Do take competence into account when considering power dynamics and hierarchies. In the sense that the authority can also stem from being good at the game, so to say. The postmodern philosophy, on the other hand, seems to be aiming at self-destruction.

Foucault, I hope, was not particularly good at expressing himself. His use of language, whether in English or his native French, lacked structure. Surely a person with a high IQ can do better? But then, if what he claimed was his honest and best view of reality; that there is nothing but top-down power (evil oppressors and innocent victims), how is one supposed to maintain their sanity? I always got the feeling he did not quite accept himself and chose to remain in chaos to avoid judgment.

The postmodern thinking of Foucault, Derrida, and the other French philosophists, has, almost as a side-product, produced some interesting questions about existence and reality. Their attempts to provide answers, as far as I am concerned, were clumsy and misguided. Perhaps we can still learn from them.

I found Chomsky's thoughts on the subject of power and the human nature more cohesive already in the 1970s. That is when Chomsky debated Foucault, who spontaneously refused to have the conversation in English (as was originally agreed upon). I frown upon such tactics. Especially since the switch to French did not seem to make his speech any more coherent. Even the moderator of the debate got confused. Foucault would dismiss any questions he considered too personal - even when they were not.

I am glad others, after the 1970s, have been able to articulate these matters more clearly. Some, of course, already managed to do that ages ago in the form of prose and poetry. Revision may be painful, but it is necessary. Have you by any chance come across Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist?