(Ir)religiosity

theology | philosophy | culture

Quote of the day

Comments

Relations of power are not in themselves forms of repression. But what happens is that, in society, in most societies, organizations are created to freeze the relations of power, hold those relations in a state of asymmetry, so that a certain number of persons get an advantage, socially, economically, politically, institutionally, etc. And this totally freezes the situation. That’s what one calls power in the strict sense of the term: it’s a specific type of power relation that has been institutionalized, frozen, immobilized, to the profit of some and to the detriment of others. (ht)

– Michel Foucault

Very true.  And, I would add, very compatible with the Christian narrative, at least in my interpretation.  I do wonder about his initial claim relations and networks of power are not in themselves forms of repression.  If it is true, then I’m failing to come up with a historical example in which power did not lead to repression and oppression.  That is not to say there are not other creative possibilities, just that we haven’t had the audacity to experiment yet.  So, I think I can say with confidence that until now power, in it’s normative functions and applications, has usually led to destructive dominance.  Hopefully, we can change that.  Hopefully.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Written by Blake Huggins

December 5th, 2008 at 8:00 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , ,

«
»
  • Andrew_M
    Yes, education systems are sticky. They're means for transmitting social memes, and one of those memes can easily be the regnant power structure. Education allows power structures to hide in plain sight, so to speak, by renaming them "normal" or "good."

    My understanding of Foucault's writing is probably not better than yours, but I would be willing to say that Foucault probably intends that all power structures (as you defined term) are ultimately damaging.

    I like the distinction you draw between structures and relations. To me, relation implies an interplay between the ruled and the ruling while structure implies a static mechanism to govern how the ruled and the ruling behave toward each other.
  • andrew - thanks for the feedback. i think you are correct. the parent-child relationship is good example. i wonder, then, if we should parse a bit further and distinguish between a power relation, which i would argue is based, at least on a certain level, on mutual respect and an institutional power structure, the objective of which is control and repression.

    based on my -- very limited! -- understanding of foucault's work (especially power and discipline), it seems that he is critiquing these structures that may superficially appear to serve the interest of the masses and may even bring about some good. however, the larger objective that that "good" masks is repression and control. i'm thinking specifically of foucault's examples of the prison system, hospitals, and -- i would dare add -- the educational system.

    so maybe the issue is not that power is itself inherently repressive, but that its consolidation and centralization is. it seems that theses institutional structures, try as they must to hide it (or not hide it all sometimes), only serve to ensure and expand their own hegemony.
  • Andrew_M
    I think Foucault is probably right in when he says that power structures in themselves are not repressive. (Here, I'm thinking of a parent-child relation as ultimately more liberating than not.) Unfortunately, the calcification of a power structure seems like a nearly automatic process in human history. We can almost take for granted that when one party comes to power, he/she/they will attempt to maintain that power structure for as long as possible.
blog comments powered by Disqus