The french philosopher Michel Focualt is known for the concept of "Power-Knowlege." Although many may disagree, I believe that Power-Knowlege is a legitimate concept and may be useful to Objectivists.

Foucault is often accused of being a skeptic who denied the possibility of objective knowlege. In reality it is quite debateable whether Foucault actually was a skeptic. Indeed, a friend of mine, Foucault scholar Aurelia Armstrong, considers Foucault to be not a skeptic at all.

Dr Armstrong argues that Foucault's concept of Power-Knowlege does not mean that "all knowlege is really just a mechanism used to justify power-relations," but rather that "some alleged knowlege is really a lie manufactured for political (power-re-enforcing) purposes." I believe that this softer interpretation of Foucault yields a concept of Power-Knowlege that is not only legitimate but of use to Objectivists.

In Objectivese, concept x counts as power-knowlege if concept X is an anti-concept whose illegitimacy is a product of political biases (i.e. its not the epistemic error, but WHY the specific epistemic error was made).

Ayn Rand identified a number of instances of power-knowlege. I give you the concept of "(the conventional understanding of) selfishness." The error in the traditional understanding of selfishness is that it package-deals "good to self" with "evil to others," however Rand realized that this package-dealing, when not merely an honest mistake, universally went hand-in-hand with power-lust.

I would like to propose some instances of power-knowlege.

1) The 1-dimensional political spectrum. ERROR: Package-dealing opposites (i.e. classical liberalism and national socialism are both considered "right wing"), MOTIVATION: To package-deal any pro-market ideology with national socialism, thus accuse pro-market people of endorsing the holocaust.

2) The Marxist concept of Surplus Value. ERROR: Concept has no referent since it depends on intrinsic economic value (which does not exist), MOTIVATION: To accuse capitalism of being eploitative and thus to advance the idea of centrally-controlled economics (which naturally leads to dictatorship).

Any ideas on the usefulness of the concept of power-knowlege? Or anyone want to add to the list?

Sounds like polemics. Sounds like "global warming." Sounds like propaganda. And it sounds like the human brain doesn't like a vacuum so it's frequently easy to pour popular or arcane garbage into it.

--Brant

Objectivism could use an encounter with a paranoid skeptic. Her categories of "primitive" or "mystical" cultures are entirely self serving within the context of colonialism and imperialism.

I know Foucault through his historic work - Madness and Civilization and Discipline and Punishment - so I have no real knowledge of hs methodology outside the basics. That said, his methodology is extremely antirandian.

Isn't he the guy, dying of AIDS, who went to Mexico to have sex with adolescent boys?

--Brant

Brant,

That is the genetic fallacy (i.e. assuming concept A is worthless because it comes from or is associated with person . Foucault was gay but I do not know whether or not he was a pedophile.

Regardless, even IF he was a kiddie-fiddler (and if he was, that is truly horrid), that does not mean that "Power-Knowlege" is an anti-concept. Indeed, I think that it is a concept that is quite useful. Objectivists and classical liberals of all varieties confront power-knowlege (i.e. anti-concepts that have been created for political purposes) all the time (such as the left-right political spectrum).

Joel,

Whether or not Foucault is a paranoid skeptic is debateable to say the least. I have already referred to at least one Foucault scholar that denies the thesis that Foucault was a skeptic: an acquaintance of mine, Dr Aurelia Armstrong.

In addition, I can point at one famous Objectivist scholar that HAS looked at a traditionally Foucauldian area: Dr Chris Sciabarra. In "Ayn Rand The Russian Radical," he outlines an Objectivist approach to the subject of Power Relations (which was the primary area of Foucault's study).

Furthermore, some libertarians have also argued in favor of the concept of power-knowlege. Take Dr Thomas Szasz. He isn't an Objectivist but he does identify the concept of "mental illness" as power-knowlege, in that the way the concept is used ignores the distinction between mental problems and biological diseases, thus justifying coercive psychiatric treatment.

Again, I don't understand his methodology as much as I'd like to but when I said skeptic I meant skeptical of the categories and content of knowledge and 'common sense' in how they relate to power and dehumanization. Tying into what you said, Foucault accused "Madness" of having to do with the moral superiority, and that morality's common sense nature, of the European elites and not with 'science'.

As for him being paranoid, and this trait being useful, I meant Foucault represents in many ways the antirandian mind set. Rather than looking for the "Truth" he asked instead who that "Truth" would serve - something Objectivism is in need of. "It's clear animals don't have rights but why is this so? Where is the essential difference?", "Its clear nonwestern societies are savage and barbaric, its also clear we can therefore rape, pillage, and murder them at our convenience. I'm not sure I dotted and crossed all my qua's though, can any of you other Roids help me?" "Its clear Man is metaphysically superior to woman, can any of you help me understand why?"

"If its depressing to my urge to dominate and consume than it simply can't be true."

I trust you're able to see my points behind my ranting.

As for Sicaberra, I've wanted to read him but haven't gotten the chance.

I agree that Foucault does possess an anti-Randian mindset. That does not imply that we cannot find some use in some of his concepts.

In addition, I think that alot of alleged "truth" is manipulated for political ends. Take the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis.

Do you feel Objectivism needs to be looked at with the same scrutiny you would apply to global warming?

If you mean that the theories of Objectivism, which I agree with, should be compared to the facts, and if the facts contradict the theories then the theories need to accomodate this, then yes.

If you mean do I think Objectivism is some sort of excuse to rationalize power, then no.

As I said, Foucault never claimed that ALL alleged knowlege was simply a product of power relations. He simply said that some alleged knowleges/ideas (i.e. theories, concepts etc) were, and I agree that SOME concepts/ideas/etc are epistemologically invalid because they have been formulated according to political concerns rather than epistemic ones.