Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
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.