ca ult ▁simply ▁provides ▁a ▁few ▁valuable ▁maxim s ▁regarding ▁the ▁reading ▁of ▁history . ▁R ort y ▁writes : ▁ ▁Fou ca ult ▁has ▁frequently ▁been ▁critic ized ▁by ▁histor ians ▁for ▁what ▁they ▁consider ▁to ▁be ▁a ▁lack ▁of ▁rig or ▁in ▁his ▁anal ys es . ▁For ▁example , ▁Hans - U l rich ▁We h ler ▁har sh ly ▁critic ized ▁Fou ca ult ▁in ▁ 1 9 9 8 . ▁We h ler ▁regards ▁Fou ca ult ▁as ▁a ▁bad ▁phil os opher ▁who ▁wrong fully ▁received ▁a ▁good ▁response ▁by ▁the ▁human ities ▁and ▁by ▁social ▁sciences . ▁According ▁to ▁We h ler , ▁Fou ca ult ' s ▁works ▁are ▁not ▁only ▁ins u fficient ▁in ▁their ▁empir ic ▁historical ▁aspects , ▁but ▁also ▁often ▁contradict ory ▁and ▁lack ing ▁in ▁clar ity . ▁For ▁example , ▁Fou ca ult ' s ▁concept ▁of ▁power ▁is ▁" des per ating ly ▁und iffer enti ated ", ▁and ▁Fou ca ult ' s ▁th esis ▁of ▁a ▁" dis cipl inary ▁society " ▁is , ▁according ▁to ▁We h ler , ▁only ▁possible ▁because ▁Fou ca ult ▁does ▁not ▁properly ▁differenti ate ▁between ▁authority , ▁force , ▁power , ▁violence ▁and ▁legit im acy . ▁In ▁addition , ▁his ▁th esis ▁is ▁based ▁on ▁a ▁one - s ided ▁choice ▁of ▁sources ▁( pr isons ▁and ▁psych iat ric ▁institutions ) ▁and ▁neglect s ▁other ▁types ▁of ▁organizations ▁as ▁e . g . ▁fact ories . ▁Also