, , , ,


After re-reading several times the conversation between Foucault and Deleuze, I understand their position on power to mean that no sole group or persons should have the responsibility for speaking on behalf of consciousness, truth or knowledge.  In the past Foucault admits that this chore was assigned to the intellectual but now everyone is aware of their position in society and they should be able express that without  being an intellectual exclusively. Deleuze seems to agree with this position because he thinks that those who claim to be reformers, and want to gain power for an under represented group are actually making themselves powerful by speaking for others. Instead, both of these intellectuals think that revolutionary moments are the way to go instead of reforms . I never realized there was a difference between the two.

Further along in the reading Foucault mentions power under a fascist regime, and how the masses actually wanted certain people in the position of power even though they committed atrocities to the people. this reminded me of Germany when Hitler came into power and he managed to get the support of so many people. I understand that the country was distressed at the time and needed a strong charismatic leader but in terms of interests and desires what else could have made it so easy to go along with this dictator’s plan? I wish Foucault would have given an actual example of a fascist regime and explained what benefit did the people have in accepting a dictatorship.