Search

Hobbes and Foucault: A Modern Interpretation of Two Forms of Power

Author(s)

Siyu Han, Mingzhe Guo*

Affiliation(s)

University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Hobbes, through his theory of the social contract, argues that sovereign power must be centralized and repressive in order to secure social order and safety. Foucault, by contrast, breaks with the traditional view of centralized power and proposes that power is omnipresent, operating at a micro level throughout all layers of society by means of knowledge and techniques. A comparative analysis of their theories of power reveals the diversity and complexity of power forms in modern society, as well as how technology, knowledge, and social institutions jointly shape the behavior of individuals and collectives. Examining how transformations of power reflect socio-historical change further shows the potential threats that power poses to individual freedom in a context of technological and digital development.

Keywords

Hobbes; Foucault; Transformation of Power; Modern Society

References

[1]Hobbes T. Leviathan. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2011: 167. [2]Jiang X J. The personality split of Leviathan and the theoretical justification of Hobbes’s doctrine of sovereignty. Frontiers of Foreign Social Sciences, 2024, (03):5. [3]Ouyang H L. Is the state necessarily neutral? — From Leviathan in Hobbes’s State Theory. Journal of Hubei Institute of Public Administration, 2020, (04):36. [4]Duan Z Q. Two arguments for the necessity of the state in Hobbes. Social Sciences Journal, 2024, (03):60. [5]Zhou J. War, power and modern society: Foucault’s reconstruction and development of Hobbes’s political philosophy. Trends of Philosophy, 2021, (11):116. [6]Foucault M. Society Must Be Defended. Translated by Qian H. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1999: 16. [7]Liu L. Medical discourse, power logic and governance mechanisms: The three dimensions of Foucault’s biopolitics. Frontiers of Foreign Social Sciences, 2020, (03):24. [8]Mo W M. War as an analyzer of power relations: An inquiry into Foucault’s thought on biopower. Fudan Journal (Social Sciences), 2016, 58(05): 132. [9]Li Y, Zhang M C. An analysis of Foucault’s biopolitics and the concept of life. Journal of Yunnan University (Social Sciences), 2021, 20(05): 49. [10]Shi G N, Liu T F. How scientific discourse comes to dominate the cultural system: the theoretical effects of Foucault’s “knowledge–power” structure. Journal of Dialectics of Nature, 2024, 46(08): 105. [11]Xie C Y. Beyond power domination: technologies of the self and the construction of subjectivity in illness narratives. Chinese Medical Ethics, 2025, 8(06): 741. [12]Meng Q. An examination of the “power/knowledge” of science. Studies in Dialectics of Nature, 2004, (04): 53. [13]Wang Z Q. The logic and fissures of absolute sovereignty: On Hobbes’s state theory. Academic Monthly, 2015, 47(12): 110. [14]Yu H X, Zhou Q W. Hobbes’s view of the state and its analysis. Western Academic Journal, 2020, (23): 37. [15]Tang J Y. The natural dimension and the human dimension of power: A study based on Leviathan. Forum of Social Sciences, 2022, (06): 78. [16]Jiang X J. The personality split of Leviathan and the theoretical justification of Hobbes’s doctrine of sovereignty. Frontiers of Foreign Social Sciences, 2024, (03): 17.