On Thu, 20 May 1999, Mitch Wilson wrote:
> But I have to wonder: are "power" and "bio-power" such similar concepts
> that the definition of one is, in some way, a definition of the other? I
> mean, it seems you're asserting that Foucault's definition of "power," if
> it doesn't match his definition of "bio-power," then there's a
> contradiction, as if power and bio-power are the same concepts, the same
> types of power that operate on the same levels and produce the same
> effects.
Yeah, you're right, it does seem as if I'm saying that, and I don't mean
to be, which was making me uneasy. What I meant to say was just that
biopower and power as he discusses it earlier are two different things. So
yes, there is no contradiction, which makes me happy, because I hate
sounding like one of those people who say "Aha! Foucault contradicts
himself, so we don't need to pay attention to him." Still, there is
definitely a tension in HS1, because up until the last part it's about
power, and when he starts talking about biopower, he doesn't make it
explicit that he's talking about something different.
What you write below sounds interesting, but I need to do more reading and
thinking about it.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
dear readers, my apologies.
I'm drifting in and out of sleep.
---------------------------------(R.E.M.)----------------------------------
> But I do know of a distinction that might help: "power," since--as you
> pointed out--operates at the level of the individual since it functions as
> an internalized mode of "power" in the manifestation of the right to
> "freely" choose; but "bio-power" operates on the level above the
> individual, on the level of a whole population, since (sorry, don't have
> the book in front of me) it is that set of regulatory operations that moves
> a whole population of bodies into accordance, in terms of discipline, with
> societal forces, as in modes of production.
>
> Perhaps "power" on the level of the individual is a cooperating force with
> "bio-power" on the level of society, so that we have two seperate powers
> here, niether one excluding or contradicting the other?
> But I have to wonder: are "power" and "bio-power" such similar concepts
> that the definition of one is, in some way, a definition of the other? I
> mean, it seems you're asserting that Foucault's definition of "power," if
> it doesn't match his definition of "bio-power," then there's a
> contradiction, as if power and bio-power are the same concepts, the same
> types of power that operate on the same levels and produce the same
> effects.
Yeah, you're right, it does seem as if I'm saying that, and I don't mean
to be, which was making me uneasy. What I meant to say was just that
biopower and power as he discusses it earlier are two different things. So
yes, there is no contradiction, which makes me happy, because I hate
sounding like one of those people who say "Aha! Foucault contradicts
himself, so we don't need to pay attention to him." Still, there is
definitely a tension in HS1, because up until the last part it's about
power, and when he starts talking about biopower, he doesn't make it
explicit that he's talking about something different.
What you write below sounds interesting, but I need to do more reading and
thinking about it.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
dear readers, my apologies.
I'm drifting in and out of sleep.
---------------------------------(R.E.M.)----------------------------------
> But I do know of a distinction that might help: "power," since--as you
> pointed out--operates at the level of the individual since it functions as
> an internalized mode of "power" in the manifestation of the right to
> "freely" choose; but "bio-power" operates on the level above the
> individual, on the level of a whole population, since (sorry, don't have
> the book in front of me) it is that set of regulatory operations that moves
> a whole population of bodies into accordance, in terms of discipline, with
> societal forces, as in modes of production.
>
> Perhaps "power" on the level of the individual is a cooperating force with
> "bio-power" on the level of society, so that we have two seperate powers
> here, niether one excluding or contradicting the other?