Against Universalism

Against the possibility of contemporary universalism, [Foucault] makes a double critique. First, there is his substantive historical demonstration of absent reason. The rationalization of modern society, as manifest particularly in the thought and activity of the scientifically trained professions, is a fraud (e.g. Foucault 1977, 1978). Professionals actually engage in the manipulation of reason; their ministrations are forms of surveillance, their goal technical control. Enlightenment universalism amounts to [388] the particularism of power; it results in the suppression of subjectivity, not in the exercise of present reason.
Foucault’s second critique is an analytical one. In his later work he insists on the virtually complete identity of knowledge, or discourse, with power. In doing so, the very possibility of decentered experience is denied. The subject, Foucault is fond of repeating, is completely constituted by discourse. In this way, discourse becomes both the basis for power and merely its manifestation in another form. Because truth is relative to discourse, it is impossible to appeal to universalizing standards against worldly power: “Truth isn’t outside power, or lacking in power… Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true” (Foucault 1980: 131). To set about rationally to evaluate the logical consistency, theoretical implications, or explanatory value of a given discourse is obviously a waste of time.

- Jeffrey Alexander, "The Post positivist "Epistemological Dilemma"" pg. 337-338, POSTMODERNISM & SOCIAL THEORY Ed. Seidman and Wagner