This got me thinking. I was in the library and i stumbled upon his book. It was really an old tattered book, but it was like finding a piece of treasure for me.
French theorist Foucalt (1977) argues that power is not something that one person or group of people holds over another ot others. It is not 'something to be won or lost' (Katz, 2003). Power is a diffuse and unlocatable force that permeates all levels of society and that is reproduced in an indirect and often erratic way through multiply mediatory networks. This would be easier to explain how individuals are often in a position of empowerment and at the same time, a subject of it.
A good example for this - The prison.
(Not prison break). haha.
Anyway, back to the point from the lame digression, each of us assumes that in a prison, the warden has control and power over the prisoners. A study in the US prisons however, showed a different thing. Within prisons, exist an informal economy with inmates trading commodities for scarce items such as cigarettes. There is the powerful respected baron (who exerts power over others) and this shows the multi-level power negotiation. It doesn't stop there. The police warden comes into the picture. Some of the wardens allow the illegal trading activities to go on knowing very well that the need to stop them would mean extra overtime pay. In addition, some of these barons are indeed powerful criminals, who more often than not, resort to threats and intimidation towards the wardens and officers' families. Instead of the police warden having the power, we see an implicit fear of the police officers and this is translated into them trying to keep the relationship friendly between officer and prisoner.
Then, i tried relating this notion of power into our everyday situation. If say, i want to buy a 28 pounds purple dress and my mother says i better not... At face value, she has the power right? What if i i go through another network and ask my father? The probability of my father saying a 'yes' is higher. If he were to tell my mother to allow me to buy, then indirectly, i am empowered right?
Just a thought... The things i learn in school.
__________________________________________________________________
References:
Foucalt, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin Books.
Katz, C. 2003. Social formations: thinking about society, identity, power and resistance. In: Holloway S., Rice S., Valentine G. (eds) Key concepts in Geography. London: SAGE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Soooo... is that Foucalt guy saying that power is NOT distributed linearly? Something like a hierarchy chart whereby the guy at the top holds the most power and the guy at the bottom is powerless. Instead, is Foucalt trying to say that the distribution of power resemble more of a network with lots of criss-crossed links as opposed to a top-to-bottom hierarchy?
Therefore, in order to find one's 'power', one can seek to explore and exploit all sources instead of just exerting control/power over the obvious subordinate(s)? Interesting.
yes!
Something along those lines. I have yet to finish reading the whole book for a deeper understanding but what he is saying actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
I've always thought that power is linear. But he is right cause if it is linear, it doesn't explain how a powerful person is not powerful in other areas. Even in businesses for instance... a powerful man is powerful as he has control over a certain number of companies. At the same time, he is also a provider. Not necessarily a client alone.
As for your last bit on exploit one's 'power'and all sources, you need to elaborate. Preferably with a suitable example.
But if you are thinking about exploiting Jeremy in other ways apart from the obvious, then you are right.
Huh?? What has that got to do with Jeremy? An apt example will be yours! Where you ask your dad for permission to buy the dress when your mum disapproved, knowing that it is more probable that the chances of you persuading your dad for approval is higher. So you are effectively exerting your influence over someone who has more 'power'(than you) over your mum, hoping that he will persuade her to change her decision.
If this is successful, it means you have managed to manipulate your mum's (your 'superior' in a sense) decision by exerting your influence on other sources (your dad in this case). So, the poor powerless child is not that powerless after all. Never mind that this is just a hypothetical example.
Now, this is making me power-hungry. Grrrr.. Lets go take over the world. :p
Post a Comment