Indeed, if one considers newsworthy events, violent revolution as a mode of change appears much more instinctive to human beings than communicative action. Foucault's Theory of Power

For Habermas, Foucault's theory of power is over generalizing and universalizing. He thus dismisses the latter philosopher's theory as reductionistic and contradictory. Once again Habermas uses philosophical reason rather than mechanical evolution as a basis from which to change the corruptive power held by authorities and institutions. Foucault on the other hand sees power and reason as intertwined with each other. Thus there is no good or bad within power structures themselves, but rather in how they are implemented. Habermas however finds this problematic, and argues that there is then no ground from which to effect the necessary change in of these power structures in order to make them more beneficial for society.

In Foucault's view, there are dangers inherent in holding a large amount of power, whereas for Habermas, power is necessarily bad and in need of change. Foucault's view of power includes knowledge, or truth, in a mutual relationship with this power, and they affect each other in equal part. This, according to Habermas, is ambiguous and problematic. According to Habermas, knowledge has been distanced from power in several important ways that Foucault refuses to recognize.

In coupling power with knowledge...

From his point-of-view, emancipation from power structures is neither possible nor as such necessary. Instead, it is necessary to debate and critique whatever problems arise in order to effect change. Nonetheless, complete emancipation will never be possible, because evolution has dictated the rising of power structures in order to maintain order in society. The associated danger is that power can be abused in several ways to oppress the powerless. It is against this that Habermas exerts his theory; that all power, in the form of oppressive structures, is necessarily bad.
Much has been made of the Foucault/Habermas debate. It is difficult to say which theory is the most effective, or which position holds the most value. Perhaps it is better to adopt an open-minded view of all the elements involved. Obviously, order in society is necessary. It is furthermore obvious that not every person in society is best equipped to wield the necessary power to establish order. Thus, Habermas's theory of communicative action could and should be used in order to best implement power structures within society. When power is used in a corruptive way, this should be exposed by means of communicative action, and change should be implemented in the same fashion. In this way then, Foucault's theory of the relationship between power and knowledge can be used to effect a positive outcome.