hi can,
thank you this thoughful exchange and your clarifications on power.
i did not mean to suggest that power relations are so diffused as to
function in pure symmetry; rather, that there is not a singular grid of
centre and periphery but multiple ones which themselves are in assymetrical
relations. in short, what is at the centre in one dispositif of power may be
on the periphery of another. i think foucault's deployment of
boulainvilliers in society must be defended illustrates this very nicely;
hence we have this strange figure, an early 19th c. landed nobleman who
emerges as a subaltern voicee of resistance in an emergent dispositif of
power that comes to be called bipower.
my only caveat, then, is that there are only ever multiple centres and
peripheries in dynamic relations. for me, this is more than a nuance but is
at the heart of foucault's reconceptualization of power.
take care,
mark coté
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:36:55 +0200 foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear Mark,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your detailed comments. What I wanted to say, was not an
> ontological categorization. Let me clarify this:
>
>
>
> I believe, talking of a center and peripheries is unavoidable when you
deal
> with a power relation since a power relation is a precise moment (like a
> picture) of a dynamic relation of force. Microphysics, local struggle
> points, (or the notion "minor" in Deleuze) are all concepts defining the
> peripherical positions in relation to the center. If there is no center
> point, if power is homogenously distributed to the whole of the society,
> tell me how can someone resist? How can you think of the pathological when
> the normal is not set? So that's what I was saying: an analysis of
> power for
> Foucault is not solely in the sovereign state, in mechanisms of law nor in
> the scientific discourse etc. but in precisely the "logic and operation of
> the power relations" which determines all of these fields. And
> therefore, he
> analyses power, through various power mechanisms which he calls
> "dispositif"
> in order to understand this logic.
>
>
>
> Please read this quote, it includes all I have to say:
>
>
>
> « La politique n'est pas ce qui détermine en dernière instance (ou ce qui
> surdétermine) des relations élémentaires et par nature neutres. Tout
> rapport
> de force implique à chaque moment une relation de pouvoir (qui en est en
> quelque sorte la coupe instantanée), et chaque relation de pouvoir
renvoie,
> comme à son effet mais aussi comme à sa condition de possibilité, à un
> champ
> politique dont elle fait partie. Dire que « tout est politique »,
> c'est dire
> cette omniprésence des rapports de force et leur immanence à un champ
> politique ; mais c'est se donner la tâche encore à peine esquissée de
> débrouiller cet écheveau indéfini. » (« Les rapports de pouvoir
> passent à l'
> intérieur des corps », 1977)
>
>
>
> Power is everywhere. It is within our bodies. That is to say, power
> centralizes itself in the heart of "power relations", through the games of
> truth and by the games of truth. All becomes political, and all
> becomes part
> of these power relations.
>
>
>
> Can Batukan
>
> Dept. of philosophy, Univ. of Galatasaray.
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
thank you this thoughful exchange and your clarifications on power.
i did not mean to suggest that power relations are so diffused as to
function in pure symmetry; rather, that there is not a singular grid of
centre and periphery but multiple ones which themselves are in assymetrical
relations. in short, what is at the centre in one dispositif of power may be
on the periphery of another. i think foucault's deployment of
boulainvilliers in society must be defended illustrates this very nicely;
hence we have this strange figure, an early 19th c. landed nobleman who
emerges as a subaltern voicee of resistance in an emergent dispositif of
power that comes to be called bipower.
my only caveat, then, is that there are only ever multiple centres and
peripheries in dynamic relations. for me, this is more than a nuance but is
at the heart of foucault's reconceptualization of power.
take care,
mark coté
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:36:55 +0200 foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear Mark,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your detailed comments. What I wanted to say, was not an
> ontological categorization. Let me clarify this:
>
>
>
> I believe, talking of a center and peripheries is unavoidable when you
deal
> with a power relation since a power relation is a precise moment (like a
> picture) of a dynamic relation of force. Microphysics, local struggle
> points, (or the notion "minor" in Deleuze) are all concepts defining the
> peripherical positions in relation to the center. If there is no center
> point, if power is homogenously distributed to the whole of the society,
> tell me how can someone resist? How can you think of the pathological when
> the normal is not set? So that's what I was saying: an analysis of
> power for
> Foucault is not solely in the sovereign state, in mechanisms of law nor in
> the scientific discourse etc. but in precisely the "logic and operation of
> the power relations" which determines all of these fields. And
> therefore, he
> analyses power, through various power mechanisms which he calls
> "dispositif"
> in order to understand this logic.
>
>
>
> Please read this quote, it includes all I have to say:
>
>
>
> « La politique n'est pas ce qui détermine en dernière instance (ou ce qui
> surdétermine) des relations élémentaires et par nature neutres. Tout
> rapport
> de force implique à chaque moment une relation de pouvoir (qui en est en
> quelque sorte la coupe instantanée), et chaque relation de pouvoir
renvoie,
> comme à son effet mais aussi comme à sa condition de possibilité, à un
> champ
> politique dont elle fait partie. Dire que « tout est politique »,
> c'est dire
> cette omniprésence des rapports de force et leur immanence à un champ
> politique ; mais c'est se donner la tâche encore à peine esquissée de
> débrouiller cet écheveau indéfini. » (« Les rapports de pouvoir
> passent à l'
> intérieur des corps », 1977)
>
>
>
> Power is everywhere. It is within our bodies. That is to say, power
> centralizes itself in the heart of "power relations", through the games of
> truth and by the games of truth. All becomes political, and all
> becomes part
> of these power relations.
>
>
>
> Can Batukan
>
> Dept. of philosophy, Univ. of Galatasaray.
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>