The Foucault secret uncovered.

Foucault’s constant whisper is simple, but easy to ignore: look at the system, not just the people; examine the structures, not just the events; notice how knowledge and power circulate in ways that shape behaviour and belief. On the surface, news stories seem to be about choices, personalities, or moral failings. But beneath the headlines lies something far more intricate, a web of invisible forces shaping what happens, how it is interpreted, and what society accepts as normal.

Has the news this week been particularly kind to me and made it easy for me to shoehorn Michel Foucault in to every item? I hope not, in fact I propose that Foucault lays bare a secret in open view : Systems and institutions dominate our lives.

Take the NHS strike. It’s easy to frame it as doctors choosing to act or not, but Foucault would point our attention elsewhere. He would want us to see the system itself, the routines, incentives, and expectations that make strikes possible or even inevitable. The strike doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it is a signal of structural tension, a moment where the usual compensations and workarounds break down and the hidden logic of the institution becomes visible. It reminds us that power isn’t only held by managers or ministers; it circulates, dependent on the cooperation and judgment of everyone inside the system.

Look at the BBC controversies. They are rarely just about individual bias or incompetence. The questions they raise, about editorial standards, framing, and the flow of information, reflect the invisible architecture of the institution itself. Who decides what counts as 'news'? How do norms shape what is broadcast, and how does that, in turn, shape public perception? What part of the institutional structure protects itself by personalising failure and ejecting the 'guilty' party'? Foucault would suggest that the story is as much about the system of rules and practices behind the camera as it is about the people in front of it.

Even politics offers the same lesson. Revolt in No. 10 often appears as a drama of personalities clashing, but Foucault would encourage us to read it as techniques of governance, rituals of compliance, and the subtle mechanics of authority. Leaders act, yes, but their choices are circumscribed by systems, traditions, and the invisible expectations of those around them. Power is not simply top-down; it is distributed, negotiated, and performed in ways we rarely notice.

And the seemingly odd stories, the ones about history, memory, or even genetics, also tell the same tale. Remembrance Day rituals, or debates over historical figures’ biology, are not merely symbolic or scientific. They are techniques for shaping belief, producing norms, and regulating how society interprets truth and duty. Knowledge and power are inseparable; what counts as “fact” or “history” is always embedded in social structures and institutions.

Foucault’s whisper is a challenge: don’t stop at the story. Ask why it happened, how it is framed, and who benefits from its repetition. Notice the invisible networks that shape behaviour and belief, the routines that become normal, and the subtle pressures that make resistance possible, or necessary. Every news item, every controversy, every strike or ritual is a window into these structures. The events themselves are often less important than the systems that produce and sustain them.

If we pay attention, we begin to see power not as a thing wielded by a few, but as a complex circulation of rules, expectations, and knowledge. Understanding this doesn’t give us all the answers, but it allows us to step back, notice the machinery of the world, and maybe even act with a little more clarity, creativity, and courage.

In short: look beyond the personalities, look beyond the moment. Look at the system. That is where Foucault’s lesson lives.