“Hegemony, Power, Media: Foucault and Cultural Studies” by Thomas S. McCoy: Summary and Critique

Power as Productive, Not Merely Repressive

Foucault redefines power beyond the classical repressive model, emphasizing its productive and relational nature.

“Power is productive as well as coercive, situational as well as pervasive” (McCoy, 1988, p. 71).
“Foucault examines the workings of power through local, ‘micro-processes’… producing regimes of truth that pervade society” (p. 71).

---

Media as a Vehicle of Power/Knowledge

Mass media—especially television—do not merely reflect society, but actively shape discursive norms and subjectivity.

“Television presents carefully structured, strategically shaded versions of social life… enculturating viewers to values and norms” (p. 71).
“The media shape public discourse… in accord with Foucault’s conception of power-knowledge” (p. 71).

---

Critique of Ideology: Hall vs. Foucault

While Stuart Hall grounds cultural studies in ideology, Foucault sidesteps ideology in favor of discursive formations and subject production.

“Hall emphasizes the centrality of ideology. Foucault leaves ideology alone” (p. 71).
“Foucault does not primarily concern himself… with blocs of ideas… he is concerned with power” (p. 71).

---

Normalization Over Repression

Foucault replaces the “repressive hypothesis” with a more nuanced concept of normalization as a subtle and pervasive form of control.

“He advances a conception of social discipline as a productive, complex social function” (p. 71).
“Normalization took place, values and morals emerged… to structure the tactics” (p. 79).

---

Power and the Formation of the Subject

Foucault’s theory shifts the focus from the autonomous subject to one produced by power relations and discursive practices.

“The individual… is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces” (Foucault 1980d, cited in McCoy, p. 74).
“It is not power, but the subject, which is the general theme of my research” (Foucault 1983: 209; p. 75).

---

Biopower and the Materiality of Control

Biopower represents the subtle embedding of power into institutions, bodies, and routines to regulate populations and produce docile subjects.

“Bio-power… structuring and educating individuals to facilitate the order of things” (p. 78).
“The great fantasy is… a social body constituted by the universality of wills. [Instead, it is] the materiality of power operating on the very bodies of individuals” (Foucault 1980d: 55; p. 79).

---

Cultivation and Surveillance through Television

Television functions as a disciplinary device, teaching norms through ritual and dramatization, subtly reinforcing hegemony.

“Television extends the legitimacy of the social formation… through ritual” (Gerbner & Gross, 1976, cited in McCoy, p. 85).
“Heavy viewers… are more likely… to call themselves moderate, but hold… conservative positions” (Gerbner et al., 1982; p. 86).

---

Reframing Hegemony Beyond the State

Foucault decentralizes power, moving away from state-centric models and focusing on dispersed networks and capillary processes.

“Foucault attempts to outflank… the State/civil distinction. He locates social discipline and regulation as practices evoking power-knowledge relations” (p. 74).
“There seems to me no necessity to postulate the State as the locus for condensing various social practices” (p. 74).

---

Power-Communication Distinction

Power must be distinguished from communication—it structures what can be said, not merely how it is said.

“It becomes necessary also to distinguish power relations from relationships of communication… language, signs or symbolic mediums” (Foucault 1983: 217; p. 78).
“Power works its way intentionally but anonymously… systematic and self-generative” (p. 75).

---

Media and ‘Thinkable Thought’

Mass media in liberal democracies structure what is publicly debatable, creating boundaries around acceptable discourse.

“Mass media order society’s discourses by structuring the thresholds of thinkable thought” (p. 88).
“Within public discourse, Chomsky locates a ‘framework for possible thought’” (Chomsky, 1985; p. 82).

Contribution to Cultural Studies and Ideology Critique (Hall, Gramsci)

• Bridges Foucault and Hall: McCoy positions Foucault’s ideas as a complement, not an opposition, to cultural studies:
  “While Hall and Foucault by no means trace the same territory… their approaches are not mutually exclusive” (p. 71).
• Extends the concept of hegemony: He elaborates on Gramsci’s and Hall’s concepts by introducing Foucault’s focus on discipline and normalization as additional mechanisms:
  “Ideology organizes social experience… signification formulates socially advantageous outlooks… that uphold hegemony” (p. 72).
• Challenges totalizing ideology-based frameworks: McCoy suggests that ideology alone cannot explain contemporary power:
  “Foucault… simply does not situate it on ideological terrain” (p. 74).

---

Contribution to Poststructuralist and Foucauldian Literary Theory

• Centers Power/Knowledge in cultural analysis: McCoy reinforces that knowledge is not neutral, but structured by power:
  “Knowing is perhaps power’s corporeality… Power is made for cutting” (p. 75).
• Proposes discourse as a critical method: Instead of ideology, Foucault introduces discursive formations as sites of meaning production:
  “Foucault examines… discursive formations producing regimes of truth that pervade society” (p. 71).
• Rejects the “Repressive Hypothesis”: He critiques theories that equate power only with repression, expanding literary theory’s approach to subjectivity:
  “He advances a conception of social discipline as a productive, complex social function” (p. 71).

---

Contribution to Theories of the Subject and Identity

• Decenters the Cartesian subject: Foucault, through McCoy’s lens, redefines the subject as a construct of power relations:
  “The individual, with his identity and characteristics, is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies…” (Foucault 1980d, p. 74).
• Supports theories of subjectivation: The article integrates “technologies of the self” with cultural critique, applicable to literary depictions of identity:
  “Discursive practices, tactics and strategies influence development… yet again, no one plans such developments” (p. 77).

---

Contribution to Media Theory and Cultural Criticism

• Applies Foucauldian power to mass media: McCoy brings Foucault into media theory, a move not fully taken by Foucault himself:
  “The media affect the formations of discourse… strategically shaded versions of social life” (p. 71).
• Frames media as disciplinary apparatus: The media are shown to be central in forming docile subjects:
  “Television… aids in the production, as well as the reproduction, of social discipline” (p. 71).
• Aligns with Gerbner’s cultivation analysis: This empirical angle demonstrates how media enculturate values, echoing Foucault’s “docile bodies”:
  “Television cultivates common perspectives… enculturating viewers to norms” (p. 86).

---

Contribution to Political Theory and Literary Representations of the State

• Deconstructs the State as a totalizing force: McCoy, through Foucault, moves beyond Althusser’s structural model of the state:
  “There seems… no necessity to postulate the State as the locus for condensing various social practices” (p. 74).
• Reveals the State’s subtle normalization strategies: The article argues that power in liberal democracies is not always coercive but operates through norms and discourse:
  “Normalization has taken precedence over the coercive legal apparatus” (p. 80).

---

Epistemological Impact on Literary and Communication Theory

• Redefines truth as constructed: Foucault undermines traditional humanist ideas of literary “truth” or authorial intention:
  “The real problem lies not in the idea that humanity progresses, but in what fashion have events unfolded…” (p. 77).
• Connects narrative structures to power networks: The article supports analyses of literature and media that trace power’s distribution rather than fixed meanings:
  “Power relations, not power itself, form the field of analysis” (Foucault 1983, p. 78).

Overreliance on Foucault’s Perspective
McCoy privileges Foucault’s framework at the expense of other valid critical approaches.

“Foucault remained agnostic with regard to formations of class struggle… the truth of discursive relations is not of primary import” (p. 73).
This detachment can appear dismissive of the material consequences of class and economic inequalities.

---

Lack of Theoretical Synthesis with Stuart Hall
Although McCoy compares Hall and Foucault, he doesn’t fully resolve their theoretical incompatibilities.

“Hall chides Foucault for his emphasis on difference over unity” (p. 73).
Hall’s holistic emphasis on ideology is never fully reconciled with Foucault’s pluralist model.

---

Ambiguity in Application to Media
McCoy stretches Foucault’s ideas to mass media without Foucault having directly addressed them.

“While Foucault researched… he did not write about mass communication. Yet his method appears applicable to communication study…” (p. 75).
This interpretive leap can be critiqued as speculative and lacking empirical grounding.

---

Limited Engagement with Counter-Arguments
The article doesn’t fully engage critics of Foucault who emphasize collective agency or emancipatory politics.

“He does not accept the analysis of critical theory… nor especially with those who argue that the truth will free us” (p. 73).
Such dismissal may ignore the liberatory potential within traditional Marxist or postcolonial critiques.

---

Neglect of Subjective Experience
Foucault’s rejection of the Cartesian subject, though discussed, overlooks the importance of lived, affective experience in cultural studies.

“The individual… is the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies, multiplicities, movements, desires, forces” (p. 74).
This mechanistic model of subject formation might underplay personal agency and resistance.

---

Generalization of Media Function
McCoy arguably treats television and media as monolithic instruments of hegemony.

“Television presents rules of power through programs that portray what befalls people who violate those rules…” (p. 85).
This risks ignoring the multiplicity and contestation within media audiences and texts.