On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, malgosia askanas wrote:
>
So what I had in mind was an interpretation that doesn't
> make it so trivially uninteresting. Something like: if power didn't reside
> in _groups_, then... I think if one gives it an "if not" kind of formulation
> then it may be doomed right away, but there are probably ways of considering
> issues of group power -- the way groups exercise power over individuals --
> that don't doom it. There is a Fassbinder play -- I think it's called
> "Paradise Sorry Now" -- that consists entirely of otherwise unrelated
> episodes in which two people clump together to victimize a third; a sort of
> molecular-level study of the phenomenon of grouping.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Hi,
> An interpretation that "might" provide food for thought !
I think that power is intrinsically related to desire. The hegemonic
forces that operate between power and desire ultimately get translated
into the kind of power relations that one finds in either groups or
interactions between individuals. Why Desire ? Well, I think that people
like Freud were on to something when they spoke about desire (as in the id),
and the way in which it wants immediate gratification. Of course the
complications between group and individual power relations and its effects,
are, I think,
also a sign of the times, ie, it is relative and contingent. But I think
that we may want to start re-interpreting desire and the ways in which it
informs and ultimately impacts on power relations/ constructs. Mention of
the id might seem to suggest an irrational desire (as this is more or
less how Freud interpreted it). I think however that
desire can be both ie, irrational and rational, its effects are what
determine how it is that we exercise power. Power can thus be either
productive or destructive. Your thoughts ?
Regards
Lubna Nadvi
UDW