A study of exploration of Foucault's anthropology and epistemology and to critic of its implications for limits of duties and authorities of practitioners of schooling

This Article was developed for the purpose to exploration of Foucault’s anthropology and epistemology and to critic of it s implications for limits of duties and authorities of practitioners of schooling. In purpose to responding this questions used inferential analytic and for gathering information the librarian method was used. The results made it clear that based on anthropology and epistemology of Foucault’s theory the following implications deducible. The aim of education is not discovering of meaning but it is “self creation. Education does not have fixed global foundations because the truth is temporal and plural. So the fixed and same methods are not acceptable. Based on Foucault’s pluralism, all cultures are placed in the center of attention of educational system. Foucault’s educational theory is antiauthoritarian so the interests of the member of community are paid attentions much as possible. Education should be critical. For this purpose teacher's statements or the texts are not considered as a holly issue. In education attention to “others” has basic rule. It means that teacher can inform the students from others cultures. Education is based on discourse. So to critique for the educational discourse we should discover hidden or events and bring them back in to the discourse. We should doubt in the intentions of truth. It means we should don’t think that education always try to obtain or discover of truth. Basic of Foucault’s methodological principles the students can know possible conditions of each era. And each era has special characteristics. So students won’t examine historical period with same criterion. Basic on Foucault’s perspective the government couldnt monopolize the education and it has superstructure rule. So education moves toward decentralization. Also in the field of tasks and authorities of administrator in education he and post modernism avoid to employ the “management” term instead they use “conduct” term Because in the humanistic relationship, conduct is dominated. So in the Foucault view the leader is selected by others base on situation. Thus in school all power is not focus in a person as administrator. Task and authority of teacher in education is criterion of transform and relationship between different subjects with waste social, political and economical problems and as an intellectual he will play the role of deconstruction in culture that lives in. But the most critical that inter to Foucault view is that domains of tasks and authorities of educational practitioners is not definite absolutely. So to obtain the educational purposes will be face to problem.