Greg Coolidge says:
...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. [end
of quote]
Now, I can agree with you that in the early to mid 70s Foucault conceived of
power as negative, i.e., oppressive, repressive, and then adjusted his view
of power relations following HS v.1. The later Foucault emphasizes the
enabling or positive characteristics of power, not just those which dominate
or resist domination, but those practices which produce various positive
strategies and techniques for acting. Of course power subjectifies, but at
the same time power relations are exercised only through those who have been
subjectified: the exercise of action upon action. Power relations cannot be
reduced to a single uniform "type" but instead form a very broad myriad of
diverse relations which are anything but polarized. The possible ways in
which a subject can act (later Foucault) are dependent upon the ways in which
that subject has been constituted (as an object, which was F's project in
D&P). Foucault's view of power is not traditional in that chiefly he does
not conceive of power as a "substance" but as an action which acts upon other
actions. Does it make sense to see power relations in this way, as not
necessarily aligning themselves along the poles of domination/resistance?
comments?
Sean H.
...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. [end
of quote]
Now, I can agree with you that in the early to mid 70s Foucault conceived of
power as negative, i.e., oppressive, repressive, and then adjusted his view
of power relations following HS v.1. The later Foucault emphasizes the
enabling or positive characteristics of power, not just those which dominate
or resist domination, but those practices which produce various positive
strategies and techniques for acting. Of course power subjectifies, but at
the same time power relations are exercised only through those who have been
subjectified: the exercise of action upon action. Power relations cannot be
reduced to a single uniform "type" but instead form a very broad myriad of
diverse relations which are anything but polarized. The possible ways in
which a subject can act (later Foucault) are dependent upon the ways in which
that subject has been constituted (as an object, which was F's project in
D&P). Foucault's view of power is not traditional in that chiefly he does
not conceive of power as a "substance" but as an action which acts upon other
actions. Does it make sense to see power relations in this way, as not
necessarily aligning themselves along the poles of domination/resistance?
comments?
Sean H.