>
> 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
>
Saul,
You are correct. On a purely theoretical level, Foucault compresses
power and domination into nearly synonymous terms. For Foucault, as stated in
'The Subject and Power', power is anything (forces, discourses, tactics,
pleasures, etc.) that conditions, influences or constructs the subjectivity
of the subject (that which subjectifies). Domination is the application
of power which subjectifies As such, all power relations are dominating,
since all forms of power subjectify the subject in some manner. Therefore,
Foucualt states that power and domination are unavoidable in the course
of social life, since society is a web of power relations (from individuals
to institutions), and all power relations subjectify, hence all power relations
are sites of domination. In an earlier post I was criticized for suggesting
that the subject resists power, per se, instead of domination. In Foucualtian
parlance the subject resists both power and domination (the effects of each),
since all power dominates (subjectifies) in some manner (a semantic quibble
really). However, in a more political vein, Foucualt, in many interviews,
distinguishes between power that subjectifies (dominates), as does all power
(that unavoidable social power in any social context), and power that is overly oppressive and dominating (that which is intolerable due to its toalizing
nature, its degree of control, or its lack of avenues for resistance). For
instance, Foucualt states that there is nothing oppressive about a teacher
who knows his/her subject well, passing on such 'truth' to students who
are seeking instruction. Although such a power relation is clearly a game
of truth, it is not one that is so dominating that it must be criticized as
oppressive or intolerable. However, Foucualt states, that if the same teacher
attempted to pass such truths to students in a manner that was too totalizing,
too rigid, without allowing dissent or resistance to such truth, then such
a power relation would indeed constitute intolerable domination. Foucualt,
in his later interviews, appears to be re-interpreting his earlier theoretical
accounts of power and domination, which can be taken to mean that all power is
equally dominating, in that all power subjectifies. It is true that all power
subjectifies, but in his later interviews, Foucault is differentiating
the degree of domination (subjectification)arising form power relations.
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Cal. Riverside
> 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
>
Saul,
You are correct. On a purely theoretical level, Foucault compresses
power and domination into nearly synonymous terms. For Foucault, as stated in
'The Subject and Power', power is anything (forces, discourses, tactics,
pleasures, etc.) that conditions, influences or constructs the subjectivity
of the subject (that which subjectifies). Domination is the application
of power which subjectifies As such, all power relations are dominating,
since all forms of power subjectify the subject in some manner. Therefore,
Foucualt states that power and domination are unavoidable in the course
of social life, since society is a web of power relations (from individuals
to institutions), and all power relations subjectify, hence all power relations
are sites of domination. In an earlier post I was criticized for suggesting
that the subject resists power, per se, instead of domination. In Foucualtian
parlance the subject resists both power and domination (the effects of each),
since all power dominates (subjectifies) in some manner (a semantic quibble
really). However, in a more political vein, Foucualt, in many interviews,
distinguishes between power that subjectifies (dominates), as does all power
(that unavoidable social power in any social context), and power that is overly oppressive and dominating (that which is intolerable due to its toalizing
nature, its degree of control, or its lack of avenues for resistance). For
instance, Foucualt states that there is nothing oppressive about a teacher
who knows his/her subject well, passing on such 'truth' to students who
are seeking instruction. Although such a power relation is clearly a game
of truth, it is not one that is so dominating that it must be criticized as
oppressive or intolerable. However, Foucualt states, that if the same teacher
attempted to pass such truths to students in a manner that was too totalizing,
too rigid, without allowing dissent or resistance to such truth, then such
a power relation would indeed constitute intolerable domination. Foucualt,
in his later interviews, appears to be re-interpreting his earlier theoretical
accounts of power and domination, which can be taken to mean that all power is
equally dominating, in that all power subjectifies. It is true that all power
subjectifies, but in his later interviews, Foucault is differentiating
the degree of domination (subjectification)arising form power relations.
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Cal. Riverside