Although Foucault’s methodology of archaeology and genealogy of knowledge contribute greatly to the study of history of knowledge but contrary to general facts of social science. Foucault’s archaeology and genealogy of knowledge produce outstanding works such as History of Madness and History of Sexuality. But, in fact, in theory and practice of social change there is no relation between power and domination. But on the other hand, Foucault’s methodology makes us more sensitive to relation between power and domination. Thus, why is obviously contradict to general fact of science.
Foucault with the method of archaeology and genealogy proved that the history about the healing of the mad in ancient times and now is under the influence of power and domination. In Foucault’s History of madness he tried to explain about how to heal ‘mad people’. In the past, treatment of mad people were exiled to a desert island. Meanwhile, the treatment is more human than the people made by being placed in the ‘clinic’. But because of power and domination this treatment is more restrained treatment or even torture. That why, Foucault’s methodologies contribute to the history of knowledge.
However, Foucault’s methodologies contradict the reality of social science. the general fact of science showed that there is no relation between power and domination. In short, power is not to dominate, and domination is not to support power. Power does not control all aspects of life whether personal life or social. It showed by the existence of ‘human right’. The reality of social science tends to ignore the power in the world of science. For me knowledge is a neutral, objective and innocent. So, Foucault’s methodologies are opposed to the assumption that knowledge is a neutral, objective and innocent.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX