Scan barcode
A review by ludicucek
Znanje i moć by Michel Foucault
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.