Michel Foucault is, considered by many, the greatest thinker of the twentieth century, but this does not represent a consensus among those who study his works. In fact, Foucault’s work is highly controversial and is considered by some radical, foolish, and having no actual application. Foucault’s work, whether good or ill; indeed, even opponents of his ideas will admit the appeal Foucault’s work have. His theories are likened unto a fad in French philosophy-Edgy and exciting. One of Foucault’s major areas of study was the mechanics of power. Like all of his work, his study of power was highly controversial and spawned intense intellectual debate. This issue created a schism in the French philosophical community that still has residual effects today. Foucault’s work tends to create very strong reactions. It can almost be said that, there are those who agree with Michael Foucault’s work and seek to find the relevance that Foucault seemingly lacked, and there are also those who disagree with Foucault and find that there is no relevance in his theories.

Michael Foucault was already well established in his field, and had been appointed to the Institute François at Hamburg, when he began his studies on power relations. Foucault’s approach was genealogical in nature; indeed, he felt, that studying using a genealogical approach was often the solution to the very problems being studied. Hubert Dreyfus, Professor of Philosophy at UC Berkley explains “Foucault is practicing genealogical therapy…He is trying to historize, and so help dissolve, the ‘emblemized’, one-dimensional, closed, normalized view we have of ourselves…so as to ready us for the possibility of a new social paradigm with a new interpretation of the human self” (p.331). Foucault is quoted as paraphrasing Nietzsche, ‘Historical sense has more in common with medicine than philosophy. It’s task is to become a curative science.’” So when Foucault began his study of power he began along time ago. He studied relationships of power in Medieval Europe on the fiefs, he studied prisons, and hospitals, and insane asylums as they developed through history. His conclusions astounded many in his field. He found an example of a prison, which was designed with utmost care to control the inmates. Foucault used this prison to study power relationships. The prison’s design was circular. The cells all faced inward, and from the cell’s one is unable to see what ones neighbor is doing. In the center was a large tower with one-way glass. The glass allowed the guards to see out, but would not allow the inmates to see in. All the prison cells were oriented facing towards the tower, allowing the cards to observe inmates in their cells from inside the tower (see figure). The prison design was a total success, not only were the wardens able to observe the inmates effectively and deal punitive measures to stop rule infraction, but after some time guards were not even needed to sit in the tower. The inmates-who felt themselves under constant surveillance-trained themselves to not break rules. Foucault realized that this was one way in which power functioned in society. He applied the prison example to the state and found it to be a useful analogy. According to Foucault ever-expanding technology, and surveillance techniques are used to control people. He calls this exercise of power the “panopticon”. He believed the state is the main source of the panopticon. “The panoptic society or Panopticon is a model of human and/or technological organization governed by three principles: clarity, surveillance, and discipline…the omnipresence of the controlling eye is a sure reminder that punishment is always possible”(Debrix, 1999) . The state uses this technique, because “bodies can be disciplined with minimum power and, at the limit, without physical force.” (Debrix, 1999) In the past power was overt-as was the penalty for theft in the Middle Ages, the thief would be taken to a courtyard, where he could be seen by all, and his hand would be cut off. Today this would be seen as an unsatisfactory cruel show of power, so the form power takes has changed. Today, according to the Foucaultian model, power is something covert that is exercised on us every day. The state and other actors use this mode of power, because it is useful in when you need to control large subject populations. The nation state in the modern-age is a panoptic society according to Foucault. Today we can’t be controlled through brute force, the shift from monarchy’s and totalitarian forms of governmentality to liberal democratic societies, created the “panopticon”, which is now the form of control the state opts for; indeed, according to his model, the panopticon is needed for the modern, western, “democratic” society to even exist; Without it, there would be no way for the state to control it’s subject people. The panopticon is the price paid for a “free”, modern technological state. You may recall that not everyone agreed with Foucault’s theories, this explanation is meant to provide a basis from which to continue analyzing the merit of Foucaultian ideas.

Foucault’s advocates not only accept Foucault’s theory, but also try to bolster and build upon his theoretical foundation. Stuart Eldon comments on one compelling aspect of Foucault’s work, “Foucault’s analysis over this long period is orientated around…modes of power…one of Foucault’s most compelling claims is when he suggests that there are two images of discipline…the first is the enclosed institution, situated on the edges of society, but turned inwards; the second is a functional device or apparatus…that makes the exercise of power more effective and enables subtle coercion of the society.” (2003) Jenny Edkins not only commends Foucault’s arguments, but also goes on to say that writers like Foucault “provide us with the tools for reassessment of the possibility of the political.” She believes, as Foucault did, that “surveillance…is a depoliticizing and controlling process”, and that Foucault offers us the a way out, “a way to repoliticize a ‘political act’, would be to interrupt discourse, to challenge what we have, through discursive practices, been constituted as normal, natural, and accepted ways of carrying on”. (1999) Debrix assistant professor of International Relations at Florida International University believes without discursive analysis provided by Foucault that we’ll be forever trapped, “far from realizing this mode of disciplinarity over their everyday lives, the observed subjects become their own self regulators by reproducing the very panoptic structures that normalize them. They become the replicators of the system of surveillance, their own invisible wardens.” (1999) Debrix believes if we don’t take Foucault ideas to heart then we’ll only get caught in the system and strengthen it, giving it more control over our lives-You’re trapped Neo! His supporters see supreme importance in the work of Foucault, and believe it is necessary in order to breaking down barriers that exist in society.

Opponents of Foucault would argue that his theories are ridiculous, and many believe that even if they are true, still leave a void that solves for nothing. Steven Kellner finds Foucault’s method ironic. He feels it absurd that Foucault is identified as postmodernist, yet “produced extremely totalizing theories which are often abstract, overly general, and sometimes oversimplify complex historical situations.” Postmodernism was a reaction to the oversimplified, culturally biased social theories of the Enlightenment, and according to Kellner, Foucault’s “totalizing theory should be rejected in favor of a more multidimensional and complex social theory.” (1991, p.80) Some people find Foucault genealogical “therapy” unsatisfactory. Colwell, Visiting Assistant Professor at Villanova University in Philosophy and Biosciences explains the dilemma, “What marks genealogy, particularly the genealogies of Nietzsche and Foucault, is it’s inability to provide solutions. Neither of the two had anything to say to their readers who asked when they finished their works – ‘what then?’ Foucault especially refused to provide programs for…reform…Each sought to problematize anew problems that had supposedly been solved, problems that were only presented as problems to students by teachers who already new the answers, problems no longer conceived as real problems” (1997). Another problem attributed to Foucault is that his work created an excessively pessimistic view of society. “Readers of Foucault often come away believing that no shackles have been broken in the past two hundred years: the harsh old chains have been merely replaced with slightly more comfortable ones. Heidegger describes America’s success in blanketing the world with modern technology as the spread of a wasteland. Those who find Foucault and Heidegger convincing often view the United States of America as…something we must hope will be replaced, as soon as possible, by something utterly different. [] If that is ones viewpoint, it will inevitably be difficult to muster one’s energy to believe in the possibility of positive action in the world, short of revolution (and even revolution is probably inevitably compromised).” (2001, p.1) Berman feels that Foucault is creating barriers to progress. Anthony Cook rejects Foucault because he believes his theories undermine the chance of any real change. “Foucault seems all to willing to…forsake the possibility of more universal narratives that, while tempered by postmodern insights, attempt to say and do something” Again Foucault’s reluctance to ever take any action irks another intellectual this time the feminist Anthony Cook. Cook wants to believe that feminists have taken strides in opposing power. He’s uncomfortable with the theories of Foucault, because Foucault seems to say that power hasn’t been taken away or defeated rather transformed into new forms. Some stop short of completely rejecting Foucault’s theories, but still have qualms with his methods. Linda Hartstock another feminist explains that both Foucault and his rival Rorty both lack the answer. “Those of us who have been marginalized by the transcendental voice of universalizing theory need something other than ignore power relations as Rorty does, or resist them as figures such as Foucault suggest…We need to recognize that we can be the makers of history as well as the objects of those who have made history…we must do our work on an epistemological base that indicates that knowledge is possible—not just conversation or a discourse on how it is that power relations work. Conversation as a goal is fine; understanding how power works in oppressive societies is important. But if we are to construct a new society, we need to be assured that some systematic knowledge about our world and ourselves is possible…The critical steps are, first, using what we know about our lives as a basis for critique of the dominant culture, and, second, creating alternatives. When the various ‘minority’ experiences have been described and when the significance of these experiences as a ground for critique of the dominant institutions and ideologies of society is better recognized we will have at least the tools to begin to construct an account of the world sensitive to the realities of race and gender as well as class. To paraphrase Marx the point is to change the world not simply to re-describe ourselves [as Foucault does].” (1990, p.170-172) Basically Foucault theories don’t leave room for any kind of opposition, and don’t take into account the many facets of power relations, including: race, gender, religious, and cultural experience. Even if they are true, in Hartstock's opinion, they should still be rejected, because they undermine opposition to oppression/marginilization. Foucault’s critics see do not see profound meaning in his ideas.

Foucault may be a colossal figure of postmodern progression. Yet not all the evidence necessarily supports this conclusion. He may, perhaps, have been a colossal fool, who not only failed to deconstruct power constructs, but -contrary to his supposed intention- undermined the possibility for true change. Either way the impact of his works will be felt in the philosophical community for a great time to come. Few others have affected French Philosophy in the manner Michel Foucault has. The Debate over Foucault’s work has far surpassed his own time and there is a good chance that it will continue far into the future.