Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This assignment will discuss and compare Foucault and Gramsci’s different understandings of
the way power evolves. On the first part of this write up, Foucault views will be discussed to
show that social power is ultimately created through individuals internalising discipline. On the
second part, Gramsci posits that social power is an intricate process of building hegemony in
which consent and coercion play mutually constituting roles. The discussions on views of these
two authors will show the comparisms for the purpose of this assignment before concluding with
a suggestion that the views of these authors go a long way to explaining some of the power
Foucault writings are largely concerned with the questions of power. He argues that power is
ubiquitous everywhere as will be discussed in this part of the assignment. Also, this part will
show Foucault understanding of the evolvement of power into its modern form. He talked about
power being source of sovereignty and control by leaders in earlier stage of power as a concept.
Power was used as a repressive means to control and rule people with individual’s body targeted
for punishment by means of torture. Torture was used to get confessions from “patients”
(Foucault, 1995, p. 23) and also used as means of killing offenders through different gradual
process.
Similarly, laws were so repressive that a mere suspect can lose his life while being interrogated
just to force confession out from the suspect irrespective of his innocence. It is very ironic that
one is forced to make confession over a crime one did not commit. Power was very negative on
people’s lives as the case was because it did not stop people from committing crimes. Tortures
and executioners apply the laws to extreme on orders from the leader. This system takes a long
2
time, resources and energy to administer. For example, instead of passing judgments on people
and kill them on one single process when found guilty, the leader will prefer to look into the case
for a long period of time before doing a public execution (Foucault, 1995).
On the last stage of evolvement of power, it becomes a means to normalise or change people for
the better. Though people still have to be disciplined but offenders are rehabilitated through fines
and imprisonment. At this stage, the soul was targeted and judges gave more interpretation to
laws and also introduced different sentencing in hierarchical order. In this wise, punishment for
stealing for instance should not be same for murder or manslaughter. Also in another example, a
madman who committed a crime is better off taking to a mental institution to receive cure rather
than going to prison because he did not commit the crime with a reasonable mind (Foucault,
1995).
Foucault sees panoticism as an ideal model of power in which the subject is visible and
supervised. The observer is not seen by the subject who is reminiscent to the observer becoming
omnipresent. In this vein, power is exercised as position and source of knowledge regarded as
and law. This knowledge further sets norms for the society and the subjects are meant to follow
More importantly, the most crucial point is examination of power which is the combination of
surveillance and normalisation. If the surveillance and control fail to normalise the people, then
power is seen to have been abused and misappropriated. This is why he maintained that
3
individuals constitute in power relations. This is because if the individuals refuse to cooperate
with the leader, there will be anomie in the society. Therefore, the leader is within house of
power and is the observer. However, he is also being observed through his action and decision.
With the help of democracy, the leader can be changed if he is not living up to expectations. So,
This era of power is significant and reflects on the economy and superstructures in three different
ways. Firstly, “to obtain the exercise of power at the lowest possible cost (economically, by the
low expenditure it involves; politically, by its discretion its low exteriorization, its relative
invisibility, by the little resistance it arouse)” (Foucault, 1995, p. 218). Secondly, power fulfills
maximum utility in this era and thirdly, it connects growth in economy of power with the positive
outcome of various institutions such as military and education within which power is exercised
(Foucault, 1995).
In this second part of the paper, attempt will be made to pinpoint how Gramsci views evolvement
three different phases though he was forced to understand it that way by becoming a prisoner.
The three phases are Economic/Social, political and military. For Gramsci, economy is linked to
political and military power. Both powers are exercised through mass forces which becomes
hegemony. Hegemony is seen as a superstructure which society and individuals must contend
with in form of socialism or capitalism. However, Gramsci thinks that human consciousness is
the most important thing but could not understand why revolutions took place in the East and not
Furthermore, Foucault posits that Hegemony works through civil society and the state. The state
is not only a repressive force but also make sure it mediates class interests which is prevalent in
capitalist economy. In this case, it makes sure that the capitalist does not exploit the workers
much and the workers do not demand for much wages. In the other hand, civil society also
mediates between states and the economy. The whole process is intertwined and complements
each other. While the state maintains law and order, the civil societies follow the rules and are
productive members of the society with churches and political groups as examples. The civil
society offers constructive opinions and criticisms to government policies to ensure good
Finally, Gramsci argues that in modern capital economy, economic transformation is not enough
but also political constitutions are important. The state should always intervene in the economy to
ensure stability instead of the market forces becoming the determinant factors. In situation where
the state is not functioning properly, war position and war movements should be the central
means of transformation in civil society. Gramsci’s ideal solution for checks and balances in
power is through mass protests by the working class who slowly takes over and reconstitutes civil
society and refashion it to its own image. By putting it house in order, this becomes the central
means of revolution leading to seisure of the state power by the civil society (Gramsci 1929-
1935).
Having discussed the different views of Foucault and Gramsci with regard to evolvement of
power, it is obvious in comparisms that there are some differences. However, both see power as
means of authority and control. They highlighted the evolution of power from overt coercive
5
internalisation for Foucault and hegemony for Gramsci. Meaning Foucault see social power as
being ultimately enacted through individuals internalising discipline whereas Gramsci thinks
social power is an intricate process of building hegemony in which consent and coercion play
Some major difference noted in their different views include the fact that Foucault thinks that
superstructure plays a deeper role and leaves the individuals with little or no option but to comply
with power and live a dogmatic life. Gramsci on the other hand though acknowledges the impact
of superstructure but thinks the most important thing is consciousness. In this regard, human
In conclusion, the modern society has continued to use different systems of power (internalisation
and hegemony) to govern the society. Seisure of power still take place in some society by
military whereas some societies are enjoying democracy. Democracy however is being
interpreted differently in different countries and it is safe to say that different system of power is
still an on going process and therefore there is no one particular system generally acceptable.
What is good for America may not be good for Iran with regards to system of power.
6
Reference:
(Gramsci 1929-1935).
Michele Foucault. 1995. Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage
Books.