In exploring the relationship between knowledge and power, Douzinas’ work raises a compelling question by contrasting perspectives from Chomsky and Foucault. These two philosophers offer distinct interpretations of the intellectual’s role in relation to power.

For Chomsky, power exists as an external force to be challenged, with the intellectual’s responsibility being to “speak truth to power” (Chomsky 1967). He views power and knowledge as oppositional forces, where truth is to be uncovered and spoken against established authority.

Foucault, however, revises Chomsky’s understanding of this responsibility. Rather than seeing power and knowledge as oppositional, he argues they are inextricably linked. Knowledge produces power, and power reciprocally shapes knowledge. For Foucault, it’s not merely a matter of exposing a truth outside of power but recognizing that knowledge itself constitutes a form of power.

Adding to this discourse, historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot in Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History offers insight into how history and power are intertwined. Trouillot’s reflections provide valuable guidance on questions like, “What’s the use of studying history?” and “What role does a historian play in society?”

In his book, Trouillot notes: “The creation of historical narratives often involves the uneven contributions of competing groups and individuals, reflecting disparities in access to the means of production. These forces, though less visible than overt conflicts or political movements, are nonetheless powerful…History is the fruit of power, but power itself is never so transparent that its analysis becomes superfluous. The ultimate mark of power may be its invisibility; the ultimate challenge, the exposition of its roots.”

Trouillot further articulates that “history” has a dual meaning: it represents both what happened and what is said to have happened. The former refers to the sociohistorical process, while the latter concerns our knowledge of that process.

This historiographical perspective bridges Chomsky’s and Foucault’s arguments by acknowledging the dual relationship between knowledge and power. If power’s ultimate mark is its invisibility, then knowledge’s force lies in revealing what is hidden, deconstructing power by exposing its roots. At the same time, power, and the imbalance of power, permeates society and history so deeply that it inevitably influences the process of knowledge production itself. History, as a record of the sociohistorical process, is thus both the product and expression of power.

Word Count: 374