A Dialogue of Resistance:
Comparing of Bakhtin and Foucault on the Question of Resistance
Owen Whooley, New York University
Abstract
Although Foucault’s understanding of power does not preclude the possibility of
resistance, the depictions that emerge from his work fail to address resistance adequately.
His is the work of the all-seeing Panopticon, the totalizing episteme, and the normalizing
police. This paper seeks to understand why notions of resistance have been obscured in
Foucault’s work, despite his theory of power. The answer to this question can be found
in Foucault’s theory of discourse, embodied in both archaeology and genealogy. This
theory subscribes to a specific view of discourse and practices that leads to the neglect of
resistance. This paper begins with an exploration of both archaeology and genealogy,
and the resulting studies that emerge from them. Having discussed the pitfalls to
Foucault’s approach to discourse, I then turn to the work of M.M. Bakhtin as an
alternative. Bakhtin posits a dialogic approach to discourse analysis. I argue that a
dialogic approach is more adequate in portraying resistance than Foucault’s archaeology.
To show this value-added I cite a specific example of a dialogic approach to an
interaction between a doctor and a patient (Young, 1989). I offer Bakhtin’s approach not
in substitution to Foucault, but rather view the relationship as complimentary.
Introduction
In the work of Michel Foucault, a tension emerges between his analytics of power
1
and the
depictions of power in his studies. In an assessment of his life’s work, Foucault offers the summary of
how he analyzes power, claiming, “Rather than analyzing power from the point of view of its internal
rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through the antagonism of strategies” (Dreyfus and
Rabinow, 1983: 211). He continues to paint this image of struggle, stating, “At the very heart of the
power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the calcitrance of the will and the intransigence of
freedom” (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983: 222). Conjuring up a metaphor of war, Foucault’s analytics
of power artistically depicts an image of resistance and struggle between competing groups using
specific techniques (Foucault, 1980).
1
As Dreyfus and Rabinow (1983: 184) point out, “Foucault’s account of power is not intended as a theory.
That is it is not meant as a context-free, a-historical, objective description. ” Rather, Foucault seeks to
analyze power within the historical context in which it occurs through an analysis of the practices and
discourses through which it permeates. He offers an “analytics of power” as a series of propositions and
rules of thumb for investigating power.
Page 1 of 19 
Convention