Can Knowledge and Power Be Separated?

Research record

In modern philosophy, knowledge was often regarded as the realm of truth, proof, reason, and objective inquiry, while power was the realm of state, repression, order, institution, or social control. Michel Foucault questions this clean division—especially in the knowledge that forms the categories of man, crime, disease, sexuality, education, normality, madness, and population. Foucault’s question is not whether ‘truth is impossible’ or whether ‘knowledge is false’. His question is—which institution makes what things knowable? Who gets the right to speak? By what measurements, examinations, records, classifications and generalizations do individuals become objects of knowledge? And how does this knowledge then become a means of controlling behavior? School examinations produce knowledge about students—scores, grades, attendance records, abilities, classifications of ‘average’ and ‘weak’. This knowledge also has administrative consequences—pass/fail, admissions, scholarships, discipline. Here, knowledge and power would not be entirely separate realms. The basic assertion of this chapter is that knowledge and power have mutually-constructive relationships in many human institutions, especially when Knowledge measures, classifies, generalizes and administers to individuals/communities. Foucault’s concept of ‘being–knowledge’ (power/knowledge) says that power is not just an external distortion of knowledge; Sometimes power-relations generate whole fields of questions, categories, records, expertise and testing. There is also the flipside of this relationship—knowledge makes entity more subtle. Through inspections, statistics, examinations, diagnoses, classifications, files and norms, organizations show, compare and intervene in individual behavior.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

The first variant of the former states that the entity–knowledge concept itself is highly broad. If there is power in every social relation, then ‘power’ would not analytically explain anything in particular. The second premise is realistic—when telling the social history of scientific truth, we can confuse the cause of truth with power/institutions. The earth orbits the sun—not an entity-made fact. The third presupposition is liberal—Foucault is so critical of institutions, disciplines, and generalizations that the legitimate functions of law, education, public health, and administration may fall secondary. The fourth premise is moral—if power is everywhere, then how clear is the distinction between oppressive power and legitimate authority? The fifth premise is from the Indian comparison—it would be historically careless to call royalty, penal policy, classical authenticity, master-disciple tradition or caste knowledge distribution directly Foucauldian power/knowledge.

Uttarapakṣa

Answer to the first premise—it is not enough to say ‘power everywhere’; Identify specific mechanisms—who looks, who makes records, who sets rules, who sanctions, who hears appeals? Specificity be the criterion of power-analysis. Answer to the second precedent—being can be a cause of the social production of knowledge, not an ontological cause of fact. Scientific claims should be tested by world evidence. Answer to the third precedent—criticism of discipline is not anti-institutionalism. Schools, hospitals, censuses, laws may be necessary; The questions are proportionality, rights, transparency, consent and correction mechanisms. Answer to the fourth premise—legitimate authority requires public reason, rights-protection, proportionality, accountability, appeal and democratic control. Only influence = not legitimate entity. Answer to the fifth precedent—comparison with the Indian tradition only in the form of problem-dialogue: social distribution of knowledge, authority of evidence, access to scriptural debate, educational institutions, The social consequences of classification. Not historical parallels.

Parallel conclusion

Knowledge and power are not entirely separate realms, especially when institutions measure, classify, record and normalize human beings. Foucault’s power–knowledge analysis shows that examination, surveillance, documentation, and norms both produce knowledge and control behavior. But ‘power affects knowledge’ would not lead to the conclusion that ‘all knowledge is only power’. Scientific, historical and everyday claims can be checked by independent evidence, repetition, source-comparison and resistance to reality. The parallel philosophy proposes power-conscious objectivity—check the institution of the source, check the classification results, open counterarguments, put forth independent evidence, make appeals/amendments possible.

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 6 source passages
2. Central thesis · 5 source passages
3. Major arguments · 15 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 5 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 5 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 8 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 8 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 8 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 6 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 17 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Can Knowledge and Power Be Separated?.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-36/