The two different kinds of powers that Foucault refers to were very different in my mind before I read this article.  The two different powers that he comes up with in his article are power over and power relations.  When he talks about power over he is literally talking about physical power.  But there are also other aspects relating to the power over not just physically.  The power relations is not so easy to distinguish because it is not physical, it is more hidden and harder to see.  After I read this article written by Foucault I saw how he makes this different distinction between the two powers.  I really liked a quote that he wrote in his article he said “I don’t believe that this question of ‘who exercises power?’ can be resolved unless that other question ‘how does it happen?’ is resolved at the same time.”  The reason I like this quote is that it makes a lot of sense to me.  It is like taking a kid into a building supply store and asking him what kind of material we need for the job, and he decides what to buy.  The kid has no idea of what the material looks like what its called and absolutely no idea of what he is building.  If you let the kid decide your project will come out all screwed up.  It’s the same way with the quote he said.  You can not answer the question: who exercises power?  Unless you know how power works.  It is very interesting how in the article Foucault for beginners the writer sees what Foucault is trying to say.  She starts out by explaining “knowledge is power” and how the author got into this field of study.  After reading this article I had an impression about the author.  After I read the authors interview I had a totally different impression about the author.  I would say that I really liked Foucault much better then the article before.  I mean it made a lot more sense to me.  I understood more of knowledge is power through his writings instead of through someone else’s writings.  I believe that no one can say what the author is trying to say better then the author himself.  When I read the first article I had one idea of what knowledge is power meant, and when I read the authors interview it meant a totally different thing.  Or what I should say is that I saw it in a different light.  Another example that Foucault used in his article that I really liked was, the example he gave with prisoners.  This example really helped me to distinguish between the two different forms of power.  “It was considered that people found guilty of crimes could not be condemned to a more useful penalty than to be forced to work.”  So when people go to jail they are forced to work, but what do they do with the work?  From this example I realized that the reason they made these people work was to exercise power over them.  They didn’t make them work so that they can use the work they did.  They made them work to exercise power over them.  “The profitability of work done in the prisons has always been negligible – it was work for the sake of work.”  Now that last phrase is really disappointing.  Instead of having these men work so that they can make their work useful, they made them work because it was the harshest punishment.  The reason this shows me the difference between the powers that Foucault talks about in his article is that the reason they made people work was to exercise power over them.  That is the simplest example of how people exercise power over.  But power relations are a little more difficult to see in an example.