Michel Foucault is often interpreted as a “postmodern” philosopher that rejects modernity, truth, and scientific objectivity and instead espouses a radical (and self-defeating) kind of skepticism. On the other hand, in May of 1984 Foucault’s in an interview published as “The Concern for Truth” (Foucault Live, p. 462) he says:
MF: “We will have to return to the relationships between knowledge and power. I think that in the public’s eye I am the one who has said that knowledge has become indistinguishable from power, that it was only a think mask through over the structures of domination and that the latter were always oppression and enclosure, etc. On the first point I will respond with a burst of laughter. If I had said, or wanted to say that knowledge was power I would have said it, and having said it, I would no longer have anything to say, since in identifying them I would have no reason to try to show their different relationships. I directed my attention specifically to see how certain forms of power which were of the same type could yield to forms of knowledge extremely different in their object and structure. [. . .] Those who say that for me knowledge is the mask of power don’t seem to have the capacity to understand. There’s hardly any point in responding to them.
Q: Which you judge useful to do right now however.
MF: “Which I find important to do now.”
A month later, Foucault died from AIDS related illness. Now, to be sure, Foucault did famously invert Francis Bacon's aphorism, "Knowledge is power", and say, "Power is knowledge." But, of course, this is an aphorism . . . not a proposition that functions as a premise in an argument. That aphorism, I'm pretty sure, did a lot to encourage the postmodern interpretation of Foucault. But, it sure looks like he rejected that view of his ideas.
Comments
and no firm convictions toward your supposition, even with
responders, how can you expect a decent discussion? ....unless you are just throwing in sensational lines around big topics to get on the front page, I can't understand why dying of AIDS would be so much more important to include here than sticking to your subject matter-- M. Foucault's philosophical direction leading up to and beyond his final days--other than attention grabbing?