resistance

This article aims to reassess the concepts of power, resistance, and subjectivity by examining the ideas of Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault. At first glance, it seems that these two thinkers, rooted in different philosophical and theoretical foundations, are in opposition to each other, making a dialogue between their perspectives seemingly impossible. However, this article proposes an alternative approach by highlighting the common grounds and commonalities in their deconstruction of power. Moreover, it argues that their political views can be seen as aligned and complementary, leading to a deepening and development of each other's ideas and the creation of new political approaches. Thus, the central questions addressed in this article are: what forms of agency emerge for the contemporary subject as result of the deconstruction of power in thought of Arendt and Foucault? How does power act as a source of resistance while opening up new possibilities for the subject? The main finding of this study is that, in contrast to traditional and modern interpretations, power in the works of these thinkers is seen as a positive, creative, and productive concept. Based on this understanding, resistance and alternative forms of empowerment for the subject emerge. It should be noted, however, that Arendt’s and Foucault’s interpretation of resistance agency and power may differ due to the primacy of political and social issues in their respective theories.

The crises that occurred in postmodern era in the West and in other parts of the world have forced thinkers and intellectuals to rethink the events of the Western world and its foundations. The second half of the twentieth century witnessed a revolt of the spheres of thought, especially sociology, against the new order created by the capitalist world, which targeted the centers of power. Among these approaches is the poststructuralists' view, particularly Foucault, on the sphere of power and the resistance against power. Using the ontological view of the institution of family, this descriptive-analytical study considers this institution, which is based on an innate approach to the development of bisexuality, as having advantages that can resist as a focal point against power. The strong point of this institution is to restore the path that the power of the new order has used in the direction of subjectivity. In other words, an attempt is made to first consider the resistance function of family as one of the most stable social institutions. The mechanism of this function is that because of the existence of feelings and the non-individualistic approach in family institution, it finds the resistance power that leads to people's self-awareness, instinct guidance, benefiting from the mentality of women in family and the strength of the family in the economic field, and can disrupt the power of the new order.

In this article, we analyze the basic role of finitude in Heidegger and Foucault’s philosophy. We argue that finitude makes possible Heidegger’s concept of being and the history of being as well as Foucault’s concept of the modernity and the entire history of western thinking in later Foucault. To accomplish this objective, we conduct the following: We analyze the basic finitude in Heidegger’s ontology; We explain “analytic of finitude” in early Foucault’s work namely the birth of the clinic and the order of things; We describe Foucault’s interpretation of Heidegger’s formulation of finitude; We specify the place of partial and relative nothingness in Heidegger and Foucault’s approach to human finitude; We explain that individuality, resistance, truth and historicity are possible by finitude in philosophy of them; And finally, we analyze how Foucault meets Heidegger in passing epistemological understanding of finitude and arriving at practical understanding of self-finitude and outlining the history of being.

The question of deliverance and resistance which represents the final aim of Michel Foucault's research projects, has not received due attention in spite of their importance.
Having described and analyzed Foucault’s view about resistance, this paper fundamentally criticizes it in reference to certain anthropological assumptions included in it.
Since Foucault’s thought on resistance is centered on the negation of the subject, resistance, like the subject, concentrate on three questions: truth, power and morality. Resistance, like the application of power is, in contrast with power and its regime of truth, like power, has two forms: positive and negative.
Foucault’s sees that the positive form of resistance that comes into being outside the framework of hegemony, manifests itself as an aesthetic form.
But, the essence of negative resistance is formed by the negation and rejection of subjection resulting from the truth-power regime and the limitations placed on its maker, in order to achieve deliverance and freedom which can be divided into two forms: theoretical and practical.