Asher
> I appreciate the response, but it seems to miss my question.
No it doesn't. Please reread the first paragraph of my response to you.
> I certainly
> agree that such a view/charges of cryptonormativity largely miss the point
> and misconstrue Foucault. My question is the one that seems not
> to be asked:
> Why is it that resistance is ever-present? How do we know that wherever
> there is power there is resistance?
Because Foucault is talking of power and not domination; because by power he
means relations or strategies of power; and because power requires the
subjects to be free. Therefore your question is misconceived: if you
understand what Foucault means by power then there cannot _not_ be the
potential for resistance.
> This, rather than the charges of cryptonormativity, seem to be the place
> where we might find weakness. It seems that in certain circumstances this
> could be disabling by supposing that resistance will arrive on its own.
Resistance will not arrive on its own. Resistance is always already there as
a potential - otherwise it would not be power being exercised. Reread The
Ethic of the Care of Self as a Practice of Freedom piece - Foucault makes it
clear.
> Not terminal, but a concern. Any thoughts?
The reason i linked this back to the question of the lack of normative frame
is that it is part of the same misunderstanding. The question 'why resist?'
is a moral question; the question 'how do we resist?' or 'is resistance
possible?' is a precusor to it. It would run something like... 'can we
resist? If so, why?' It requires some kind of voluntarism as a prelude to a
moral decision. This misses Foucault's point.
Look again at the quotation you gave from History of Sexuality. One part
strikes me particularly:-
"a plurality of resistances... by definition, they can only exist in the
strategic field of power relations".
By definition resistance can only exist in the strategic field of power
relations.
Earlier in this definition from Foucault (p95)
"should it be said that one is always 'inside' power, there is no 'escaping
it'?... this would be to misunderstand the strictly relational character of
power relationships. Their existence depends on a multiplicity of points of
resistance... these points of resistance are present everywhere in the power
network..."
The existence of power _depends_ on points of resistance, which are
therefore necessarily everywhere there is power. This is why there is no
single focus for resistance, just as there is not a single focus for power.
This is where the quote you gave about the plurality of resistances comes
in.
Foucault continues (p96) - this really repays close reading:
"But this does not mean that they [the plurality of resistances] are only a
reaction or rebound... they are the odd term in relations of power; they are
inscribed in the latter as an irreducible opposite"
I repeat, and i really don't think i am missing your question: if you
understand what Foucault means by power then there cannot _not_ be the
potential for resistance.
Stuart
> I appreciate the response, but it seems to miss my question.
No it doesn't. Please reread the first paragraph of my response to you.
> I certainly
> agree that such a view/charges of cryptonormativity largely miss the point
> and misconstrue Foucault. My question is the one that seems not
> to be asked:
> Why is it that resistance is ever-present? How do we know that wherever
> there is power there is resistance?
Because Foucault is talking of power and not domination; because by power he
means relations or strategies of power; and because power requires the
subjects to be free. Therefore your question is misconceived: if you
understand what Foucault means by power then there cannot _not_ be the
potential for resistance.
> This, rather than the charges of cryptonormativity, seem to be the place
> where we might find weakness. It seems that in certain circumstances this
> could be disabling by supposing that resistance will arrive on its own.
Resistance will not arrive on its own. Resistance is always already there as
a potential - otherwise it would not be power being exercised. Reread The
Ethic of the Care of Self as a Practice of Freedom piece - Foucault makes it
clear.
> Not terminal, but a concern. Any thoughts?
The reason i linked this back to the question of the lack of normative frame
is that it is part of the same misunderstanding. The question 'why resist?'
is a moral question; the question 'how do we resist?' or 'is resistance
possible?' is a precusor to it. It would run something like... 'can we
resist? If so, why?' It requires some kind of voluntarism as a prelude to a
moral decision. This misses Foucault's point.
Look again at the quotation you gave from History of Sexuality. One part
strikes me particularly:-
"a plurality of resistances... by definition, they can only exist in the
strategic field of power relations".
By definition resistance can only exist in the strategic field of power
relations.
Earlier in this definition from Foucault (p95)
"should it be said that one is always 'inside' power, there is no 'escaping
it'?... this would be to misunderstand the strictly relational character of
power relationships. Their existence depends on a multiplicity of points of
resistance... these points of resistance are present everywhere in the power
network..."
The existence of power _depends_ on points of resistance, which are
therefore necessarily everywhere there is power. This is why there is no
single focus for resistance, just as there is not a single focus for power.
This is where the quote you gave about the plurality of resistances comes
in.
Foucault continues (p96) - this really repays close reading:
"But this does not mean that they [the plurality of resistances] are only a
reaction or rebound... they are the odd term in relations of power; they are
inscribed in the latter as an irreducible opposite"
I repeat, and i really don't think i am missing your question: if you
understand what Foucault means by power then there cannot _not_ be the
potential for resistance.
Stuart