Foucault and Butler both argue that sexuality is not what makes us who we are, that it is simply a social construct. Furthermore, they both believe that by submitting to the mechanisms of power and categorizing ourselves sexually, we provide an impetus for our own enslavement. Although they share similar beliefs in many ways and much of Judith Butler's work draws on the work of Michael Foucault, Judith Butler departs from Foucault's ideas. The reason why Butler revises Foucault is that his concept of biopower leaves no room for resistance to power. For Foucault, the 17th-century shift from a top-down, individual-centered model of monarchical power gave way to a political technology for controlling entire populations. This system of various control techniques, called Biopower, is made up of all the regulatory mechanisms of our society. A regulatory mechanism that particularly concerns Foucault is social categorization. Judith Butler agrees with Foucault on the dangers of categorization, particularly in matters of gender. Butler interprets Foucault through notions of repression and social norms, ignoring the concepts of technology that constitute a crucial part of Foucault's thought. Foucault and Butler truly begin to diverge in their thoughts when Foucault asserts that power in modern societies is in essence a creative force, while Butler believes that power is a repressive force. This is where we see Judith Butler making a revision of Foucault's work, this revision is based on Foucault's understanding of modern power as used rather than possessed, circulating through the collective body of society. For Judith Butler, this model of power circulating rather than emanating from the top down leaves no trace...... middle of paper...... it is always or only symptomatic of a self-imposed homophobia inflicted. Indeed, a Foucauldian perspective could argue that the affirmation of “homosexuality” is itself an extension of a homophobic discourse. » (320/121) As we can see, Judith Butler believes that resistance to identity is a way of resisting external power. His revision of Foucault is one way to achieve this, because Foucault's notions of power leave no room for resistance from outside. We can certainly say that Judith Butler and Michael Foucault have similar ideas: they claim to submit to mechanisms. Power through categorization sets the tone for the means of our own enslavement. However, Judith Butler departs from Foucault's ideas and ultimately revises Foucault's work. The reason for his revision is that Foucault's work simply leaves no room for resistance to power..