Foucault used different ways to make something special out of his ideas in his works. While writing The History of Sexuality, Volume 1 he tries to use his own interpretation of psychoanalysis in order to develop his own concept of biopolitics. Alenka Zupancic, the author of the article, claims that the term biopolitic by Foucault has two meanings with one being the important things that are missed in his account of psychoanalysis and another the consequences of it that caused the symptomatic trace in the biopolitic as a theory of modern power (Zupan?i? 49-52). What is really striking, is the fact that the concept of the unconscious is missing in Foucault`s account of biopolitics. He did not use Freudian prospective of unconscious sexuality as a whole, but left only the account of sexuality, and instead of the unconscious used another Freudian concept repression. Foucault claimed that sexuality that has been repressed with its implantation of perversity and an incitement to discourse forced to speak about that theme which was always hidden (Zupan?i? 53-58). At the same time, Freud proves with the logic of the superego that everything is under control because the generalization of guilt is on the microphysical level. This generalization of illness or, in other words, the psychopathology of everyday life is detected as a new modus operandi of power. Foucault cast this generalization as a means of functioning of biopolitics with the biopower as a new kind of law (Foucault 53-74). With the Bentham's Panopticon, Foucault’s best-known example, the author proves that the internalization of authority could be also called the disciplinary aspect of the Freudian concept of the superego (Foucault 68-79). Both disciplinary and economic aspects correspond to the shift from discipline to security, which combines compulsion with pleasure, the workings of modern biopower. As a consequence, power in Foucault works almost like sexuality in Freud. As well as Alenka Zupancic, I support the idea that Foucault missed the important components of psychoanalysis, but in different interpretation. The author of the article showed that Foucault took the concept of psychoanalysis as well as the concept of the superego as a basis of his theory of biopolitics as modern power. Indeed, the core of the Freudian discovery of the psychoanalysis is the combination of unconscious and sexuality. These two components are equally important and could not exist without each other due to Freudian theory. Alenka Zupancic, though, claims that Foucault took only sexuality and did not even mention the other component that is no less important. As the author noticed, instead of the unconscious, Foucault used another concept that is the notion of repression and, as a result, the term of sexuality that has been repressed (Zupan?i? 59-64). I agree that the unconscious was never mentioned in The History of Sexuality by Foucault; obviously, the word unconscious was not used in this book, but at the same time, when the term is omitted, it does not mean that the whole idea that goes under this term was not mentioned. The omission of the unconscious should not be understood literally; in fact, it is itself intrinsic to sexuality and the reason of all the actions. The unconscious institutes sexuality as a secret, something that was not used to be mentioned, but at the same time forced to see it everywhere and speak about it all the time. The unconscious plays an important role in biopolitics being its equal element. The omission of some terms should not be a reason for a reader to think that this or that notion is not present in the book. It is just a decision of the author not to use the direct word, but to leave its idea as it was in The History of Sexuality by Foucault. This article was written by Alik Saia . More my works you can see here https://prime-essay.net/