Foucault Power

bringing into play the role of power relations does not exclude the use of violence any more than it does the obtaining of consent; no doubt the exercise of power can never do without one or the other, often both at the same time” (p789).It highlights how power is most definitely not the opposite of violence and where power is exercised, sometimes so is violence. In his argument it is important to note that , for a nation to exercise authority, it has to be possible that there were initially choices or actions for the government’s subjects to partake in, for a party to guide them over these - for the issues to be governed. Therefore freedom, Foucault argues, is a prerequisite for power. Taking
Foucault’s argument it seems that power is not

when one characterizes these actions by the government of men by other men - in the broadest sense of the term - one includes an important element: freedom”(p790). In other words, for a government to exercise power, it has to be possible that there were initially choices or actions for the government’s subjects to partake in, for a party to guide them over these - for the issues to be governed. Therefore freedom, Foucault argues, is a prerequisite for power. Taking Foucault’s argument it seems that power is not the essence of all government; instead, both power and freedom are. From Foucault’s argument it is evident that he does not separate violence from power because he argues that they cannot be separated from one another because power cannot exist without violence. Karl Marx in his book theory of history: A defense, writes about violence as a tool for destruction. He talks about power being in the hands of the ruling class who are the rich people in the society but objects the use of barrels of guns to obtain power (p.43). Marx is aware of the role of violence in history. He argues that the emergence of power in the

I can come to say that in some ways I agree with this statement, and in some ways, I do not. I agree that power is an essence of government, as mentioned above, Arendt argues well for this point however I do not believe it is the only essence of government .She argues for her statement by referring to violence being instrumental whenever you use violence it is normal for some other ends. For example, a man might use violence for the ends of gaining respect from another. If violence is instrumental, it cannot be the essence of anything. Power, however, is an in itself. Foucault’s writings demonstrate, there may be other concepts intrinsic to the nature of the concept of government, such as freedom. Marx writings illustrate that the emergence of power in the society is preceded but not caused by hostile outbreaks of violence. He does not support the mechanism of violence as a way to obtain power. In a combination of both writings, a standpoint can only be valid depending on the logic presented in both cases. Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the idea that power and violence are an opposite of one another as Arendt proposes and hence implicitly implies in the quote “power is the essence of all government but violence is not. Looking at the three authors it is important to note