▁work ▁was ▁" dark ▁and ▁p ess im istic ." ▁Though ▁it ▁does , ▁however , ▁leave ▁some ▁room ▁for ▁optim ism , ▁in ▁that ▁it ▁illustr ates ▁how ▁the ▁discipline ▁of ▁philosophy ▁can ▁be ▁used ▁to ▁highlight ▁areas ▁of ▁dom ination . ▁In ▁doing ▁so , ▁as ▁Sto kes ▁claimed , ▁the ▁ways ▁in ▁which ▁we ▁are ▁being ▁domin ated ▁become ▁better ▁understood , ▁so ▁that ▁we ▁may ▁st rive ▁to ▁build ▁social ▁structures ▁that ▁minim ise ▁this ▁risk ▁of ▁dom ination . ▁In ▁all ▁of ▁this ▁development ▁there ▁had ▁to ▁be ▁close ▁attention ▁to ▁detail ; ▁it ▁is ▁the ▁detail ▁which ▁eventually ▁individual izes ▁people . ▁ ▁Later ▁in ▁his ▁life , ▁Fou ca ult ▁explained ▁that ▁his ▁work ▁was ▁less ▁about ▁analyz ing ▁power ▁as ▁a ▁phenomen on ▁than ▁about ▁trying ▁to ▁character ize ▁the ▁different ▁ways ▁in ▁which ▁contemporary ▁society ▁has ▁expressed ▁the ▁use ▁of ▁power ▁to ▁" object iv ise ▁subjects ." ▁These ▁have ▁taken ▁three ▁broad ▁forms : ▁one ▁involving ▁scientific ▁authority ▁to ▁class ify ▁and ▁' order ' ▁knowledge ▁about ▁human ▁populations ; ▁the ▁second ▁has ▁been ▁to ▁categor ize ▁and ▁' normal ise ' ▁human ▁subjects ▁( by ▁ident ifying ▁mad ness , ▁ill ness , ▁physical ▁features , ▁and ▁so ▁on ); ▁and ▁the ▁third ▁rel ates ▁to ▁the ▁manner ▁in ▁which ▁the ▁imp ulse ▁to ▁fashion ▁sexual ▁ident ities ▁and ▁train ▁one ' s ▁own ▁body ▁to ▁eng age ▁in ▁rout ines ▁and ▁practices ▁ends ▁up ▁reprodu cing ▁certain ▁patterns ▁within ▁a ▁given