power theory

[evolvedForm]

This is an email to a friend who's trying to get a grasp on foucault's theory of power, as well as other points of his work. In the email I do my best to explain it to her, though it is a large subject and I find I have to keep offering background information. I'm posting it in the hopes of getting a discussion going. The focus of the post is on
the first question below, which deals with the power theory.

Me: So the question I raise is, is it possible to have a system which allows for people to maximize their possibilities without having an entire class dominated?

Her: WOULDN'T ALL PEOPLE NEED TO BE RESPECTED AS EQUALS FOR THIS TO OCCUR WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR WEALTH, COLOR OF SKIN, GENDER, ETC? ISN'T THIS SYSTEM ALREADY IN PLACE? IS IT CALLED DEMOCRACY?

Me: Democracy is a practical solution, but what we are looking for is a theoretical possibility for the above in Foucault's theory of power. Democracy is not a solution as I will try to show. First, though, we should look at foucault's theory of power. It is that power is everywhere, and nobody is ever completely free. From partners in relationships to classes in society, struggle for power and power resistance characterize all human interaction. The positive aspect of this is, that as long as one has the tools to resist, one is never completely without hope. The only time one has no hope is when one is in a state of domination. This would be, for example, the untouchables in India. One could say they are, or were, without any tools for resistance.

My question concerns this domination state. But first let me illustrate one other consequence of foucault's theory. His work implies that there is a theoretical maximum amount of possibilities one entity (individual or class) can be free to choose from. In other words, there are always limits to our freedom. There would also be more limits when one or more entities are next to us struggling for power as well - especially if they oppose us. For instance, take Christians and gays in america. The more rights gays get, the less well off Christians are (at least in unhappiness). But it could lead to more than unhappiness if gays become the most powerful class and persecute christians, like christians now try to persecute gays. (This example is simplified for clarity).

So my implicit point is that theoretically the dominating entity has the most possibilities. This is clearly where we would all like to be; however, for it to happen, somebody must pay a heavy price. So, i'm wondering if it's possible to have a better ideal state than one in which we are all kind of on the same, mediocre level, without putting one entity into a dominated mode.

[Davidius]

I like this post. I have to agree that there will always be individuals with more power over other individuals. It's the problem that communism valiently tried to overcome... and failed... The fact of the matter is that power differentials will always exist in this world, either because some people are born smarter, better-looking, more athletic, whatever... The challenge for society is not to make everything equal, but to use power in responsible ways. Unfortunately, we live in a very materialistic society that has lost its sense of moral direction. People abuse their power all the time, as in the example of Christians persecuting homosexuals (incidentally, there are many Christians who love and accept them as well... but you won't hear about that on the evening news). What we need is a moral rebirth in our society. People in the U.S. don't realize how much they could do with the money that they have. And lastly, democracy is not a perfect solution the problem of injustice, since the majority rules. Democracy can do a lot of good, if the majority uses their power responsibly/ethically. That's all. Good post, "evolved form."

[Exsubmariner]

You might want to check out a book called Power Shift by Alvin Toffler.

Toffler defines three legs of power or a power triangle comprised of money, violence, and knowledge. If you have one, you can use it to get the other two. I have often debated the validity of this particular conception. A friend of mine said it should be a square with social influence at a corner. I always thought social influence amounted to creative use of the three legs together.

Anyway, this has potential to be a really cool thread.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy can do a lot of good, if the majority uses their power responsibly/ethically.



[/ QUOTE ]

But what is to inspire them to do this? Foucault is pretty pessimistic, as am I. People will almost always prefer more power to less power, and if it means putting down the other guy, so be it.

So the only solution (for now) is to make sure opposing entities are always able to resist each other, thus assuring that none are completely dominated. This means that nobody, NOBODY will ever have the amount of freedom associated with a dominating entity.

This boils down to three options that I can see.

1. We can accept this in the name of fairness, so that we are all pulled down together to a certain level of happiness/freedom.
2. Or, we can promote the domination of one group, letting it have a highly civilized, advanced, noble culture at the top, and one or more slavish classes. This would be reminicsient of Rome or Greece.
3. Look for a new alternative.

[Davidius]

Well, let me just say that I believe that all people are good at their core. No one sets out to hurt other people, although many people do end up hurting others in their own pursuit of power. As I said earlier, finding a way to balance out happiness/freedom sounds good at first blush, but I just don't have any picture in my mind of what that would look like. I don't think that forcing a society to be "equal" is possible or desirable. Instead, we need to develop a society of people that care for each other and use our already existing freedom responsibly. If, however, we begin to emphasize the virtues of compassion and responsibility in our society (e.g. integrating character development or practical ethics as curriculum in our public schools), then the natural power differentials that exist could be utilized in a just manner. Society needs to change from the inside-out, not the outside-in.

[Lothario]

Any reccs of books to check out regarding Foucault's theory of power?

[evolvedForm]

The most relevant one would of course be "Power," which is a compilation of articles and interviews by Foucault, edited by Paul Rabinow.

In book form there is "Discipline and Punish," which deals a lot with power.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that power differentials will always exist in this world, either because some people are born smarter, better-looking, more athletic , whatever...

[/ QUOTE ]
It is an illusion these characteristics will give you power. All that gives you power is money, and earning money takes knowledge (e.g., you will never get rich being a wage slave; you must understand the word "leverage"). Violence and knowledge are repressed in society; the former by criminal laws, and the latter by the mistrust of intelligence people (e.g., scientists, "smart" politicians).

[Lothario]

[ QUOTE ]
The most relevant one would of course be "Power," which is a compilation of articles and interviews by Foucault, edited by Paul Rabinow.

In book form there is "Discipline and Punish," which deals a lot with power.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the reply! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Davidius]

So, your point is... what? Even if I did agree with you that money = power, how does that relate to the subject matter (how it should be utilized)?

[Quaalude]

[ QUOTE ]

Me: So the question I raise is, is it possible to have a system which allows for people to maximize their possibilities without having an entire class dominated?


[/ QUOTE ]

A short quote from Section I (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) of An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html)

The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic structure, i.e., it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of "self-management" becomes that of "self-government", a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves.

Thus the social structure of an anarchist society will be the opposite of the current system. Instead of being centralised and top-down as in the state, it will be decentralised and organised from the bottom up. As Kropotkin argued, "socialism must become more popular, more communalistic, and less dependent upon indirect government through elected representatives. It must become more self-governing." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 185] While anarchists have various different conceptions of how this communal system would be constituted (as we will see), they is total agreement on these basic visions and principles.

This empowerment of ordinary citizens through decentralisation and direct democracy will eliminate the alienation and apathy that are now rampant in the modern city and town, and (as always happens when people are free) unleash a flood of innovation in dealing with the social breakdown now afflicting our urban wastelands. The gigantic metropolis with its hierarchical and impersonal administration, its atomised and isolated "residents," will be transformed into a network of humanly scaled participatory communities (usually called "communes"), each with its own unique character and forms of self-government, which will be co-operatively linked through federation with other communities at several levels, from the municipal through the bioregional to the global.

Of course, it can (and has) been argued that people are just not interested in "politics." Further, some claim that this disinterest is why governments exist -- people delegate their responsibilities and power to others because they have better things to do. Such an argument, however, is flawed on empirical grounds. As we indicated in section B.2.6, centralisation of power in both the French and American revolutions occurred because working people were taking too much interest in politics and social issues, not the reverse ("To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives, to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a truly popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to reinforce the central government even more. . ." [Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p. 143]).

Simply put, the state is centralised to facilitate minority rule by excluding the mass of people from taking part in the decision making processes within society. This is to be expected as social structures do not evolve by chance -- rather they develop to meet specific needs and requirements. The specific need of the ruling class is to rule and that means marginalising the bulk of the population. Its requirement is for minority power and this is transformed into the structure of the state (and the capitalist company).

Even if we ignore the historical evidence on this issue, anarchists do not draw this conclusion from the current apathy that surrounds us. In fact, we argue that this apathy is not the cause of government but its result. Government is an inherently hierarchical system in which ordinary people are deliberately marginalised. The powerlessness people feel due to the workings of the system ensure that they are apathetic about it, thus guaranteeing that wealthy and powerful elites govern society without hindrance from the oppressed and exploited majority.

...

As discussed in Section B.2.6 ("Who benefits from centralisation?") this marginalisation of the public from political life ensures that the wealthy can be "left alone" to use their power as they see fit. In other words, such marginalisation is a necessary part of a fully functioning capitalist society. Hence, under capitalism, libertarian social structures have to be discouraged. Or as Chomsky puts it, the "rabble must be instructed in the values of subordination and a narrow quest for personal gain within the parameters set by the institutions of the masters; meaningful democracy, with popular association and action, is a threat to be overcome." [Op. Cit., p. 18] This philosophy can be seen in the statement of a US Banker in Venezuela under the murderous Jimenez dictatorship:

"You have the freedom here to do whatever you want to do with your money, and to me, that is worth all the political freedom in the world." [quoted by Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 99]

Deterring libertarian alternatives to statism is a common feature of our current system. By marginalising and disempowering people, the ability of individuals to manage their own social activities is undermined and weakened. They develop a "fear of freedom" and embrace authoritarian institutions and "strong leaders," which in turn reinforces their marginalisation.

This consequence is hardly surprising. Anarchists maintain that the desire to participate and the ability to participate are in a symbiotic relationship: participation feeds on itself. By creating the social structures that allow participation, participation will increase. As people increasingly take control of their lives, so their ability to do so also increases. The challenge of having to take responsibility for decisions that make a difference is at the same time an opportunity for personal development. To begin to feel power, having previously felt powerless, to win access to the resources required for effective participation and learn how to use them, is a liberating experience. Once people become active subjects, making things happen in one aspect of their lives, they are less likely to remain passive objects, allowing things to happen to them, in other aspects. All in all, "politics" is far too important an subject to leave to politicians, the wealthy and bureaucrats. After all, it is what affects, your friends, community, and, ultimately, the planet you live on. Such issues cannot be left to anyone but you.

Hence a meaningful communal life based on self-empowered individuals is a distinct possibility (indeed, it has repeatedly appeared throughout history). It is the hierarchical structures in statism and capitalism, marginalising and disempowering the majority, which is at the root of the current wide scale apathy in the face of increasing social and ecological disruption. Libertarian socialists therefore call for a radically new form of political system to replace the centralised nation-state, a form that would be based around confederations of self-governing communities. In other words, in anarchism "[s]ociety is a society of societies; a league of leagues of leagues; a commonwealth of commonwealths of commonwealths; a republic of republics of republics. Only there is freedom and order, only there is spirit, a spirit which is self-sufficiency and community, unity and independence." [Gustav Landauer, For Socialism, pp. 125-126]

---

Also, a brief quote from Section A (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secAcon.html) A.1 What is anarchism? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html)

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:

"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]

However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."

This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:

"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order." [Anarchy, p. 16]

Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are both harmful and unnecessary:

"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity." [Op. Cit., pp. 16]

This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. But that is not all. As well as combating the distortions produced by the "common-sense" idea of "anarchy", we also have to combat the distortions that anarchism and anarchists have been subjected to over the years by our political and social enemies. For, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are "the radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of all the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. Consequently we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, misunderstood and persecuted of all." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

Vanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola Sacco were framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit and were, effectively, electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in 1927. So this FAQ will have to spend some time correcting the slanders and distortions that anarchists have been subjected to by the capitalist media, politicians, ideologues and bosses (not to mention the distortions by our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals and Marxists). Hopefully once we are finished you will understand why those in power have spent so much time attacking anarchism -- it is the one idea which can effectively ensure liberty for all and end all systems based on a few having power over the many.