Table of ContentsPower and KnowledgePower, Foucault and Coach – Athlete RelationshipPower, Foucault and GenderDiscourse and KnowledgeIdeologyDiscourseThis assignment will examine and write about theorist Michael Foucault and in will understand the importance. and the influence he had on knowledge and power in athletic training. This assignment will also reflect on knowledge and power and how its theories have influenced gender/feminism in sports coaching and also how its theories have contributed to the development of the coach-athlete and will reflect on the importance of the impact of knowledge and power on the mental plane and how it can affect. women, especially in sport. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayMichel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, social theorist, and critic of literacy. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge. He did not write about sport per se, but he puts into perspective the conclusions of his theories, according to which his focus on the body of domination and control makes his work relevant to the development of coaches and athletes. Power and knowledgeMichel Foucault describes power as “If power has never been something repressive, if it has never done anything other than saying no, do you really think we would be led to obey it? What makes power so good, what makes it accepted, is simply that it does not weigh on us like a force that says no, but that it produces and passes through things, it induces pleasure, forms of knowledge, produces discourses. It must be considered as a productive network which crosses the entire social body, much more than a negative instance whose center is repression. By this he means that “power” is at its peak when it is least exploited. This helps us understand that “power” does not only work through denial, but that there are other ways of being and other forms of pleasure. guide or direct “the possible field of action of others”. From this, he saw power not as acting in a “top-down” manner but as a sequence of relationships in which an individual interacts with others. Regarding the "top down" method, Foucault suggests that a coach effectively dictates to the athlete without negotiation, in a hierarchical manner, as opposed to a sequence of relationships in which the athlete and coach support each other mutually equally. To put Foucault's understandings into perspective and understand how power affects coaching, Markula and Pringle (2006) used the following example to give a good understanding of what a coach-athlete is and how he works: “A A coach and an athlete exist within a power relationship, in that the coach generally guides the athlete's conduct or performance. Although the coach may develop strategies to direct the athlete's actions, such as keeping him on the bench, the athlete is still relatively free to decide his response and, ultimately, whether he will continue to be trained. The athlete's actions can also reciprocally influence those of the coach. If the athlete, for example, tells the coach that he or she is considering quitting, this could lead to a change in the coach's future actions. So even though the power relationship between coach and athlete may be unbalanced, they can still be seen as existing within aspecific power relationship. » The disciplinary techniques analyzed by Foucault are linked to the systems and tactics used to train and produce athletes. This shows that Foucault analyzed how coaches use different systems and tactics to train their athletes. Sports science has been a key element of disciplinary power in sport; for example, Shogan (1999) explained how Foucault's descriptions of the techniques of disciplinary power read like a "how-to" manual for coaches. This explains why coaching can work as a practice to help guide and discipline modern-day athletes. This type of power, which is central to the control and discipline of bodies, was used in an exercise that Foucault (1979) otherwise called “by means of surveillance.” Foucault's (1972) description of disciplinary power explained by Markula and Pringle (2006) assert that the discipline of power is almost perfectly parallel and is how coaches attempt to control and regulate their athletes. To do this, coaches have a structured plan to get the most out of their athlete and use different training activities, rigid training schedules and observation and judgment practices. As for coaches, this may have been practiced many times, for the better and to help not only the coaching style of the coach, but also the development of the athlete. Shogan (1999) best explained modern discipline as “both an exercise of control and a subject.” Foucault's writings on power, gender, and gender have had considerable influence on many different types of people, personalities, and characteristics, but among feminist theorists have widely criticized and expanded on his work. Feminists have largely followed Foucault's work and engaged with his theories, but it seems that Foucault never showed much attention to feminism or even gender issues. To many people it would seem that this is all very biased towards women and would lead to gender issues, and also the way Foucault shows power bias by focusing on how he invests in the body, but oddly , it is gender neutral. This approach has been widely criticized because it does not take into account the importance of gender in the game of power. He is accused of “overlooking the gender configurations of power”; to “neglect to examine the gendered nature of many disciplinary techniques” and to “treat the body everywhere as if it were one, as if the bodily experiences of men and women were not different and as if men and women had the same relationships with the body. institutions characteristic of modern life. From these quotes, it seems that he does not differentiate between genders in investigating how and why power operates to invest, form and produce gendered bodies. According to Bartky (1998), it appears “blind”. This has extended to the point where this gender decides the techniques and degrees of discipline applied to the body. Bartky (1998) continues and asks: “Where is the description of the disciplinary practices that produce women's “docile bodies,” bodies more docile than men's bodies? This implies that there is no strong evidence to suggest that a woman is less capable of demonstrating the same effective coaching strategies as a man. From a sports coaching perspective, Bartky's study is a valuable way to empower female coaches to believe they have the same abilities as their male counterparts, it offers.”.