>Clara Wing-see Ho wrote:
>
>> in terms of silence and power...being still very much a novice on foucault
>> (F.) i think that silence is one way to exercise power over individuals
>> and agree with the statement Tom (?) made about the "silenced" parties
>> often being women. but F. seems to propose that "sound" or "discourse" as
>> he calls it is equally as limiting and oppressive if not more so than
>> silence. not allowing one to speak, yes, this is oppressive. but
>> allowing one to speak only within a specified realm of discourse where the
>> "rules" have been set by some given party...which is worse? rhetorical
>> question? perhaps....
>>
then Mark wrote:
>
>Yes. I find this really interesting. In Pinter, language can be seen to
>be a game. Certain individuals become trapped in the game - inevitably
>losers as soon as they begin to participate. We see them faltering when
>their speech is full of silence (pauses), but a complete silence - a
>refusal to play the game - is always a safeguard against losing. Perhaps
>there is an issue here of not allowing others knowledge of
>yourself...thus silence acts as an exercise in power-limitation. But as
>we have seen, not knowing is no obstacle to hegemony. The debate about
>Nazis has raised this issue...the Jews killed by the Nazis are an
>appalling construction. The clumsiness of the construction, however,
>didn't prevent the holocaust.
I wonder. Doesn't silence have its own politics of enunciation. Not
saying something could be covered by the 'rules' as well, no? Being
silent, it seems to me, does not inherently place one outside of 'the
game,' but rather is its own kind of a statement which is regulated by the
'rules of engagement' for a particular 'regime of truth.' After all, we
are expected to be silent in many cases.
However, the argument (correct me if I am wrong) is that silence can be
resistant when speaking is expected of someone. Perhaps this has to do
with knowledge. Silence might be considered an interuption in the
knowledge flow or break in the process of knowledge extraction which might
further be considered a principle of government or bio-power. [not a very
clear sentence, I know. Sorry.] I think I agree with this. Still,
wouldn't saying something unexpected or not adhering the rules of the
discourse game have equally transgressive potential?
It seems to me, that silence is an action. And, like all action, its
performance is potentially resistant (I am trying to refer to Foucault's
discussion of power and resistance in 'Subject and Power'). However,
silence in and of itself, has similar potential for supporting structures
of domination as for thier transgression.
I am not sure this is very clear, or if it is at all interesting. Just a
few thoughts that have been on my mind since this 'silence' thread began.
Matt