By: Ivan Alieksieiev

Imagine, dear students of Charles University, that right now we are standing on one of the most powerful veins of authority. Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you – there exists an indissoluble connection between Knowledge and Power. Have you ever heard the phrase, “Knowledge is Power”? The fact is, according to the 20th-century French historian and writer Michel Foucault, knowledge and power cannot exist independently. But let’s go step by step.

One day, Foucault pondered how power shapes society. It was then that he concluded that power itself is not hierarchical or centralized, but rather lies at the foundation of many different organizations, such as schools, prisons, hospitals, and so on. Consequently, he argued that Truth is not always objective but is created or shaped by various social, political, and economic mechanisms. He noted that power, therefore, cannot exist without a specific form of Knowledge, legitimized as Truth. According to Foucault, Power and Knowledge directly influence and shape each other, meaning they can never exist independently. Knowledge is simultaneously both a product and an enhancement of Power. Thus, scientific dogmas, social norms, and state laws create the necessary “True” knowledge to define what is true and what is real.

Bringing these ideas together, Foucault concluded that there are specific “regimes of truth,” systems through which societies produce and validate knowledge as truth. These regimes literally dictate what is considered acceptable knowledge. The potential danger lies in their power to influence people, their thinking, and their behavior by controlling how they interpret reality through foundational, normalized communications.

The point, as you may have guessed, is that such centralization in shaping our perception of the truth gives the state the ability to shape and modify truth as a crucial part of how we make decisions. Regimes of truth can be used as tools for actively manipulating, restructuring, and changing people’s social perception of reality. As a result, the state can artificially influence our political identity by producing specific historical narratives, laws, and media.

Here, we come very close to the topic of a unipolar hegemonic world raised by Chantal Mouffe. From her perspective, which is close to but distinct from Schmitt’s “friend/enemy” dichotomy, the political world in modern democracy divides into “we/they,” preserving the antagonistic character necessary for the very existence of politics, while transforming it into a less explosive, agonistic form. She argues that a hegemonic world, besides carrying the possibility of a concealed ideological dominance by a single political unit, also threatens to spread a consensus-driven democracy, which she believes does not fit well within the political world and blurs the necessary “we/they” opposition required for balanced democratic decisions. Silencing agonistic opposition will inevitably lead to its far more dangerous counterpart, antagonistic opposition, which is fraught with wars of total annihilation, as excessive centralization of truth carries the risk of parties feeling insufficiently represented or even discriminated against. Therefore, the proper form of political organization would be a pluralistic one, as the diversity of perspectives would help to find the most balanced solution within a cultural democratic discourse.

And here, I come to the main point. I believe that, in light of all that has been said, Mouffe’s pluralistic world could serve as an excellent shield against the misuse of Regimes of Truth. The differences in social orders, traditions, and worldviews, along with a structured approach to peaceful democratic coexistence of opposing ideas, could reliably protect the world from the advent of global hegemony and wars of annihilation while decentralizing power would help preserve the internal justice (as understood by a particular people) of each political entity. 

References:

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). Pantheon Books. (Note: “Two Lectures” is a chapter within this collection)

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. Routledge.