“The
idea that there could exist a state of communication that would allow games of
truth to circulate freely, without any constraints or coercive effects, seems
utopian to me. This is precisely a failure to see that power relations are not
something that is bad in itself, that we have to break free of. I do not think
that a society can exist without power relations, if by that one means the
strategies by which individuals try to direct and control the conduct of
others. The problem, then, is not to try to dissolve them in the utopia of
completely transparent communication but to acquire the rules of law, the
management techniques, and also the morality, the ethos, the practice of the self, that will allow us to play these
games of power with as little domination as possible […] Power is not evil. Power
is games of strategy.”
Michel Foucault, Vol. 1 Ethics, ‘The Ethics of the Concern for Self as a Practice of Freedom’, 298
“The contrast between Kingsley Hall and a contemporary
mental hospital did not lie simply in the fact that the ‘staff’ of the former
thought that hierarchy was bad in the
abstract, or that it would be nice in
principal not to exercise control over the “patients.” Something more
substantial was at stake, which can be caught up in the Heideggerian contrast
between enframing and revealing. Conventional psychiatry, one could say,
already knows what people should be like, and it is the telos of this sort of
psychiatry to reengineer – to enframe – mental patients back into that image.
That is why a hierarchical system of
social relations is appropriate. Power relations and understandings of the self
go together. The Bateson-Laing line, of course, was that selves are endlessly
complex and endlessly explorable, and the antihierarchical approach of Kingsley
Hall was deliberately intended to facilitate such exploration in both the mad
and the sane. This is the mode of revealing, of finding out what the world has
to offer us. We can, then, name this contrast in social relations in terms of
power and hierarchy, but that is not enough. The sociological contrast echoed
and elaborated a contrast in ontological stances – enframing versus revealing –
which is, I think, very hard to grasp from the standpoint of modernity.”
Andrew Pickering, The Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future, ‘Ontology, Power, and Revealing’, 211
The first quote is an idea that has been turning over in my head since I first read it a few months ago (and it’s really worth reading), while the second is the conclusion of the current chapter in the book I’m reading currently, which I think reflects productively on the first. As well as reflecting, at least in part, the Foucauldian ethics of power relations it also places it in a somewhat practical setting, of (anti)psychiatry (the quote from Foucault continues by discussing sexual relations and pedagogy.)
I recently started taking a class on Buddhist ethics, out of a desire to transfer my reading into a more collective (and social) setting, and one of the specific teaching of the group I’m having a problem with is the idea that we can operate in two distinct states of the ‘power mode’ and ‘love mode’. Which, aside from the superficial tweeness, conflicts with my adoption of the idea above that power relations are an integral and inevitable part of human relationships: that ethics is the “conscious [réfléchie] practice of freedom” on the basis of acknowleding power, not substituting it with another category; ethics is above power, not in place of it. Though the latter approach does allow for limited uses of the ‘power mode’, in a sort of firm but fair way - the whole thing being a case-by-case application of deontological/Kantian-type intentionality and karmic consequentialism, but that’s another issue. I’m more interested in trying to reconcile Foucault’s idea of ever-present power relations in any “relationship in which one person tries to control the conduct of another” (and that basically being his definition of a relationship) with the quite enticing idea that trying to control others’ behaviour is manipulative and de facto unethical.