THE SUBJECT AND POWER (1982 EXCERPT)
BY: MICHEL FOUCAULT
From "the Subject and Power" 1982, in: "Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics" University of chicago, p. 208.
I would like to suggest another way to go further toward a new economy of power
relations, a way which is more empirical, more directly related to our present
situation, and which implies more relations between theory and practice. It consists of
taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point. To
use another metaphor, it consists of using this resistance as a chemical catalyst so as to
bring to light power relations, locate their position, and find out their point of
application and the methods used. Rather than analyzing power from the point of view
of its internal rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through the
antagonism of strategies [...]
Let us come back to the definition of the exercise of power as a way in which certain
actions may structure the field of other possible actions. What, therefore, would be
proper to a relationship of power is that it be a mode of action upon actions. That is to
say, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted "above"
society as a supplementary structure whose radical effacement one could perhaps
dream of. In any case, to live in a society is to live in such a way that action upon
other actions is possible-- and in fact ongoing. A society without power relations can
only be an abstraction. Which, be it said in passing, makes all the more politically
necessary the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation,
the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions which are necessary to
transform some or to abolish others. For to say that there cannot be a society without
power relations is not to say either that those which are established are necessary or,
in any case, that power constitutes a fatality at the heart of societies, such that it cannot
be undermined. Instead, I would say that the analysis, elaboration, and bringing into
question of power relations and the "agonism" between power relations and the
intransitivity of freedom is a permanent political task inherent in all social existence
[...]
In effect, between a relationship of power and a strategy of struggle there is a
reciprocal appeal, a perpetual linking and a perpetual reversal. At every moment the
relationship of power may become a confrontation between two adversaries. Equally,
the relationship between adversaries in society may, at every moment, give place to
the putting into operation of mechanisms of power. The consequence of this instability
is the ability to decipher the same events and the same transformations either from
inside the history of struggle or from the standpoint of the power relationships. The
interpretations which result will not consist of the same elements of meaning or the
same links or the same types of intelligibility, although they refer to the same
historical fabric, and each of the two analyses must have reference to the other. In fact,
it is precisely the disparities between the two readings which make visible those
fundamental phenomena of "domination" which are present in a large number of human
societies.
BY: MICHEL FOUCAULT
From "the Subject and Power" 1982, in: "Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics" University of chicago, p. 208.
I would like to suggest another way to go further toward a new economy of power
relations, a way which is more empirical, more directly related to our present
situation, and which implies more relations between theory and practice. It consists of
taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point. To
use another metaphor, it consists of using this resistance as a chemical catalyst so as to
bring to light power relations, locate their position, and find out their point of
application and the methods used. Rather than analyzing power from the point of view
of its internal rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through the
antagonism of strategies [...]
Let us come back to the definition of the exercise of power as a way in which certain
actions may structure the field of other possible actions. What, therefore, would be
proper to a relationship of power is that it be a mode of action upon actions. That is to
say, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted "above"
society as a supplementary structure whose radical effacement one could perhaps
dream of. In any case, to live in a society is to live in such a way that action upon
other actions is possible-- and in fact ongoing. A society without power relations can
only be an abstraction. Which, be it said in passing, makes all the more politically
necessary the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation,
the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions which are necessary to
transform some or to abolish others. For to say that there cannot be a society without
power relations is not to say either that those which are established are necessary or,
in any case, that power constitutes a fatality at the heart of societies, such that it cannot
be undermined. Instead, I would say that the analysis, elaboration, and bringing into
question of power relations and the "agonism" between power relations and the
intransitivity of freedom is a permanent political task inherent in all social existence
[...]
In effect, between a relationship of power and a strategy of struggle there is a
reciprocal appeal, a perpetual linking and a perpetual reversal. At every moment the
relationship of power may become a confrontation between two adversaries. Equally,
the relationship between adversaries in society may, at every moment, give place to
the putting into operation of mechanisms of power. The consequence of this instability
is the ability to decipher the same events and the same transformations either from
inside the history of struggle or from the standpoint of the power relationships. The
interpretations which result will not consist of the same elements of meaning or the
same links or the same types of intelligibility, although they refer to the same
historical fabric, and each of the two analyses must have reference to the other. In fact,
it is precisely the disparities between the two readings which make visible those
fundamental phenomena of "domination" which are present in a large number of human
societies.