On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Thomas Diez wrote:
> Why would you think that power crystallized in a more rigid hierarchical
> structure has to be power in the "old" sovereignty notion? The discursive
> (re)production of a national identity,
What would the (re)production of national identitiy consist in? Does it
use technologies of a disciplinary sort, or repressive exclusionary forces?
In reply to the original post, the term "block" was used to
describe the hierarchization of power. I think maybe "channeled" would
be a better term for understanding the productive effects of Foucault's
disciplinary power.
A question that is related, but slightly off target is found in the back
of Dreyfus and Rabinow's book Beyond Structuralism...(p.207)
"What is power?...How can power be, at the same time, a productive
principle in the practices themselves, and a merely hueristic principle
used for giving the practices a retroactive intelligibility?"
In addition, does anyone heard of books involving "crystals" as a
metaphor for belief structures as opposed to a web or net? Thanks much!
Robert Behrens
rbehrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
it seems to me, is one kind of power
> which (at least for a long time) was a rigid and hierarchical (privileging
> "national" over other identities) power, a domination, intertwined with
> sovereignty but not identical with it. Would others agree with that? - Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> At 14:00 29.04.1996 +1000, you wrote:
> >I have a problem with Foucault's conception of power and its relation to
> >domination. I don't think he adequately distinguishes between the two. He
> >describes power as a series of force relations which are free-flowing,
> >unpredictable and which are easily reversed to become relations of
> >resistance. He describes 'domination' as a state where these normally
> >free-flowing power relations become crystallized into more rigid
> >hierarchical structures which block the flow of forces.
> >Now, it seems to me that this relationship between power and domination
> >is really not all that different from a traditional juridico-sovereign
> >model of power which Foucault claims to eschew. It seems like a standard
> >model of oppression in which the free flow of 'life' or forces or
> >whatever is blocked by some kind of domination. This is all Foucault
> >seems to be saying, and it seems rather conventional to me.
> >Anyway, what do others think? Maybe I've got it all wrong, but I think
> >its a matter which has to be clarified. I'd like to hear your responses
> >to this.
> >SAUL
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
>
> PLEASE NOTE:
> There has been a restructuring of servers at the University of Mannheim.
> Please use the address Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for your reply.
>
> ************************************************************************
> Thomas Diez
> Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
> Mannheimer Zentrum fuer Europaeische Sozialforschung
> Steubenstrasse
> D-68131 Mannheim
> Tel. ++49-(0)621-292-8465
> Fax. ++49-(0)621-292-8435
> Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ************************************************************************
>
>