Scan barcode
jbogerhawkins's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.25
Foucault is always insightful, but the problem with this collection is that the quality of the interviewers was super uneven. Sometimes they were great and pulled out new threads I hadn't thought about before, but sometimes they had fundamentally misread the original text and Foucault had to spend a long time correcting some boring misinterpretation. Definitely not a good primer on Foucault, or anything really, but there were some delicious morsels to chew on sprinkled throughout the book.
bookbutch's review against another edition
A good overview of some of his most important theories. Less dense and easier to read than his actual works since several of these are interviews so they are condensed and to the point.
epc83's review against another edition
IMO I read enough of this, about this, and countless pages of his other works (history of sexuality; discipline and punish; madness and civilization) to claim that I’ve read it. I wrote a hellish paper on it and believe I have earned the write to put it towards my reading goal.
This man puts forward very interesting, complex, nuanced, and polarizing ideas, but in such a poetic way. His work forces reflections and confrontations of norms.
This man puts forward very interesting, complex, nuanced, and polarizing ideas, but in such a poetic way. His work forces reflections and confrontations of norms.
adamz24's review against another edition
2.0
As usual with Foucault, I just wish he would give me reasons to buy into what he's saying that don't just consist in my predisposition to agree with him on some things (and disagree on others).
"Truth and Power," for instance, gives me just as much reason to believe its assertions as any text that would insist on there being a giant pink invisible untouchable elephant that holds the entire universe in its sway and permeates every facet of our being does.
K, it's not quite that bad, and I'm such a fan of his calling Derrida's writing terroristic obfuscation that I'll be a bit lenient on Foucault's intellectual soft spots, but still...
"Truth and Power," for instance, gives me just as much reason to believe its assertions as any text that would insist on there being a giant pink invisible untouchable elephant that holds the entire universe in its sway and permeates every facet of our being does.
K, it's not quite that bad, and I'm such a fan of his calling Derrida's writing terroristic obfuscation that I'll be a bit lenient on Foucault's intellectual soft spots, but still...
littlereadtomate's review against another edition
dark
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
ludicucek's review against another edition
3.0
This book was a big disappointment. If it were any other author, I would be lenient in my review but this is, unfortunately, not the case. This book is the product of one of the most popular authors in social theory, the great Michel Foucault and because of this, I will have no remorse in my judgment.
One of the things that annoyed me the most, in this book, is the language. Foucault has a tendency to take a complex concept and start rambling about it without precisely defining what he means by it. Other times his sentences simply don't form coherent thoughts. But, since, plenty of philosophers had the same tendency, I decided to let this slide.
The next thing that bothered me is his interpretation of history, or rather the lack of complexity in it.
Foucault simplifies the history of sexuality to a few crucial moments in the 17th, 18th and 19th century. While I agree with the relevance of these particular periods, in the development of a contemporary understanding of sexuality, I find his explanation of why this happened, unclear. Foucault talks about power, the aristocracy, biopolitics, blood etc. Most of his theory can be summed in a few pages without the unnecessary use of vague terms, which he favors. To be more precise, Foucault focuses on the complexity of wrong things.
Foucault is heavily influenced by marxism and so the idea of social conflict is deeply rooted in his theory. The bourgeois is out to get you! I don't care much for structuralism so this was a big no for me.
Taking into context Foucault's life, his work seems highly apologetic of his lifestyle and sexuality and I have no problem with that. But, on a theoretical level, it simply doesn't seem to have that much quality. Foucault is more of a symbol for a new understanding of sexuality which is not based primarily on the biological functions of sex, but in terms of analytical and objective reasoning, Foucault is lacking. In other words, I see the context in which Foucault gained popularity, I just don't think it is deserved, and since I favor empirical confirmation, I cared little for so much unsubstantiated theorizing.
The final verdict is three stars, just because of the cultural relevance of the work, otherwise, it would have been one.
One of the things that annoyed me the most, in this book, is the language. Foucault has a tendency to take a complex concept and start rambling about it without precisely defining what he means by it. Other times his sentences simply don't form coherent thoughts. But, since, plenty of philosophers had the same tendency, I decided to let this slide.
The next thing that bothered me is his interpretation of history, or rather the lack of complexity in it.
Foucault simplifies the history of sexuality to a few crucial moments in the 17th, 18th and 19th century. While I agree with the relevance of these particular periods, in the development of a contemporary understanding of sexuality, I find his explanation of why this happened, unclear. Foucault talks about power, the aristocracy, biopolitics, blood etc. Most of his theory can be summed in a few pages without the unnecessary use of vague terms, which he favors. To be more precise, Foucault focuses on the complexity of wrong things.
Foucault is heavily influenced by marxism and so the idea of social conflict is deeply rooted in his theory. The bourgeois is out to get you! I don't care much for structuralism so this was a big no for me.
Taking into context Foucault's life, his work seems highly apologetic of his lifestyle and sexuality and I have no problem with that. But, on a theoretical level, it simply doesn't seem to have that much quality. Foucault is more of a symbol for a new understanding of sexuality which is not based primarily on the biological functions of sex, but in terms of analytical and objective reasoning, Foucault is lacking. In other words, I see the context in which Foucault gained popularity, I just don't think it is deserved, and since I favor empirical confirmation, I cared little for so much unsubstantiated theorizing.
The final verdict is three stars, just because of the cultural relevance of the work, otherwise, it would have been one.
mburnamfink's review against another edition
3.0
Any scholar in the wide array of disciplines, approaches, and questions which might be encompassed by the term 'critique' has to deal with the legacy of Michel Foucault. In reading Foucault, two questions are always foremost: "How do I explain this to someone else?" And "What the hell is Foucault saying?" Knowledge/Power serves as an adequate aide to answering both these questions, although it does not quite manage to stand on its own.
A collection of interviews and lectures through the mid-1970s, Knowledge/Power shows a more informal Foucault, one working through the contradictions and terminology of his own theories. As such, the various pieces help show 'why' Foucault approached the overarching question of power through strategies, discourses, institutions and the like, as well as some of the methodological 'how' of genealogy and archaeology. The quality of the interviews varies widely. I found 'Two Lectures' and 'Truth and Power' to be the best, with the drunken 'Confessions of the Flesh' a lot of fun as well. Sadly, the book opens with the tedious and annoying 'On Popular Justice: A Discussion with Maoists.'
On the whole, this book is probably best read as a companion to Foucualt's longer histories. The jargon is dense and could use some more clarification. But for all that, I think this collection makes a decent antidote to the unthinking and cult-like academic copying of Foucault's style without his insight.
A collection of interviews and lectures through the mid-1970s, Knowledge/Power shows a more informal Foucault, one working through the contradictions and terminology of his own theories. As such, the various pieces help show 'why' Foucault approached the overarching question of power through strategies, discourses, institutions and the like, as well as some of the methodological 'how' of genealogy and archaeology. The quality of the interviews varies widely. I found 'Two Lectures' and 'Truth and Power' to be the best, with the drunken 'Confessions of the Flesh' a lot of fun as well. Sadly, the book opens with the tedious and annoying 'On Popular Justice: A Discussion with Maoists.'
On the whole, this book is probably best read as a companion to Foucualt's longer histories. The jargon is dense and could use some more clarification. But for all that, I think this collection makes a decent antidote to the unthinking and cult-like academic copying of Foucault's style without his insight.
ikelsey's review
3.0
I often felt a little bit lost as a casual reader unfamiliar with Foucault's writings. I suspect this book would be great for those who have been previously exposed to his publications, but it was definitely a dense read as a stand-alone book. I love his political/philosophocal thought, but I would definitely recommend reading the primary literature if you haven't yet. If you have already read Crime and punishment, the history of sexuality, etc, this book will absolutely be a great reference to clarify Foucault's philosophy.
More...