Running head: THE NATURE OF POWER

The Nature of Power in International Politics: Looking through the Power-Knowledge

Lens of Michel Foucault

POL541M Theories of International Relations

Martin Angelo T. Millete
11189711 MAPOLSC
Dr. Roman R. Dannug
April 10, 2014

THE NATURE OF POWER

2
Abstract

Michel Foucault has yielded considerable influence on the study of international relations
(IR) through his study on the power-knowledge relationship. Even though Foucault did not apply
the power-knowledge relationship to IR explicitly in any of his works, his study remains
significant to the contemporary flow of IR scholarship. This study aims to emphasize on the
contributions of the Foucaultian power-knowledge relationship as a critical approach to the study
of IR as it focuses on the transcendentalism of humans. Characterizing the study are three
specific IR concerns: discourse analysis, governmentality and the Foucaultian critique on
neorealism, going forth to the conclusion that studying IR through a Foucaultian lens has to
incorporate the assumption that human agency creates structures of history, traditions and views.

Keywords: Foucault, power-knowledge relationship, discourse analysis, governmentality,

neorealism

THE NATURE OF POWER

3
Introduction

The study of international relations (IR) is only one of the many disciplines Michel
Foucault has influenced in his study on the relationship between power and knowledge.
Although Foucault himself has not made any explicit effort to conceptualize what international
in the study of IR means, he nevertheless inspired key research endeavors that contributed to the
development of the discipline. Essentially, the influence of the Foucaultian view in IR
emphasizes on avoiding the confinement of the discipline within concepts commonly identified
with domestic political theory. Thus, this study focuses on the premise that the mutual
relationship of power and knowledge as asserted by Foucault has influenced a critical study of
IR, stressing on the definition of humans as transcendental, rather than empirical, entities
producing their own realities. The Foucaultian notion of humans as creators of history, running
counter to the anthropological notion of humans as historical creations, is influential to the
conception of IR as a phenomena requiring the need to expand further than the traditional role of
the state.
This study proceeds through an assessment of specific IR concerns influenced by the
power-knowledge relationship by Foucault. The first section denotes the significance of
discourse analysis in gauging major concerns in IR. The second section investigates the
applicability of the Foucaultian concept of governmentality, which stresses on defining
government beyond the traditional state-centered archetype. The third section focuses on an
evaluation of neorealist through in IR using Foucaultian notions. The final section synthesizes
the first three sections through the inclusion of critiques highlighting the influence of Foucault in
IR, nevertheless leading to the conclusion favoring the significant contribution of Foucaultian
critical theory in the discipline.

THE NATURE OF POWER

4
Discourse Analysis

The study of IR has undergone significant developments through discourse analysis. The
deconstruction of cultural and nationalist concepts stands at the core of discourse analysis, as it
outlines the capriciousness associated with conventional ideas on IR. With the emphasis of
discourse analysis on the investigation of language written, sign and oral, and semiotics,
Foucault has contributed to the approach in its use in IR through his studies on discourse and
genealogy which he developed from the work of Friedrich Nietzsche (Foucault, 1977;
Fournier, 2012).
Having argued for the independence of ideas from history, Foucault profoundly rejected
structuralism and the prevalence of grand narratives. Foucault defined an important component
to argue the ahistorical nature of ideas the statement, which he defined as system of procedures
that provide meaning to language, depending on the subject to which it is related. A statement,
therefore, relates greatly to the subject of its usage. The subject provides meaning to a statement,
and one statement may not have the same meaning under different subjects. An aggregation of
different statements under a particular subject may create a discourse, which is an organized
background of similarities and differences that leads to the creation of knowledge (Foucault,
1969; 1970; 1977; Fournier, 2012).
Foucault started to develop Nietzschean genealogy by expanding his ideas on discourse
from formal structures to traditions within society. According to Foucault, various series of
struggles have become the foundation of various ideas under different subjects in the case of
Nietzschean genealogy, the government. Rejecting the notion of the linear progression of ideas,
Foucault stated that the definition of ideas in government finds basis from the manipulations of
power operating within a given period. An idea in government may be right or wrong, depending

THE NATURE OF POWER

on the maneuvers generated by power relations in a specific timeframe (Foucault, 1977;

Fournier, 2012).
Discourse analysis in IR has found the integration of both archaeology and genealogy
useful, both being techniques thoroughly developed by Foucault. The difference between
archaeology and genealogy is crucial to the significance of the use of both as tools in discourse
analysis in IR. Archaeology on one hand helps define various environments that trigger the
formation of knowledge, while genealogy on the other hand detects various restrictions to
knowledge production, primarily defined by power relations in specific periods. The
aforementioned tools for discourse analysis in IR help produce findings on how discourse
generates social and political norms and undertakings and significance of systems related to
identity formation and policies related to international affairs (Foucault, 1969; 1977; Fournier,
2012).
Foucaultian genealogical discourse in IR has found an exemplary application on the
United States (US), as laid out in the study of David Campbell. According to Campbell, the
identity of the US is intrinsically volatile due to its composition of immigrants from Europe, Asia
and Africa. However, Campbell has argued that the over time, the US was able to consolidate its
internal conflicts through a powerful external image that conjured symbols and ideologies that
ultimately gave it a single identity before the international community. Leading to the singular
image of the US nation are events dating back to the colonization of Europeans and the
subsequent marginalization of Native Americans, the slave trade using people from Africa, the
entry of immigrants from Europe and Asia to the Second World War, Cold War and terrorism.
The latter events, which spanned throughout the 20th to the early parts of the 21st century, have
evoked the strong essence of patriotism among people in the US alongside the sheer size of the

THE NATURE OF POWER

international political influence of their nation. Campbell has thus presented the Foucaultian
thesis of genealogy through various historical events that led to the presently prominent position
of the US in the international community (Fournier, 2012).
Governmentality
Questioning the notion of the international has become among the focal points of
discourse analysis in IR. However, IR scholars sought to frame the international beyond the
frame of discourse analysis through exploring the work of Foucault on governmentality.
According to Foucault, governmentality is a concept that encapsulates the notion of government
not exclusive to that of the state alone. Foucault took on governmentality as a concept that helps
determine the sources of knowledge production and social control, with both governed by
prominent power relations. Knowledge, as Foucault has consistently noted, empowers
individuals, who in turn engage in knowledge production, hence the cyclical nature of the
Foucaultian notion of the power-knowledge relationship. Governmentality has since contributed
to the study of IR in terms of determining notions of discipline and surveillance extended beyond
domestic borders, in the face of the emergence of the population as a notable entity for
investigating power relations, hence the emergence of the concepts of biopower and biopolitics
(Foucault, 1977; 2004a; Fournier, 2012).
Biopower and biopolitics, both mainly concerned with the aspect of controlling
populations, duly consist of the operation of the power-knowledge relationship asserted by
Foucault. Thus, the use of governmentality in IR has to incorporate the assumption of an
international population, which is beyond the work of Foucault duly limited to the domestic
national sphere. The operations of transnational policies, for instance, would therefore have to
involve the interaction of domestic and international institutions, both of which form part of the

THE NATURE OF POWER

international population under the notion of governmentality in IR. Transnational transactions

between institutions throughout the world, necessitated according to their common interests,
have brought forth the concept of global governmentality. Development induced by IR has
required institutions, which form part of the international population, to implement transnational
policies ensuring the security of their transactions. With the given setting, domestic politics
inevitably have to expand towards accepting international policies via the formation of
international political institutions as a compelling means of preserving order within the
inherently anarchic international setting. Controlling the international population via the
extension of the power-knowledge relationship manifested by the interaction of various
institutions worldwide has thus become the crux of the extension of the Foucaultian notion of
governmentality to IR (Foucault, 1984; 2004a; Fournier, 2012; Gordon, 1980).
Global governmentality provides several implications to the formation of international
norms via the interaction of local and international institutions worldwide. For international
interaction among institutions to become more effective, organizers therein have to agree on
particular sets of requirements in the form of policies to compel individual participants to follow.
Such policies may require institutions, government or nongovernment, to achieve certain levels
of economic output and measurements based on various indices in order to achieve stated
common goals. Therefore, international politics may serve as a breeding ground for intervening
with institutions that fail to comply with transnational policies. Developing nations, for instance,
may receive certain assistances from the international organizations they have joined in as
members to comply with particular requirements. Normally, member-nations that have relatively
advantaged positions are those that channel contributions to developing nations in international
organizations. To secure the interests of the contributing member-nations, international

THE NATURE OF POWER

organizations have to implement various policies ensuring that the developing nations would use
the assistances they have received properly. However, apart from the seeming legitimization of
international intervention on the domestic affairs of particular nations via international
organizations, governmentality has yet to attain expansive use in IR, given that it speaks more of
nation-states in their liberal exercise of power within their particular territories. The powerknowledge relationship is a cycle prominent within nation-states, between governments and their
populations, but the full extent to which it affects IR still remains an area of study in progress
(Foucault, 2003; Fournier, 2012).
Neorealism
Foucault has raised and generated a series of critiques on neorealism, which is among the
most prominent IR theories. Mainly focusing on the premise of humans being rational beings,
which serves as the main fiber of neorealist thought, Foucault raised the notion of humans as
nonstructural sources of knowledge as a modifying premise to that account. The determination of
international structures coming from the rationality of man to avoid anarchy in IR has found a
formidable assessment in the deconstructionist argument of Foucault, who centered on the
proposition that humans are transcendental beings that produce their own history, traditions and
views (Donnelly, 2004; Foucault, 1970; Fournier, 2012).
The Foucaultian notion of humans as creators of history and civilization extends to the
thinking on their awareness of their limitations not induced by external forces, but by their own
convictions. Humans, in line with the premise of Foucault, are aware that they have limitations in
their abilities. Such rational behavior of humans effectively merges well with their inherent roles
as producers of history, traditions and views, among many others, hence making them noncontingent to any prevailing structures and rational at the same time. For Foucault, structures are

THE NATURE OF POWER

not preexistent in that those have emerged from power relations active within a particular period,
hence his notion that history is nonlinear. At the same time, the recognition by humans of their
limitations indicates potential limits in their roles as creators of history. Thus, neorealism has
incorporated Foucaultian thoughts to argue that the state is the prime manifestation of the nature
of humans as rational beings and creators of history (Donnelly, 2004; Foucault, 1970; Fournier,
2012).
The state, being a creation of humans in power, is a product of both human limitations
and transcendentalism. The incorporation of human limitations in the creation of the state makes
it less susceptible to elements of the other, primarily characterized by disorder. Humans, with
their inherent limitations, contribute with their power to establish the state using their abilities
bounded by their limitations in order to introduce political and social order protecting the
population from instances beyond their control. Thus, neorealism duly recognizes Foucaultian
notions of human agency and rationality in its view on the creation of the state (Donnelly, 2004;
Foucault, 1978; Fournier, 2012).
The argument of Foucault centered on human non-contingency has evaluated neorealist
thoughts on the self-interested nature of states. Although states bounded by their identities have
the perception as conflicting with one another under neorealism, the reality that globalization, in
the form of technology transfers and free flow of goods and populations into different nations, is
in place serves as a disputing argument. The non-contingent nature of humans still prevails in
this case, hence necessitating states to impose salient limits to their identity. Extending to the
realm of IR, states may choose to cooperate with one another while protecting their interests,
hence keeping their identities mutually exclusive in the event anarchy replaces cooperation
(Donnelly, 2004; Foucault, 1970; 1978; Fournier, 2012).

THE NATURE OF POWER

10

Overall, one could assert that Foucault has constructively contributed to the analysis of
neorealism, in that his consistent argument on the non-contingency of humans in creating
history, traditions and views have introduced several implications in the neorealist view of IR.
Initially, questions on the rationality of humans have become prevalent under the Foucaultian
view due to its structuralist undertones. Yet, the argument that humans recognize their inherent
limitations has become a focal point in analyzing how they come together to form states and
consequently interact with the international community. The challenge based on Foucaultian
views posed against the neorealist premise of states opposing one another firmly finds basis on
the non-contingency of humans. Some humans may choose to engage in globalization even
though the respective governments of their states choose to abide by a grand narrative of
aversion or worse, hatred, against other states (Donnelly, 2004; Foucault, 1970; 1978; Fournier,
2012).
Synthesis
Despite not having any direct take on IR, Foucault has influenced several developments
that helped shape power relations in the face of an internationalizing world. The powerknowledge relationship Foucault has emphasized in his works has helped influence studies in IR
theorizing how power leads various actors to interact with one another in the international arena.
Arguing that humans are the source of knowledge leading to the creation of history, traditions
and views, Foucault has extended his methodological take on analyzing the power-knowledge
relationship to the continuously expanding breadth of IR scholarship. In such light, Foucault
has effectively influenced IR through his works relating to three significant arenas - discourse
analysis, governmentality and neorealism.

THE NATURE OF POWER

11

Discourse analysis in IR has incorporated Foucaultian notions on archaeology and

genealogy, both of which have served tools for assessing how knowledge came about to
empower people into forming states and eventually engaging into transnational ties. Archaeology
serves as the study underlining various environments that may have conditioned the production
of knowledge, while genealogy emphasized on possible limits that may have affected knowledge
production, such as the powers-to be within a particular period. The effect of the power in effect
during the period of the production of knowledge helps define the nature of ideas coming from
humans, all of which have the innate capabilities to become non-contingent to any existing linear
interpretations of history. Therefore, analyzing IR based on discourse analysis would have to
involve understanding various terminologies and semiotic outcomes in order to understand the
context within which particular ideas have proliferated.
The incorporation of discourse analysis with governmentality under the Foucaultian lens
of IR stands out as a necessary one. Understanding the role of discourse as it takes on the
concept of time and power-defined ideas requires an expansive arena in the form of
understanding power relations per se. Governmentality, literally pertaining to matters on the
workings of a government, is an approach conceptualized by Foucault that is not exclusive to the
nation-state alone. Rather, governmentality generally touches on the power-knowledge
relationship in terms of its effect on mobilizing humans to create systems of social and political
order. Such greatly emanated in the realm of IR, in that institutions from around the world have
engaged in cooperative measures, which eventually led to the formation of transnational policies
to ensure security in transactions. With said definition being the cornerstone of the concept of the
international organization, governmentality thus emerges from the need to keep social and
political order in the international arena, said to be inherently anarchic.

THE NATURE OF POWER

12

Both discourse analysis and governmentality gave the Foucaultian premise on the powerknowledge relationship considerable weight in critiques towards neorealism, a leading IR theory.
Neorealism, which stresses on the inherently anarchic nature of the international arena alongside
the self-interested nature of states, has aroused questions on human rationality and agency in
knowledge production. The conceptualization of states as self-interested entities stems from the
fact that people in power, with their respective limitations, have come together to form states. In
turn, the limitations those people have had resulted to the formation of systems of social and
political order that effectively excluded what many of them deem as beyond their limitations or
irrational to their capabilities. At the same time, however, the innate agency of humans have
allowed for the reality of cooperation between states, as manifested through the free flow of
people and goods and technology transfers. Thus, the narrative of neorealism dictating that states
are generally self-interested and mutually exclusive may not always hold, given that the evident
trend of globalization has stemmed from the preferences of particular humans to cooperate,
despite the seemingly institutionalized position of states to oppose one another.
Conclusion
Foucaultian critical theory has become instrumental in developing concepts in the study
of IR. Although Foucault himself did not explicitly apply his premise on the power-knowledge
relationship to IR in any of his works, his works have become a significant component of the
theoretical debates in IR. Therefore, one could not discount the pervading impact Foucault has
imbued to the stream of IR scholarship, one that continues to evoke compelling critiques and
applications on existing theoretical models in IR.
The basic premise of Foucault on the strong agency of humans, which leads them to
become creators of history, traditions and views as opposed to the modern view magnifying the

THE NATURE OF POWER

13

significance of predetermined grand narratives, has justified the relevance of three Foucaultian
approaches to IR discourse analysis, governmentality and application of the power-knowledge
relationship to neorealism. The consistency of the understanding that human agency creates
history, traditions and views, and that the prominence of the foregoing depends on the kind of
power relations existing at that time has become crucial to determining nonstructural trends in
IR. Power, as it changes hands over time, does not guarantee the continuity of the quality, if not
the codified substance, of human institutions responsible for the transmission of knowledge.
Thus, the application of Foucaultian principles to IR proceeds with the assumption that structures
of history, traditions and views are borne out of human agency, with prevailing structures
enjoying the benefits of the powers-to be at any given time.
Discourse analysis strongly relates to strong human agency characterized by both
archaeology and genealogy. Exploring the environment for knowledge production requires the
identification of constraints primarily characterized by prevailing power relations. In the case of
the US, for example, power relations have shaped the nation away from its multicultural
population through the creation of various national symbols by the powers-to be. Such has
enabled the conception of the US as a nation with one people, despite their differences. From a
nation wrought by racial divisions, the US eventually considered its consolidation under one
identity as among its successes through the formation of uniting symbols introduced by the
people in power at different points in time. In IR, the application of discourse analysis refers to
the conception of the international community itself how states and non-state actors have seen
the rationale behind cooperating with one another through international organizations.
Governmentality emerges as a concept exploring how power relations operate to
propagate knowledge in specific times when the powers-to be operate. Knowing how the nation-

THE NATURE OF POWER

14

state works is not the sole agenda of governmentality, since it refers to the general practice of
power as it conceives hierarchies and social arrangements. The Foucaultian arrangement on
governmentality best emanates from the formation of transnational policies complementing the
interaction of domestic and international institutions with one another at the international arena.
Lastly, neorealism has faced critiques in the face of the Foucaultian notions of discourse
analysis and governmentality primarily due to its structuralist nature. Under a Foucaultian
assessment, humans as strong agents come together to form states and consequent policies
characterized by the recognition of their inherent limitations. States, however, only manifest the
collective interests of their respective powers to-be at specific periods; hence, one could not
generalize those as being primarily self-interested. The fact that trends attributed to globalization
have emerged already disputes the neorealist notion of the self-interested nature of states
conflicting with one another.

THE NATURE OF POWER

15
References

Donnelly, J., 2004. Realism and international relations. New York City, NY: Press Syndicate of
the University of Cambridge.
Foucault, M., 1969. Archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M., 1970. The order of things. New York City, NY: Routledge.
Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York City, NY: Vintage
Books.
Foucault, M., 1977. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In: D. Bouchard, ed. 1977. Language,
counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press. pp. 139-164.
Foucault, M., 1978. The will to knowledge: The history of sexuality. Vol. 1. United Kingdom:
Penguin Books.
Foucault, M., 1984. What is enlightenment? In: P. Rabinow, ed. 1984. The Foucault
reader. New York City, NY: Pantheon Books. pp. 35-50.
Foucault, M., 2003. Society must be defended (Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976).
New York City, NY: Picador.
Foucault, M., 2004a. Securit, territoire, population (Cours au Collge de France, 1977-1978).
France: Gallimard, Seuil Hautes Etudes.
Fournier, P., 2012. Michel Foucault's considerable sway on international relations
theory. Bridges: Conversations in Global Politics and Public Policy, 1(3), pp. 18-43.
Gordon, Colin. ed., 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York
City, NY: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.