p.79 Instead of trying to grasp the meaning of an historical discourse (text),
Foucault approaches it through power, strategies, rules, and tactics which in themselves, as he claimed, have no meaning.
It seems that both Nietzsche and Foucault shared the underlying belief that it is through the phenomenon of power,
rather than anything else, that the world and our history should be approached.
p.80 For Foucault history is the development of competing power structures... history means
the realm of power struggles and the different institutional structures of subjugation.
p.80 Foucault did not conceptualize power in terms
of individual/collective will or in terms of (individual, group or class) interests (Foucault 1980: 188). Rather, he saw
power as a multiform phenomenon which reveals itself through a variety of strategies and tactics.
p.82 What is being for Foucault if, following Heidegger,
we agree that ontology is thinking of being? Here he is in agreement with Nietzsche – being is power. Hence
genealogy is an historical enquiry into the relationships of power networks and their discourses. It is also a critical
enquiry as there are no power relations without resistance
p.82 Nature and things [lose] fixed intrinsic meaning. Things are
worthy because they are useful and are open to our manipulation. Nietzsche and Foucault portray this situation: power
is the only tangible and desirable thing in the twilight of traditional meaning.
