can,
with all due respect, i strongly disagree with your categorization of
foucaultian concepts of power and resistance. i think it is highly
problematic to suggest that foucault posited an ontological difference that
is broached when 'resistance' becomes 'the power'. for example, in
'clarifications on the question of power' he writes:
"If mine were an ontological conception of power, there would be, on the one
side. Power with a capital P...and on the other side, the resistance of the
unhappy ones who are obligated to bow before power. I believe an analysis of
this kind to be completely false, because power is born of a plurality of
relationships which are grafted onto something else, born from something
else, and permits the development of something else." (foucault live, 260)
as well, positing a "central point of power relations" is quite antithetical
to the very notion of a 'microphysics of power'. indeed, foucault never
tired of stating that his examination of power relations was taken up
precisely in opposition to the conceptualization of power as something
possessed and something that emanated from a central space (be it the state,
capital, or class).
finally, i think it is difficult to claim that for foucault "it is not so
important" whether power or resistance comes first "as long as the system of
power relations remain unchanged". even a cursory reading of pp 95-96 in
history of sexuality v1 refutes this: "the strictly relational character of
power relationships...depends on a multiplicity of points of
resistance...present everywhere in the power network. Hence there is no
single locus of great Refusal, no soul of revolt, source of all rebellions,
or pure laws of the revolutionary. Instead there is a plurality of
resistances."
as for the precedence of one over the other, i don't think he could be more
clear than in an interview which was conducted in toronto in 1982:
"So resistance comes first, and resistance remains superior to the forces of
the process; power relations are obliged to change with the resistance. So I
think that resistance is the main word, the key word, in this dynamic."(sex,
power, and the politics of identity' in foucault, ethics: subjectivity and
truth, v. 1, p. 167)
and i would venture to say that "this dynamic" is one of contionuous
contestation. struggle?through strategies and tactics?comprises the
relationship between power and resistance. this is not a static process in
which power and resistance merely exchange places, in which "the power
relationship remains unchanged". for me, a better guage in differrentiating
power from resistance can to be found by looking to the effects of this
struggle; namely, who gets to tell the truth and at what cost. perhaps this
'truth effect' is what you were getting at when you wrote of a 'victory' of
resistance over power.
that is my reading in any case.
mark coté
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:27:23 +0200 foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> reply to FREDWELFARE@xxxxxxx's following question:
> "I wonder if it is power that reacts to resistance or resistance that
> reacts
> to power?"
>
> I agree with you comments. Resistance, becomes "the Power" at the moment
it
> gains the
> decisive victory over the "existing Power". Thus, it becomes the "new
> power"
> as it defines
> itself in terms of power (and not as "resistance" from now on) at the
> precise moment it
> reaches the central point of power relations. Whether if it is power that
> reacts to resistance
> or resistance that reacts to power is not so important as long as the
> system
> of power relations
> remain unchanged. (cf. "L'oeil du pouvoir", 1977 last page: reversal of
the
> positions in the
> panoptical dispositif; when the prisoners take possession of the tower)
>
> Can Batukan
> Dept. of philosophy, University of Galatasaray, Istanbul
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
with all due respect, i strongly disagree with your categorization of
foucaultian concepts of power and resistance. i think it is highly
problematic to suggest that foucault posited an ontological difference that
is broached when 'resistance' becomes 'the power'. for example, in
'clarifications on the question of power' he writes:
"If mine were an ontological conception of power, there would be, on the one
side. Power with a capital P...and on the other side, the resistance of the
unhappy ones who are obligated to bow before power. I believe an analysis of
this kind to be completely false, because power is born of a plurality of
relationships which are grafted onto something else, born from something
else, and permits the development of something else." (foucault live, 260)
as well, positing a "central point of power relations" is quite antithetical
to the very notion of a 'microphysics of power'. indeed, foucault never
tired of stating that his examination of power relations was taken up
precisely in opposition to the conceptualization of power as something
possessed and something that emanated from a central space (be it the state,
capital, or class).
finally, i think it is difficult to claim that for foucault "it is not so
important" whether power or resistance comes first "as long as the system of
power relations remain unchanged". even a cursory reading of pp 95-96 in
history of sexuality v1 refutes this: "the strictly relational character of
power relationships...depends on a multiplicity of points of
resistance...present everywhere in the power network. Hence there is no
single locus of great Refusal, no soul of revolt, source of all rebellions,
or pure laws of the revolutionary. Instead there is a plurality of
resistances."
as for the precedence of one over the other, i don't think he could be more
clear than in an interview which was conducted in toronto in 1982:
"So resistance comes first, and resistance remains superior to the forces of
the process; power relations are obliged to change with the resistance. So I
think that resistance is the main word, the key word, in this dynamic."(sex,
power, and the politics of identity' in foucault, ethics: subjectivity and
truth, v. 1, p. 167)
and i would venture to say that "this dynamic" is one of contionuous
contestation. struggle?through strategies and tactics?comprises the
relationship between power and resistance. this is not a static process in
which power and resistance merely exchange places, in which "the power
relationship remains unchanged". for me, a better guage in differrentiating
power from resistance can to be found by looking to the effects of this
struggle; namely, who gets to tell the truth and at what cost. perhaps this
'truth effect' is what you were getting at when you wrote of a 'victory' of
resistance over power.
that is my reading in any case.
mark coté
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:27:23 +0200 foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> reply to FREDWELFARE@xxxxxxx's following question:
> "I wonder if it is power that reacts to resistance or resistance that
> reacts
> to power?"
>
> I agree with you comments. Resistance, becomes "the Power" at the moment
it
> gains the
> decisive victory over the "existing Power". Thus, it becomes the "new
> power"
> as it defines
> itself in terms of power (and not as "resistance" from now on) at the
> precise moment it
> reaches the central point of power relations. Whether if it is power that
> reacts to resistance
> or resistance that reacts to power is not so important as long as the
> system
> of power relations
> remain unchanged. (cf. "L'oeil du pouvoir", 1977 last page: reversal of
the
> positions in the
> panoptical dispositif; when the prisoners take possession of the tower)
>
> Can Batukan
> Dept. of philosophy, University of Galatasaray, Istanbul
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>