File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_2004/foucault.0410, message 33

Subject: Re: Pouvoir
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:12:26 +1000

no, power is neither a property, a substance or a potentiality. It is a 
relation (power relation) or network of relations, depending on context.
See 'the subject and power'.

In addition, I'd like to mark the passing of Jacques Derrida by saying that 
there has surely been no more important writer in the last fifty years.


>From: "Kevin Turner" <>
>Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: Re: Pouvoir
>Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:15:39 +0100
>credit where credit's due - i got the insight from Stuart Elden's
>"mapping  the present:" 106, and Beatrice Hanssen's 
"critique of
>violence": 153, the  latter of whom references Gayatri Spivak's
>"Outside the Teaching Machine:"  25-52.
>as for power being an actuality: you can take this in (at least) two
>ways  - either it is an actuality in terms of being a substance and
>thus a  property, or it is an actuality in terms of being a
>potentiality. i think  foucault means the later. thus to think of
>power as capacity is not to  think of it as an innate capability, or
>an essentail attribute, but  precisely the capacity "to be able 
>(power - pouvoir as a verb, as a  doing) through the capacity to
>"know'how" (knowledge - savoir).
>i think Nietzsche's observation that 'there is no "being" 
>doing,  acting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction 
imposed on
>the doing -  the doing itself is everything' ("On The Genealogy of
>Morals" 1996: First  Essay, 13), is a very good way to think about
>power/pouvoir as a verb.
>regards - k.


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005