On Mon, 19 May 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> It occurred to me over the weekend, while paging through Power/Knowledge,
> that perhaps the reason that the assembled Foucaultians have such a hard
> time with Naziism is that it's precisely the sort of sovereign, centralized
> power that supposedly didn't exist anymore in the 20th century, instead of
> the everywhere-and-nowhere model of dispersed power that has predominated
> since the king lost his head.
Doug, the following occurred to me while reading the above:
does Foucault actually say that this 'sovereign power' no longer exists?
i don't think so, or at least in power/knowledge he is open to a different
reading. while he acknowledges that the 'course of study' that he has
been following has concerned itself with the how of power and its
productive aspect, i don't think that necessarily leads to the conclusion
that Foucault thinks that the sovereign and repressive type of power
'doesn't exist anymore in the 20th century'. rather, i think a better
conclusion is to say that an analysis that *merely* concerns itself with
sovereign power may be inadequate when concerned with the different types
of power that 'exist in the 20th century'.
For example consider the following passage [95]:
"My general project over the past few years has been, in essence, to
reverse the mode of analysis followed by the entire discourse of right
from the time of the Middle Ages. My aim, therefore, was to invert it, to
give due weight, that is, to the fact of domination, to expose both its
latent nature and its brutality. I then wanted to show *not only how
right is, in a general way, the instrument of this domination - which
scarcely needs saying - but also* [my emphasis] to show the extent to
which, and the forms in which, right (not simply the laws but the whole
complex of apparatuses, institutions and regulations responsible for their
application) transmits and puts in motion relations that are not relations
of sovereignty, but of domination."
now the way i read Foucault here, is that it isn't a case of sovereign
power not existing but it being an inadequate methodology if one wishes to
engage in an analysis of 'not simply the laws but the whole complex of
apparatuses, institutions and regulations responsible for their
application'.
for me, this relationship between sovereign power and disciplinary power
in the 20th century is crucial to understanding a more complex society
constituteded by these different exercises of power. eg the relationship
between law and disciplinary power (see Carol Smart, Feminism and the
power of law for an interesting discussion of this relationship).
for what it's worth, i think that is also why Foucault's notion of
governmentality needs to be given more emphasis in an understanding of not
only the 20th century but also the development in Foucault's 'course of
study'. (and in addition, it is perhaps why i find myself appreciating
much of what Colin writes to this list questioning the exercise of power
in society today.)
As a specific example, i'd suggest that anyone concerning themselves with
Indigenous issues in countries like the USA, Canada, NZ, Australia,...
would (in my opinion) be very neglectful and irresponsible if they didn't
focus very closely on this relationship between sovereign and disciplinary
power as they are exercised today. it seems to me, that a comprehensive
study would need to concern itself with both.
after all, saying sovereign power no longer exists, sounds very much like
a grand theory to me! :)
regards,
d