Post-digestion
The past (two) week’s class was very helpful in cementing the main points of Foucault’s concepts about power (hooray for charts). During the same week, in a gender and society class, I was introduced to intersectional theory via the text, “Why Race, Class, and Gender Still Matter” by Margaret L. Anderson and Patricia Hill Collins. Since, it was a sociology course and text, emphasis was still placed on structures, dominant-subordinate relationships in terms of power, which are concepts Foucault had negated in his definition of power. However, intersectional theory reminded me of Foucault’s “multiplicity of force relations” and other aspects of his power definition.
In intersectional theory, Anderson and Collins stresses the importance that social structures like race, class, gender, etc. simultaneously shape the experience of people and that the structures are relational to each other even if one structure appears more salient in a particular system/ situation. They introduce the “matrix of domination” which is the configuration of social structures that creates multiple and interlocking levels of domination. Instead of the one-way and rigid dominant-subordinate relationship I mentioned in my last post, there is a more complex, fluid, and interwoven set of relationships, hence the term, “matrix.” Thus, according to intersectional theory, there are very few true oppressors/ dominators and true victims/ subordinate and an individual experiences both privilege and disadvantage. To me, this reminded me of Foucault’s fluid power network of relations despite intersectional theory’s reliance on domination (to some extend) and structure.
Moving along, I was grateful about the discussion of the intentions/ logic of power, which was the one proposition of Foucault’s concept of power I had the most trouble with. The example of credentials was a useful in illustrating the difference between consciousness and intentions. From my understanding, consciousness is choice, awareness, or agency if I must throw in more sociological terms and intention is a plan, tactics, and purpose. Power has intentions, but is not consciousness while people have conscious, but have no control over intentionalities and are shaped by them instead. Though, I think I was able to put the concept into words and sentences, it is a still a curious idea to wrap my mind around. My gut reaction was that can’t people be conscious of the intentions of power in their choices. Also, would there not be a loop between one’s conscious and power’s intentions such as the conscious being shaped by power’s intentions and then affecting future conscious choices concerning power. Or am I still thinking of power as a one-way structure instead of a more complex network that enables this relationship between conscious and intention…
*And apologies for such a belated post, I will definitely avoid doing that in the future.
Tags: Foucault, Power, Power-Relations
February 26th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Hi Vita,
I take it that post-digestion isn’t the same as indigestion.
In regard to what you call your gut reaction, the answer is yes. Or, precisely. And, by all means! In subsequent works, Foucault emphasized the value of pursuing ethical selfhood by discerning how we might gain the kind of conscious awareness that you write about and challenge the intentionality of power relations in which we are immersed. Since resistance is integral to those relations, the avenues of resistance provide a variety of ways in which that can be manifest, though in general he thought that an “aesthetics of existence” was of most value. He cited the ancient Greek practice of reflecting daily on one’s conduct and noted other periods in history in which such practices of ethical self-artistry were evident. One of the caveats was that the cult of self that was part of some New Age thinking was not the same thing, since it tended to think of an inner self that was a given but need to be released. Instead, he advocated the constant self-scrutiny that aided the creation of an ethical individual aware of her or his intersectional and in other ways multiply-discursive self.