Hi.
Excuse, please, the abruptness with which i begin this post.
Power is *not* is bad thing, and I don't think that Foucault ever claimed
that it was. Power does not stand opposed to resistance, or to freedom,
as the enemy against which one struggles. One doesn't struggle in order
to escape *power* - one exercises power in order to escape domination. To
say that power is bad is to identify power with the institutions or
apparatuses that oppress one. It is to posit these factors as the
"origin" of power - this is *precisely* what Foucault argues against - in
the section on method in History of Sexuality, in interviews, etc. etc.
Thus, when Foucault claims that there is no escaping power, he is not
saying that any given struggle is doomed to failure. This is because no
struggle is waged against power - struggle is waged *with* power. One
uses the power available in a specific moment, one exercises power in
one's own interests. And there's nothing wrong with this. To be perfectly
bloodthirsty about it (and perfectly Foucauldian), one doesn't struggle
in order to eliminate power: one struggles in order to exercise power
over one's opposition. To quote: "the proletariat doesn't wage war with
the bourgeoisie because it's just to do so. The proletariat wages war
because it wants to win." (Okay, so I'm paraphrasing.)
Power is not bad - it is precisely the fact that I don't have any power
that's the problem. One struggles to seize power. Power is neither good
nor bad.
Another problem I have with the discussions of power I've read (and this
is connected to my comments above) is that power is presented as this
terrible and inexorably spreading force, slowly but surely unfolding
itself over the great stage of Modernity. In "The Confession of the
Flesh", Foucault argues that the metaphor of the "point progressively
irradiating its surroundings" is *wrong* from his perspective. This
monumentalizing representation of power, I think, has something to do
with the different valences the word in English and in French. In its
French usage (this is Spivak's point - not mine), there is nothing
monumental or frightening about the word "pouvoir" (translated as power).
Power is actually quite mundane and, to all appearances, quite
unremarkable. "Pouvoir" has more of a valence of "ability" or
"can-do-ness" - not "irresistable force". And, I think, it is precisely
the mundaneness of power's normal, everyday exercise that Foucault was
trying to problematize. Power is not spectacular - power is boring. And
it precisely the fact that it is so unremarkable that makes it so
effective.
I just realized that what I've just said might be taken to contradict
what I said earlier. But allow me to clarify: I'm using the term power
here in two different senses, which is to say, I'm actually not talking
about the "same" thing at all. In the first instance: power as "a mobile
and shifting field of force relations" - in which both oppression and
resistance are contained. In the second instance: power as what is
exercised and has complex effects of domination. Power as neither good
nor bad and power as bad.
Oh. One more thing. Could we please stop using the term "human
condition"? It reeks of Eurocentrism. (And, hence, of racism.)
revolution now
malcolm (malcolmt@xxxxxx)
Excuse, please, the abruptness with which i begin this post.
Power is *not* is bad thing, and I don't think that Foucault ever claimed
that it was. Power does not stand opposed to resistance, or to freedom,
as the enemy against which one struggles. One doesn't struggle in order
to escape *power* - one exercises power in order to escape domination. To
say that power is bad is to identify power with the institutions or
apparatuses that oppress one. It is to posit these factors as the
"origin" of power - this is *precisely* what Foucault argues against - in
the section on method in History of Sexuality, in interviews, etc. etc.
Thus, when Foucault claims that there is no escaping power, he is not
saying that any given struggle is doomed to failure. This is because no
struggle is waged against power - struggle is waged *with* power. One
uses the power available in a specific moment, one exercises power in
one's own interests. And there's nothing wrong with this. To be perfectly
bloodthirsty about it (and perfectly Foucauldian), one doesn't struggle
in order to eliminate power: one struggles in order to exercise power
over one's opposition. To quote: "the proletariat doesn't wage war with
the bourgeoisie because it's just to do so. The proletariat wages war
because it wants to win." (Okay, so I'm paraphrasing.)
Power is not bad - it is precisely the fact that I don't have any power
that's the problem. One struggles to seize power. Power is neither good
nor bad.
Another problem I have with the discussions of power I've read (and this
is connected to my comments above) is that power is presented as this
terrible and inexorably spreading force, slowly but surely unfolding
itself over the great stage of Modernity. In "The Confession of the
Flesh", Foucault argues that the metaphor of the "point progressively
irradiating its surroundings" is *wrong* from his perspective. This
monumentalizing representation of power, I think, has something to do
with the different valences the word in English and in French. In its
French usage (this is Spivak's point - not mine), there is nothing
monumental or frightening about the word "pouvoir" (translated as power).
Power is actually quite mundane and, to all appearances, quite
unremarkable. "Pouvoir" has more of a valence of "ability" or
"can-do-ness" - not "irresistable force". And, I think, it is precisely
the mundaneness of power's normal, everyday exercise that Foucault was
trying to problematize. Power is not spectacular - power is boring. And
it precisely the fact that it is so unremarkable that makes it so
effective.
I just realized that what I've just said might be taken to contradict
what I said earlier. But allow me to clarify: I'm using the term power
here in two different senses, which is to say, I'm actually not talking
about the "same" thing at all. In the first instance: power as "a mobile
and shifting field of force relations" - in which both oppression and
resistance are contained. In the second instance: power as what is
exercised and has complex effects of domination. Power as neither good
nor bad and power as bad.
Oh. One more thing. Could we please stop using the term "human
condition"? It reeks of Eurocentrism. (And, hence, of racism.)
revolution now
malcolm (malcolmt@xxxxxx)