Foucault’s power is sovereign because it originates from no external source

Evidence

Nor, strictly speaking, is the term “power” adequate as an account of the Foucauldian diagnosis of modern systems of control and management, for while it accurately reflects the modalities and dynamics of these systems, it falls short in delineating the sources from which this type of power ensues. Again, and as happened with the short supply of theory regarding the author, Foucault’s characteristic work was more often than not preoccupied with the modalities and operations of modern power as it has yielded certain performative effects, but the sources of this power remain understood only by implication. Yet, Foucault made it clear enough that this power does not have any particular logic, that its logic is not linear, consistent, or predictable, and that it is not governed by any fixed rules that control its operations. From this plausible diagnosis, one can infer that power begins from no predetermined point or source, and that, lacking dictates from any other source or authority, it is sovereign in both its origins and its modalities of operation. … Just as there is political sovereignty, so is there epistemic sovereignty, a parent of all other forms of sovereignty. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 194

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains why the author substitutes ‘sovereignty’ for the inadequate terms ‘power’ and ‘domination’ in analyzing colonialism.
• XREF: Extends the critique of Foucault’s Eurocentrism from Hallaq’s wider project; contrasts with the diamond-trade chapters’ grounded institutional analysis.