In traditional knowledgeKnowledgeNature has a neutral, pure background. We're defaulting on science, theoryWordsIt's a tool for discovering the truth and explaining the world's lawsPowersThe goal is to be honest. But..FocoThe subversive assertion that knowledge and power are never separate, that they coexist and form a “knowledge-power” complex. This has led to a long debate: the essence of knowledge is human explorationTruthIs it a reliable tool, or is it the words of power used to divide order, shape perceptions and discipline individuals
From foco's point of view, knowledge is difficult to separate from power, and many so-called “truths” are themselves the product of power. Fukuo does not deny the existence of objective facts in the world, but he reminds us that there is power to screen out what facts can be seen, which issues are worth studying, which interpretations are found to be correct, which words are mainstreamed. In the case of psychiatry, for example, in recent times, dementia was only a diverse mental state; when the knowledge of psychiatry was shaped, it established a set of criteria for judging between normality and madness. This classification is the boundary of power. It defines a section of the population as a patient and thus obtains the legitimacy of intervention, isolation and treatment。
The same logic appears in criminology, sexuality and sociology. Knowledge production is a set of criteria that in turn confers legitimacy on governance behaviour. We thought it was first that the truth was discovered and then managed on the basis of it; what foco saw was that, in order to achieve governance and order, society needed a set of words to explain and define people. Knowledge is used in part to describe the world and in part to regulate people. It is ingrained in our knowledge, allowing us to accept this classification voluntarily and to take “the state of discipline” for granted as common sense. From this point of view, knowledge is not just a record, it is a word that shapes the world. It delineates right and wrong, divides population groups, creates consensus and serves the maintenance of order。
But the opposition to foco is equally solid: by equating knowledge with the rhetoric of power, it will remove the possibility of trueism and slide to extreme relativism. Hard nuclear knowledge, such as physics, chemistry and basic mathematics, has repertoireable experiments and perjury inferences, which are not altered by preference for power. Whatever power may wish to conclude, gravity, chemical reactions and mathematical logic are stable. Power can interfere with the dissemination of knowledge and suppress certain directions of research, but it is not free to distort objective norms themselves。
Many scientists seek knowledge for the purpose of exploring unknowns and correcting prejudices. A great deal of knowledge in history has been used precisely to resist power: anatomy breaks religious imagination of the body, modern epidemiology exposes the cover of public health, and sociological surveys reveal deliberate injustice. If knowledge is merely a trick of power, then it is impossible to rely on knowledge to criticize power and expose lies at the root. The proponents of “knowledge as a tool of truth” believe that knowledge can be used by power, but that knowledge itself has an independent test and that truth is its inner core, and power is only an external interference factor。
Deeper divisions arise from an understanding of “truth”. What foco said was not the absence of objective truth, but the process of its production, dissemination and recognition, embedded in power relations. Instead of rejecting experiments, evidence, logic, he reminded us of two things: a purely objective pattern and a socially packaged, popularized, spoken system. The same objective phenomenon is that different times and positions choose different narrative frameworks, which often hide power preferences。
This also means that both perspectives need not be different. Knowledge is naturally two-faced: it has the potential to be real and carries the risk of expropriation and transformation. The bottom rule of mathematics and physics does not shift by the will of the human being, which is its truth; and when knowledge is translated into social standards, diagnostic manuals, policy rationales, common sense of the general public, it can easily become a tool of governance, quietly completing the shaping of people。
The greatest value of the fukuo doctrine is not to deny knowledge, but to establish a vigilance: in the face of any authoritative discourse, do not simply accept that it is pure truth. We have to ask: who is defining this knowledge? What is it distinguishing, what is permitted, what is forbidden? Who is it giving legitimacy to, and who is it constraining? Such questioning is an important critical thinking。
But we also have to hold the borders: recognizing that knowledge is held hostage to power does not mean that all knowledge is lies and words. If the extreme is to assume that all truths are merely the packaging of power, then reason, evidence, facts lose their roots and, ultimately, even the tools of criticism of power are removed。
This debate is even more relevant in today's internet environment. Various expert opinions, evaluation criteria, psychological labels, and social popular findings are in the broad sense of the term. Some are rational summaries based on solid evidence and others are cataloguing to simplify management and shape public opinion。
In conclusion, knowledge itself has the capacity to reach the truth and is a tool for human understanding of the world; once it enters the social arena, it is difficult to escape the screening, transformation and expropriation of power. Truth is the ideal of knowledge; power permeation is a reality from which knowledge cannot escape. The true maturity is to rely on evidence and reason while insisting on truth, while remaining vigilant and aware of the order behind the words, is not easily held hostage by the rituals that are wrapped in truth。
