on 2/24/00 8:08 AM, Doug Stokes at dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> That is, some individuals wield greater processes of identity construction
> and discourse propagation. For example, a professor marking a students essay
> has greater power than the student being marked. i.e. in the will to truth
> the professor has the greater degree of power knowledge relations. Also,
> discourses cluster around various institutions like for example, a
> university, a state etc which have greater means of knowledge production and
> therefore power.
>
> My questions are:
>
> a) How do we retheorise institutions back in whilst avoiding the
> totalisational tendencies of Marxism, whilst retaining F's commitment to
> discourse analyses. (i.e. how do we analyse the cluster of power knowledge
> relations that cluster round institutions).
>
>
> b) How do we retheorise social actors back in who have greater access to
> discourse propagation and representational systems and address this
> imbalance (i.e. Rupert murdoch has much greater access to processes of
> discursive propagation than say a single mother on welfare, how do we
> address this ?)
>
I think that an important distinction to be made here is what exactly it
means for power to be productive rather than repressive. Most importantly,
it means that no one _possesses_ power. Power is exercised. That has
tremendous implications on the discussion of agency and identity formation.
Foucault's argument seems to be that the only way to create/maintain agency
is through a formation of an identity politics -- individual voices of
identity. To say that certain individuals wield greater process of identity
construction ignores that process.
Certainly in the clearest sense, saying that power is productive means that
it produces normalizing subjectivities. To say that it is productive,
however, also means that it has the potential for resistance. To presume
that someone can posses power or that someone can be without power is to
trap oppressed groups in what might be called (to borrow), "a discursive
prison box." This notion of power denies agency to oppressed groups as you
are discussing. It is Foucault's concept of power that provides the escape
-- the notion that even the oppressed/excluded/silenced can excercise power
in order to turn their situation around.
Part of this discussion also includes the note that Foucault does not
believe there are "centers" of power necessarily. For instance, the state is
not necessarily a privileged site. Your wording seems to answer your
question -- discourses cluster around those institutions. That means
effectively that as a society (whatever that means) we constitute the
structures within. That provides the opportunity to reclaim a position and
reverse those situations.
Hope I'm making some sense.
=-----------------------------------------------=
| Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Greenhill Debate |
=-----------------------------------------------=
"I am speaking the language of exile. This language ... muffles a cry, it
doesn't ever shout ... Our present age is one of exile. How can we avoid
sinking into the mire of common sense, if not by becoming a stranger one's
own country, language, sex and identity? ... Exile is a way of surviving in
the face of the dead father ... of stubbornly refusing to give in to the law
of death." -- Julia Kristeva
> That is, some individuals wield greater processes of identity construction
> and discourse propagation. For example, a professor marking a students essay
> has greater power than the student being marked. i.e. in the will to truth
> the professor has the greater degree of power knowledge relations. Also,
> discourses cluster around various institutions like for example, a
> university, a state etc which have greater means of knowledge production and
> therefore power.
>
> My questions are:
>
> a) How do we retheorise institutions back in whilst avoiding the
> totalisational tendencies of Marxism, whilst retaining F's commitment to
> discourse analyses. (i.e. how do we analyse the cluster of power knowledge
> relations that cluster round institutions).
>
>
> b) How do we retheorise social actors back in who have greater access to
> discourse propagation and representational systems and address this
> imbalance (i.e. Rupert murdoch has much greater access to processes of
> discursive propagation than say a single mother on welfare, how do we
> address this ?)
>
I think that an important distinction to be made here is what exactly it
means for power to be productive rather than repressive. Most importantly,
it means that no one _possesses_ power. Power is exercised. That has
tremendous implications on the discussion of agency and identity formation.
Foucault's argument seems to be that the only way to create/maintain agency
is through a formation of an identity politics -- individual voices of
identity. To say that certain individuals wield greater process of identity
construction ignores that process.
Certainly in the clearest sense, saying that power is productive means that
it produces normalizing subjectivities. To say that it is productive,
however, also means that it has the potential for resistance. To presume
that someone can posses power or that someone can be without power is to
trap oppressed groups in what might be called (to borrow), "a discursive
prison box." This notion of power denies agency to oppressed groups as you
are discussing. It is Foucault's concept of power that provides the escape
-- the notion that even the oppressed/excluded/silenced can excercise power
in order to turn their situation around.
Part of this discussion also includes the note that Foucault does not
believe there are "centers" of power necessarily. For instance, the state is
not necessarily a privileged site. Your wording seems to answer your
question -- discourses cluster around those institutions. That means
effectively that as a society (whatever that means) we constitute the
structures within. That provides the opportunity to reclaim a position and
reverse those situations.
Hope I'm making some sense.
=-----------------------------------------------=
| Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Greenhill Debate |
=-----------------------------------------------=
"I am speaking the language of exile. This language ... muffles a cry, it
doesn't ever shout ... Our present age is one of exile. How can we avoid
sinking into the mire of common sense, if not by becoming a stranger one's
own country, language, sex and identity? ... Exile is a way of surviving in
the face of the dead father ... of stubbornly refusing to give in to the law
of death." -- Julia Kristeva