no, power is neither a property, a substance or a potentiality. It is a
relation (power relation) or network of relations, depending on context.
See 'the subject and power'.
In addition, I'd like to mark the passing of Jacques Derrida by saying that
there has surely been no more important writer in the last fifty years.
Mark
>From: "Kevin Turner" <k.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Pouvoir
>Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:15:39 +0100
>
>credit where credit's due - i got the insight from Stuart Elden's
>"mapping the present:" 106, and Beatrice Hanssen's
"critique of
>violence": 153, the latter of whom references Gayatri Spivak's
>"Outside the Teaching Machine:" 25-52.
>
>as for power being an actuality: you can take this in (at least) two
>ways - either it is an actuality in terms of being a substance and
>thus a property, or it is an actuality in terms of being a
>potentiality. i think foucault means the later. thus to think of
>power as capacity is not to think of it as an innate capability, or
>an essentail attribute, but precisely the capacity "to be able
to"
>(power - pouvoir as a verb, as a doing) through the capacity to
>"know'how" (knowledge - savoir).
>
>i think Nietzsche's observation that 'there is no "being"
behind
>doing, acting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction
imposed on
>the doing - the doing itself is everything' ("On The Genealogy of
>Morals" 1996: First Essay, 13), is a very good way to think about
>power/pouvoir as a verb.
>
>regards - k.
relation (power relation) or network of relations, depending on context.
See 'the subject and power'.
In addition, I'd like to mark the passing of Jacques Derrida by saying that
there has surely been no more important writer in the last fifty years.
Mark
>From: "Kevin Turner" <k.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Pouvoir
>Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:15:39 +0100
>
>credit where credit's due - i got the insight from Stuart Elden's
>"mapping the present:" 106, and Beatrice Hanssen's
"critique of
>violence": 153, the latter of whom references Gayatri Spivak's
>"Outside the Teaching Machine:" 25-52.
>
>as for power being an actuality: you can take this in (at least) two
>ways - either it is an actuality in terms of being a substance and
>thus a property, or it is an actuality in terms of being a
>potentiality. i think foucault means the later. thus to think of
>power as capacity is not to think of it as an innate capability, or
>an essentail attribute, but precisely the capacity "to be able
to"
>(power - pouvoir as a verb, as a doing) through the capacity to
>"know'how" (knowledge - savoir).
>
>i think Nietzsche's observation that 'there is no "being"
behind
>doing, acting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction
imposed on
>the doing - the doing itself is everything' ("On The Genealogy of
>Morals" 1996: First Essay, 13), is a very good way to think about
>power/pouvoir as a verb.
>
>regards - k.