Paul is correct in clarifying a difference between normalization and
control. For all the reasons he clearly and adeptly stated, I must agree
with Paul and Dan on this division. However, I recall Dan's original
post mentioning "normalizing techniques." My response to Dan dealt
specifically with techniques of normalization and their relation to
control within the apparatus of bio-power.
Foucault definitely would want to keep the analysis on positive forms of
power. In this sense I also agree with Paul and Patton. On the other
hand, there is no statement anywhere that locates techniques or technologies
of normalization within a negative conception of power, whether that be
in terms of domination, punishment, etc. The power apparatus we are
analyzing is still a positive one.
The quote that Paul provides is very interesting in this aspect,
especially in relation to the phrase conceiving power as "`making-up'
citizens capable of bearing a kind of regulated freedom." What are the
technologies of normalization operating here that are identified by
"making-up" and "regulated"? How are these functions distinct from
control? In addition to Paul's previous elucidations, shouldn't we
remember that control is also a positive production of power and its dynamics?
Does this really define control?: "Control is when the possibility for
acting contrary to the influence of others no longer exists." Given the
conception of power that we all accept (the human dynamism of tension), when
does control of this form ever function as a possibility? And how does
this relate to "a kind of regulated freedom"?
Yours in discourse,
Steven Meinking
The University Of Utah
steven.meinking@xxxxxxxxxxxxx