Re: What do you mean - power?

I've been avoiding entering the various "power" discussions because
I've always found F difficult on this issue. Having said that, may
I put a few questions to those involved in these threads.

First: I note that many of posts use the positive-negative axis as
synonymous with several value binaries (good-bad, etc). I've always
read Foucault's use of positive in a way which avoids such
value-oriented polarities. Power-knowledge is the value neutral
name he gives to the process which 'posits', creates, enables, makes
possible, new words, "objects" and practises. It also negates
(de-posits? un-posits? hmmm.)

Second: F recognizes that all subjects are engaged in this
"economy" of power. Power is not a possession, an entity or object
to be coercively applied by its "owners" on unempowered subjects
who receive the power wieded by these others, but the description
at any time of the truths (and of the permissions to speak these
truths) produced on the agonistic field on which subjects struggle
and resist.

I've asked this question several times before, in other
circumstances. Isn't our current discussion of power, emanating
from a post dealing with McKinnon, slipping into the
bad(power)-good(freedom from power)/they (wielders of
powers)-we(unwilling, coerced, recipients of power) "repressive
hypothesis"? Don't these binaries allow us the illusion of escape
from our inescapable involvement and implication in the
power-knowledge economy.



Partial thread listing: