Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

The division between true and false is the third exclusionary practice described by
Foucault; those in positions of authority who are seen to be ‘expert’ are those who
can speak the truth. Those who make statements who are not in positions of power
will be considered to be not speaking the truth [p58].
Whether Foucault considers ‘those in positions of authority’ are members of the discipline
‘of the right’ and can exercise the flow of power towards truth effects, is unclear in 1971.
2.1.3.09 The four internal procedures of exclusion from 1971 are all “concerned with
classifying, distributing and ordering discourse and their function is ultimately to
distinguish between those who are authorised to speak and those who are not – those
discourses which are authorised and those which are not” [Mills, 2004, p58-9]. Foucault’s
focus in 1971 is on the discourse. The four procedures, internal to the discourse are:
i. commentary – a commentary on a text is indicative of the richness of the
text, the more commentary that a text receives keeps it in circulation, in
some ways this could be a measure of the text’s quality;
ii. author – as separate to the text;
iii. discipline – whether the text and the aut hor fall within an aut hor ised
disciplinary boundary, relates to the third external exclusion;
iv. rarefaction of the subject – the restraints of propriety with regards to who
can address the subject, where and when [Mills, 2004, p58-9].
2.1.3.10 The discipline is seen as having a minor regulatory role in 1971, the discourse
takes precedent. In the 1976 College de France lecture series, Foucault discusses the
emergence of the Napoleonic university at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the
nineteenth centuries along with the parallel demise of the amateur scholar. “That the
amateur scholar ceased to exist in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a well known
fact” [Foucault, 2003a, p183].
The university has a selective role; it selects knowledges. Its role is to distinguish
between qualitative and quantitative levels of knowledge, and to distribute
knowledges accordingly. Its role is to teach, which means respecting the barriers
that exist between the different floors of the university apparatus. Its role is to
homogenize knowledges by establishing a sort of scientific community with a
recognized status; its role is to organize a consensus. Its role is, finally, to use,
either directly or indirectly, State apparatuses to centralize knowledge. We can now
understand why something resembling a university, with its ill-defined extensions
38