unstable and unpredictable (Walker, 1993). For example,
United States of America, Russia and China power relations after the end of Second World War in
1945 has become controversial (Smith, 2012). Post-modernist argued that power is disciplinary,
while on the other hand, realist depicted power as coercive (Morgenthau, 1960; Berenskoetter and
Williams, 2007). It could be argued that Foucault’s analysis on power creates a holistic approach
to international relation representations between power, the government and the governed. Firstly,
this essay shall point out post-modernist view of power. Secondly, it shall explore realist
perspective. Lastly, it shall focus on Foucault power analysis in terms of its contribution to
international relations.
Power is an essential concept between both the postmodernist and realist standpoint.
Postmodernists depict power as disciplinary and realists depict power as coercive (Morgenthau,
1960; Berenskoetter and Williams, 2007). Power for postmodernists, function underneath the
surface. They see power as networks that infuse every relationship, bodies of knowledge and
various foundations. Albeit, both realist and postmodernist do have common grounds to
investigate connection between history and structure, notwithstanding as in the conflicting
pressure among these two theoretical standpoint lingers. For example, as in the case of Taiwan
and China power relations. On the other hand, John Mearsheimer, a known modern realist
basically associated military and latent power as pivotal. In his view, Mearsheimer defines power
, as “the socio economic ingredients that go into building military power” (Smith, 2012: 4). Arguably,
the concept of power has since been the province of realism in the field of international relations.
Consequently, it could be said that power lies hugely on shared and amicable accountabilities
among all parties involved (Foucault, 1982). Foucault viewed power as an essential part of human
existence and significantly human relationship. Power as with Foucault, not only materialises itself
in the present of conflict of interests but also active where consensus existed. Both Michel
Foucault and Steven Lukes took a closer look into such angle. Luke argued that, “the most
effective and insidious use of power is to prevent such conflict from arising in the first place”
(Lukes, 2005: 27).
Mcnay argues that Foucault version have no differentiation, as such that fails “to conceive of
power in any other way as a constraining form of corporeal control” (Mcnay. 1992: 44). For
Foucault, power within its contemporary style particularly does not operate as in a constraining
style of “corporeal control” (Mchoul and Grace, 1993: 63). It could be said that the most essential
aspect of Foucault’s hypothesis stands to be his emphasis upon the productive disposition of
power’s contemporary practice (Mchoul and Grace, 1993). His major objective was to convert the
negative notion unturned and ascribe the construction of the institutional structures, ideas and
concepts into the motion and practice of power basically in its modern composition. Foucault
(1977: 194) expresses this view strongly below:
“We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in a negative terms: it “excludes”,
it “represses”, it “censors”, it “abstracts”, it “masks”, it “conceals”. In fact, power produces; it
produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals truth” (Foucault, 1977: 194).
In Foucault’s view, contrary to several impression of such social body in terms of sovereignty, he
depicted the modern mechanisms of power as disciplinary power. Criminality in this case
converted rather into the adoption of present day forms of power (Walker, 1993). Hence, this kind
of punishment says Foucault, must have been created through a specified mode of society
(Mchoul and Grace, 1993). This bodies inevitably becomes subjected to surveillance, with
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?
According to Foucault, power is “the most hidden, the most occulted, the most deeply invested
experience in the history of our culture” (Smith, 2012: 3-4). Michel Foucault wrote expansively
regarding power relations in terms of the human social structures and as machinery of production.
He argued that these kinds of relations, however, also created a modern practice of domination
and power (Gordon, 1980). Power is everywhere says Foucault, and so is resistance. Defining
power has become a contested concept; many argued that power within international relations
could be likened to the weather which is unstable and unpredictable (Walker, 1993). For example,
United States of America, Russia and China power relations after the end of Second World War in
1945 has become controversial (Smith, 2012). Post-modernist argued that power is disciplinary,
while on the other hand, realist depicted power as coercive (Morgenthau, 1960; Berenskoetter and
Williams, 2007). It could be argued that Foucault’s analysis on power creates a holistic approach
to international relation representations between power, the government and the governed. Firstly,
this essay shall point out post-modernist view of power. Secondly, it shall explore realist
perspective. Lastly, it shall focus on Foucault power analysis in terms of its contribution to
international relations.
Power is an essential concept between both the postmodernist and realist standpoint.
Postmodernists depict power as disciplinary and realists depict power as coercive (Morgenthau,
1960; Berenskoetter and Williams, 2007). Power for postmodernists, function underneath the
surface. They see power as networks that infuse every relationship, bodies of knowledge and
various foundations. Albeit, both realist and postmodernist do have common grounds to
investigate connection between history and structure, notwithstanding as in the conflicting
pressure among these two theoretical standpoint lingers. For example, as in the case of Taiwan
and China power relations. On the other hand, John Mearsheimer, a known modern realist
basically associated military and latent power as pivotal. In his view, Mearsheimer defines power
, as “the socio economic ingredients that go into building military power” (Smith, 2012: 4). Arguably,
the concept of power has since been the province of realism in the field of international relations.
Consequently, it could be said that power lies hugely on shared and amicable accountabilities
among all parties involved (Foucault, 1982). Foucault viewed power as an essential part of human
existence and significantly human relationship. Power as with Foucault, not only materialises itself
in the present of conflict of interests but also active where consensus existed. Both Michel
Foucault and Steven Lukes took a closer look into such angle. Luke argued that, “the most
effective and insidious use of power is to prevent such conflict from arising in the first place”
(Lukes, 2005: 27).
Mcnay argues that Foucault version have no differentiation, as such that fails “to conceive of
power in any other way as a constraining form of corporeal control” (Mcnay. 1992: 44). For
Foucault, power within its contemporary style particularly does not operate as in a constraining
style of “corporeal control” (Mchoul and Grace, 1993: 63). It could be said that the most essential
aspect of Foucault’s hypothesis stands to be his emphasis upon the productive disposition of
power’s contemporary practice (Mchoul and Grace, 1993). His major objective was to convert the
negative notion unturned and ascribe the construction of the institutional structures, ideas and
concepts into the motion and practice of power basically in its modern composition. Foucault
(1977: 194) expresses this view strongly below:
“We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in a negative terms: it “excludes”,
it “represses”, it “censors”, it “abstracts”, it “masks”, it “conceals”. In fact, power produces; it
produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals truth” (Foucault, 1977: 194).
In Foucault’s view, contrary to several impression of such social body in terms of sovereignty, he
depicted the modern mechanisms of power as disciplinary power. Criminality in this case
converted rather into the adoption of present day forms of power (Walker, 1993). Hence, this kind
of punishment says Foucault, must have been created through a specified mode of society
(Mchoul and Grace, 1993). This bodies inevitably becomes subjected to surveillance, with
