The Study of Philosophical-Theoretical Foundations of the Relationship between Knowledge and Power in "Genealogy" and "Fundamental Methodology"

Introduction: Genealogy and research methods derived from it, such as discourse analysis, have become widely used today, and many social issues and phenomena are studied through this approach. On the other hand, this method is not compatible with the Islamic tradition and leads to methodological relativism. In this article, we intend to examine and criticize Foucault's genealogical method by using the comparative method, from the perspective of the Islamic tradition and relying on Hamid Parsania's fundamental methodology.
Genealogy of  Michel Foucault: After the archaeological method and influenced by Nietzsche, Foucault proposed genealogy. In this method, based on two components of "historicity" and "power," Foucault explains the formation of physical phenomena, social structures, and scientific systems throughout history. Historicity for Foucault means the absence of a final purpose or a universal and specific future for history; thus, his account of history focuses on the present moment. He refers to the past in light of the present moment, and since the present moment, in his view, is not bound to any eternal necessity, the past is also characterized by discontinuities and lacks inherent continuity. In this perspective, knowledge and the formation of history and scientific systems are products of chance and "difference," while in the Islamic tradition, the validity of scientific theories depends on the idea of "identity" and the overall unity of history.
Furthermore, for Foucault, power is both a product and a producer of history and thus, objects fundamentally form within the texture of power relations. In this view, power is not an entity or truth that can be possessed, but rather a fluid and diffuse phenomenon, lacking essence or substance. Power is the factor that creates differences between objects, and the distinction and identity of any object or discourse emerge from power relations. History, in this sense, is the field where the rituals of power operate, and consequently, humanity moves from one form of domination to another. One of the key elements of power in the genealogical method is its close connection with knowledge and epistemic systems. Accordingly, knowledge is no longer an eternal and external truth free from historical contingencies. Instead, it is the result of being embedded within a network of power relations, shaped through discourses. We encounter regimes of truth, which are products of power relations in each era. According to the relationship between power and knowledge in Foucault's genealogy, power is not exercised without knowledge, and power is also the source of knowledge. The genealogical method, in the continuation of the sociology of knowledge perspectives, does not assign any role to traditional metaphysics in the formation of scientific theories and views knowledge and science as purely historical and social phenomena, products of power relations.
Hamid Parsania's fundamental methodology: Parsania's fundamental methodology, which is derived from the principles of Islamic philosophy, seeks to explain the interaction between the fixed and eternal principles of a scientific theory on one hand and its variable and historical elements on the other. This methodology, while considering the changing historical conditions, also pays attention to the core and fixed essence of each theory and its connection to an objective, eternal and per se truth. The fundamental methodology, by relying on a set of philosophical premises upon which a scientific theory is based, provides a framework for the formation of knowledge. This methodology discusses three realms: the first realm is the per se truth of a theory, which is beyond history and metaphysical and does not change over time or with individuals or societies. The second realm examines the theory within the context of the knowledge and awareness of the scholar, which is the scholar's subjective world, receiving per se truths. Finally, the third realm is the realm where the scientific theory is validated in the social and historical world. In summary, the first realm is the logical and epistemic world, the second is the existential dimension of the scholar, and the third is the world of society, history, and culture.
Comparative assessment of two methods: In light of the concept of historicity, the third realm in fundamental methodology is the realm that connects with genealogy and addresses the process of epistemic change. However, the critical and fundamental distinction between it and Foucault's genealogical method is that while it acknowledges historical multiplicity, it remains bound to metaphysics. Parsania, by considering humans as an intermediate species, believes that under this intermediate species, numerous and diverse final species can shape different social worlds and histories. Therefore, the possibility of various forms of social and historical worlds is provided under the metaphysical necessity of humanity. Furthermore, by employing Allameh Muhammad Hossein Tabatabaei's theory of "Validities (E`etebariat)", Parsania considers the attributions of social knowledge to be bound to metaphysical principles. Hence, he explains the plurality of social worlds in light of the graded unity of existence. At the end of this article, with reference to the concept of power in Islamic philosophy, especially as defined by Mulla Sadra, and its distinction from the theologians' understanding of power, we demonstrate how the concept of power in transcendent wisdom can explain both divine metaphysical power and human power. According to the definition provided by Muslim philosophers, power is "the existence of the agent such that if he/she wills, he/she acts, and if he/she does not will, he/she does not act". In this definition, power, as a divine attribute, is defined with reference to the best possible system and, therefore, does not conflict with divine knowledge. On the other hand, since power in this definition is a conditional proposition, the non-fulfillment of an action due to human power does not negate the necessity of divine action and power. In conditional propositions, the truth of the proposition depends not on the truth of the premise or conclusion, but on their interconnection. Given the definition of humans as relational beings in transcendent wisdom, human power is always dependent on and based on knowledge. In this view, human power may not be realized, but the eternal necessity of divine power is not negated, and power may or may not correspond to divine power without detracting from it. In contrast, In Foucault's view of and his genealogical method, human power, being contingent solely on human conditions, cannot correspond to per se truths. Thus, with the denial of human power’s realization, history is subject to rupture. For this reason, Foucault necessarily believes in the rupture of historical discourses and cannot consider an eternal and fixed criterion for historical changes.
Conclusion: In Foucault's genealogy, due to the negation of the metaphysical realm and the historical fluidity of power, there is no longer any per se reference to define science based on the idea of ​​correspondence and identity, but the idea of ​​"difference" of discourses has determined the existence of things and consequently, from an epistemological point of view, the most important feature will be the identification and distinction of one scientific theory from another. On the other hand, Parsania's fundamental methodology tries to pay attention to the constitutive role of the metaphysics (and not its regulative) in the formation of a scientific theory, and also pay attention to the role and influence of social and historical contexts (second and third world) in the process of genesis of science. According to the definition of these two components (history and power) in the fundamental methodology, it is possible to redefine a kind of genealogy according to Islamic wisdom and use it in social research.