re: Foucault's notion of power
Uncertain about "what F. really meant", my reading of his conceptualizati=
on of power has been that (1) power cannot be reduced to negative or posi=
tive effects in the sense of an "either/or" relation, thus the arguments =
against the "repressive hypothesis" - power is productive and it cannot =
be controlled (a notion which, in IR, has been employed by James Ferguson=
and Kate Manzo, if I remember correctly). That doesn't mean that power =
is independent of articulations; power is in discourse and discourse cons=
ists of articulations. Instead, it seems to me that any characterization =
of power as good or bad can be contested. (I am actually unsure about the=
fact/vakue divide Colin speaks of.) HOWEVER, (2) there seem to be certai=
n instances in Foucault's writing as I read it in which power is problema=
tic, which is whenever a power relation is blocked. (If anyone has the =
quote for this at hand, please help me out here...) But when can we speak=
of such a blockade, considering the open nature of discourse, which seem=
s to allow merely a partial fixation of meaning which will always be cont=
ested, to paraphrase Laclau/Mouffe as well as Connolly?
Best,
Thomas
************************************************************************
Thomas Diez, M.A.
doctoral candidate / researcher
Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
Arbeitsbereich III
Universitaet Mannheim
D-68131 Mannheim
Germany
Tel. ++49-621-292-1765
Fax. ++49-621-292-1787
E-Mail Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*************************************************************************
Uncertain about "what F. really meant", my reading of his conceptualizati=
on of power has been that (1) power cannot be reduced to negative or posi=
tive effects in the sense of an "either/or" relation, thus the arguments =
against the "repressive hypothesis" - power is productive and it cannot =
be controlled (a notion which, in IR, has been employed by James Ferguson=
and Kate Manzo, if I remember correctly). That doesn't mean that power =
is independent of articulations; power is in discourse and discourse cons=
ists of articulations. Instead, it seems to me that any characterization =
of power as good or bad can be contested. (I am actually unsure about the=
fact/vakue divide Colin speaks of.) HOWEVER, (2) there seem to be certai=
n instances in Foucault's writing as I read it in which power is problema=
tic, which is whenever a power relation is blocked. (If anyone has the =
quote for this at hand, please help me out here...) But when can we speak=
of such a blockade, considering the open nature of discourse, which seem=
s to allow merely a partial fixation of meaning which will always be cont=
ested, to paraphrase Laclau/Mouffe as well as Connolly?
Best,
Thomas
************************************************************************
Thomas Diez, M.A.
doctoral candidate / researcher
Mannheim Centre for European Social Research
Arbeitsbereich III
Universitaet Mannheim
D-68131 Mannheim
Germany
Tel. ++49-621-292-1765
Fax. ++49-621-292-1787
E-Mail Thomas.Diez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*************************************************************************