The concept of power

FINAL EXAM

2006-03-06T21:05:00.000-08:00

The final exam will be held on Monday, March 13th at 10:30 to 12:20. You will be asked to write two essays. Each essay will be selected from two options.

The first essay will cover the concept of power as developed by Michel Foucault, and it's potential applications for research.

The second essay will be a more comprehensive essay that will ask you to trace themes from the course as a whole. In other words, this essay will ask you to draw on some theories and ideas from the first half of the course, but it will allow you some leeway in determining what theories and theorists will choose.

A key to this exam will be to identify themes and points of comparison between theorists--themes such as "freedom and power," "power over and power to" and so on.

Here are some sample questions from exams past. This should give you an idea of how I construct questions:

I will include questions on the final of similar content to these. 2/3 for you to answer.

1)What does Foucault seek to replace the juridico-discurvise theory of power with? Does his alternative better explain the relationship between power and human sexuality? Explain.

2)How does Young use the insights of power theorists to construct a theory of justice. Discuss at least on strength and one weakness to her use of these theories.

3)How does the power without a face contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of 4th grade classrooms?

4)In light of all the criticisms of his approach, how useful is Dahl's definition of power?

5) What is the best way to understand the relationship between power and freedom? Does Foucault help us better understand this relationship?

Defacing Power

2006-02-28T17:00:00.000-08:00

As you're reading the book, feel free to ask questions and comment here. I'll post a couple of questions to get us started, but add your own. Remember, participating at least occasionally in these discussions is part of your grade.

How does Hayward define power? Does this offer an improvement over Foucault's approach?

What does she hope to accomplish with her observations of 4th grade classrooms?

Is this a good method to better understand power? Why/why not?

What is Hayward's critique of "critical pedagogical theory"? Do you agree?

Does Hayward's book shed any new light on how to understand the relationship between freedom on the one hand and power on the other?

Discussion Thread: Iris Young

2006-02-28T16:32:00.000-08:00

For any discussion of Iris Youngs essays.

Some suggested topics:

Does Young show any influence of Foucault's thinking about power?

Is her typology of oppression missing anything, or including some things that shouldn't be there?

Do you agree with her critique of the distributive paradigm?

Do the five faces of oppression give us a sufficient conceptual map of the real world of (unjust) power?

As always, your own questions and comments are welcome.

Grading Scale

2006-02-28T16:26:00.000-08:00

Here's the grading scale for the midterm:

98-100 4.0
96-97 3.9
93-95 3.8
91-92 3.7
89-90 3.6
86-89 3.5
84-85 3.4
81-83 3.3
79-80 3.2
77-78 3.1
75-76 3.0
72-74 2.9
70-71 2.8
68-69 2.7
66-67 2.6
63-65 2.5
61-62 2.4
59-60 2.3
56-58 2.2
53-55 2.1
50-52 2.0
48-49 1.9
46-47 1.8
43-45 1.7
41-42 1.6
39-40 1.5
36-38 1.4
33-35 1.3
30-32 1.2
28-29 1.1
25-27 1.0

Foucault, Young

2006-02-20T20:24:00.000-08:00

First note: The readings for Thursday--two chapters from Justice and the Politics of Difference by Iris Marion Young, are on e-reserve. However, the author is listed, inexplicably, as Yang. Do not be deterred by this complication.

By now you should be in the process of finishing up with Foucault.

A few questions for you as you finish up:

Does Foucault succeed in providing an alternative to juridico-political/sovereign models of power?

What are the key features of this alternative?

Why does Foucault call it "bio-power" in the concluding section of the book?

Foucault concludes by speculating that one day people will be very puzzled by the importance with which we viewed sex and sexuality in our society. What is it that will puzzle them so much, according to Foucault? Has he provided reason to find his suspicion likely?

Foucault, The History of Sexuality--some discussion questions

2006-02-12T20:26:00.000-08:00

1) In a nutshell, what is Foucault's objection to the "repressive hypothesis"? Why is it incorrect to think of the 19th century as an era of repressed sexuality?

2) Who are the "other" Victorians?

3) Why, according to Foucault, is the represive hypothesis so popular? (hint: see pg 6)

4) Why is Foucault so interested in "discourses"? What does he mean by this term? What role do they play in his historical analysis?

5) Foucault frequently refers to the "explosion of discourses" in the 18th and 19th centuries about sex. What are some of these new discourses of sex?

6) If you had to speculate as to the causes of the explosion of discourses of sexuality at this historical juncture, how would you explain it?

As always, feel free to raise your own issues and questions and comments from the early chapters of the book in this thread.

Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction

2006-02-12T19:44:00.000-08:00

As you read this, a couple of suggestions and reminders.

1) While this book is ostensibly about the history of sexuality (or, more accurately, the history of the way was talk, write, and think about sexuality, and regulate it), we're interested in what we can learn about the way power works in society, according to Foucault.

2) Still, this is a difficult book, and while Foucault will eventually have a lot to say about power, he doesn't discuss his theory of power much directly in the early chapters. Don't worry too much about power, just try to follow the argument and the narrative Foucault presents. As you continue to read he'll get to his theory of power, but it'll be quite difficult to understand if you haven't followed the narrative about sexuality so far.

3) This book was first published in France in 1976. A bit of historical context: Foucault is writing in the wake of the so-called sexual revolution of the previous decade in Western Europe and the United States. In other words, many people--especially Foucault's likely audience--are heavily invested in the "repressive hypothesis" that Foucault is criticizing. The idea that the recent innovations in sexuality in Western societies were acheived by throwing off antiquated forms of repressive social power and replacing them with freedom were widely held. They were primarily challenged by those on the cultural right; defenders of traditional and quasi-Victorian sexual mores. Foucault is one of the only to challenge this way of thinking from an entirely different perspective that has nothing whatsoever to do with the traditional values critique.

4) Foucault's pessimism about the sexual liberation of his era is perhaps even more surprising given his personal life (Foucault was a gay man who died of AIDS-related complications in 1984). Given his sexual orientation, he was someone particularly situated to benefit from the social changes associated with the sexual revolution, which included a major step forward for the social acceptance of gays and lesbians.

MIDTERM

2006-02-06T14:34:00.000-08:00

This exam is due no later than Monday, February 13th, at 4:00 PM. You may turn in your midterm in the political science main office, Gowen 101. If you cannot come to campus to turn it in, you must email a copy of it to me before the deadline. You must, then, bring a paper copy to class the next day, otherwise the exam will be considered late. If an emergency prevents you from completing the exam by the due date, you may be eligible for an extension, which you must discuss and clear with me beforehand. Otherwise, late papers will not be accepted.

Please note that with any course material quoted or paraphrased, you must give a citation. However, as long as you are using only course material, a bibliography isn't necessary--just give the author and page number in parenthesis, like this (Hartsock, p. 223).

The first essay should be answered with a roughly four page (typed, double spaced, 10-12 point font, standard margins) paper:

Both Isaac and Arendt/Hartsock present serious challenges to the "faces of power" approach of Steven Lukes. Explain and assess Hartsock/Arendt or Isaac's critical perspective on the Faces of power debate. How might one defend the faces of power theorists from the criticisms of Isaac and/or Hartsock/Arendt? Would such a defense be successful? Why or why not? Be as clear and specific as possible about both the nature of the criticism and the responses. (70 points possible)

The second essay should be answered with a roughly two page (typed, double spaced, 10-12 point font, standard margins). Choose one of the following two options.

Option A: "Georg Simmel offers an important alternative to the Marxist and Weberian views on the nature of power, one that has important implications for the study of power relations in society." Give a defense of this statement--what is significant about Simmel's theory of power? Why does it present and attractive alternative to Marx and/or Weber's conception? (30 points possible)

Option B: Do the philosophical formulations of essentially contested concepts, as put forth by Gallie and Connolly, help or hinder our ability to study and better understand the concept of power? Be as clear as possible about the way this approach helps or hinders this project. (30 points possible)

A final note of instruction: While you can go over the page limits above if necessary, the total length of your exam should not exceed seven double spaced pages. Any material beyond the seventh complete page will not be graded.

Thursday's reading

2006-01-30T20:28:00.000-08:00

Thursday's reading is "Beyond the Three Faces of Power: A Realist Critique" by Jeffrey Isaac. It is in the Journal Polity, volume 20, Issue #1, Autumn 1987, pp. 4-31.

It can be found, like the Bachrach and Baratz articles, in JSTOR.

I recommend logging in to the library from the off campus proxy (if you're off campus) and selecting databases, and choosing JSTOR.

The easiest way is to choose "Browse" and select the journal by title and go straight to the issue, but it's easy enough to craft a search to find it as well.

The three dimensions of power

2006-01-30T20:18:00.000-08:00

Some discussion for this week:

Tuesday, 1/31 the Third Face of Power

1) How does Stephen Lukes propose improving on the first two faces of power?

2) According to Lukes, the 3rd face of power allows us to consider the how some might enthusiastically and earnestly participate in their own oppression. How does this work? What methodological issues does this raise?

3) How do we know what someone's "real" interests are? What is wrong, according to Lukes, with just asking them?

4) Does Lukes expand the concept of power too far, so as to include influences that are freely adapted? How can we tell if, say, a consumptive choice is freely chosen?

5) Is Lukes developing the notion of power and prestige developed by Simmel?

Getting Thursday's readings

2006-01-21T15:49:00.000-08:00

To get Thursday's readings by Bachrach and Baratz, follow this process:

Log onto the library homepage and select "JSTOR" under research databases.

Choose advanced search.

Put the words Bachrach and Baratz in the first search window, and limit search to Author in the journal "American Political Science Review"

They are the first two results. Here is the full citation information:

"The Two Faces of Power," Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, The American Political Science Review v. 56 no. 4 (December 1962), p. 947-952.

"Decisions and Non-Decisions: An Analytic Framework," Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, The American Political Science Review v. 57 no. 3 (September 1963), p. 632-642.

Simmel, next week

2006-01-21T15:45:00.000-08:00

I didn't post on Simmel, so feel free to send your Simmel questions and comments here.

This coming week, we turn our attention to the study of power amongst political scientists in the 1950's and 1960's, including Robert Dahl and his "second face" critics.

The first "face" of power is represented by Robert Dahl. Nice, short, easy readings for Tuesday to make up for Parsons.

What I'd like to do on Tuesday is, first, make sure we're all on the same page and have a good understanding of the first face model of power, as described by Lukes and using Dahl as an example.

Then I'd like to consider the following issues:

1) Assumptions (including unstated assumptions) of this view of power

2) Strengths of this approach

3) Weaknesses of this approach

4) Normative implications of this approach

We'll do something very similar for The second face on Thursday.

I'd like to see an online discussion get started. Use this thread to post your comments on any of the above issues regarding the first face of power and Dahl's approach. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on his strengths and weaknesses.

Weber

2006-01-16T15:29:00.000-08:00

Note: the additional Weber reading is on e-reserve, listed as "Intellectual Orientations" by Mills.

Here are some discussion questions. Feel free to begin now, or discuss after tomorrow's lecture:

Marx saw power as one thing, from one source, but Weber, we are told, saw political power and economic power as distinct entities. Why--what is the importance of keeping this distinction?

For Marx, interests drive, define, shape, and perhaps even create ideologies. How does Weber differ on the interest/ideology relationship?

For Marx, 'capitalism' was the central defining institution of modern society. For Weber, it was the 'rational bureaucracy' whether it was a military, a religious organization, a corporation or a government. Why the shift in emphasis?

What is the significance of the concept of 'charisma' to Weber? Why would Marx be skeptical of such a concept?

Weber distinguishes between different types of action and different forms of power:

--rational
--traditional
--affectual

Each of these types of action must be understood as stemming from different forms of power. What is the difference between these types of action, and how can we tell the difference?

Marx accepts the notion of objective interests, while Weber rejects it. Why do they make the choices they make? What are the consequences of those choices?

How does Weber define power (see Power, pg. 29)? How is power different from domination? Why does this distinction matter for Weber?

Alienated Labor essay

2006-01-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned yesterday, here is an optional additional reading by Marx. This explores his theory of human nature: what makes us truly human? For those who don't want to wade through more Marx, here's the money quote:

What constitutes the alienation of labour?

Firstly, the fact that labour is external to the worker – i.e., does not belong to his essential being; that he, therefore, does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not working, and not at home when he is working. His labour is, therefore, not voluntary but forced, it is forced labour. It is, therefore, not the satisfaction of a need but a mere means to satisfy needs outside itself. Its alien character is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, it is shunned like the plague. External labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Finally, the external character of labour for the worker is demonstrated by the fact that it belongs not to him but to another, and that in it he belongs not to himself but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, the human brain, and the human heart, detaches itself from the individual and reappears as the alien activity of a god or of a devil, so the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of his self.

The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions, he is nothing more than animal.

Marxism and theories of power

2006-01-11T16:58:00.000-08:00

Marx is generally regarded as (amongst other things) a founder of one of the main schools of sociological analysis. This school has a particular take on power; one significant enough to devote some considerable attention to. You'll be reading a couple of texts that give you a more general take on Marx and Marxism, rather than a specific set of readings on power.

Marx's understanding of power is best viewed as a subset of his understanding of history. Marx has a particular take on what *matters* in human affairs, and what is a product of the real movement and moment of history. As Poulantzas demonstrates, Marx locates power in class, and he locates class in the relations of production. A few questions to ponder as you think about Marx on power:

Where, according to Marx, does power come from?

How does power shape people's lives?

How can power be confronted and challenged?

Why would Marx be unlikely to describe a particular person as "powerful" in any meaningful sense?

Poulantzas uses the phrase 'objective interests' in his conception of power. What is the signifigance of labelling these interests 'objective'?

Here's my favorite passage from The Communist Manifesto. It's about, amongst other things, the changes brought about by the advent of capitalism in Europe:

All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his, real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

What does this mean? How does the development of a new economic system do all this?

-----
Marx has more than one intellectual legacy. His most (in)famous legacy is as an advocate for communism as a political system. He has also made his mark on the 20th century in other ways; his social scientific methods have been adopted and used by many who don't share all of his politics, or even much of them. We'll try to talk about how this makes sense in class Thursday.

Thursday's Reading

2006-01-08T15:10:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, we'll discuss the general approach to socio-economic life of Karl Marx, with particular attention to the way he theorizes power. There is a brief reading from the Power book edited by Lukes, but we'll be going to the original source as well.

It's very short and probably very confusing, but do try to read The Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, which serves as a dense but important summary of a number of important Marxist ideas. The link is here.

I'd like you to read The Communist Manifesto. This is a longer reading, and it's a bit unique in that it was written for a wide audience of factory workers, as political propaganda. This doesn't prevent it from providing valuable insights into Marx's theory of power as well. It's only important for this class to read chapters one and two (chapters three and four concern political details of limited relevance to us).

Here is a link to chapter 1
chapter 2
In a few days, I'll provide some discussion questions and a reading guide for these readings.

Essentially Contested Concepts

2006-01-08T14:23:00.000-08:00

*Great* stuff on the previous questions. Assuming I've got computer access on Tuesday, we'll take a look at some of your answers in more detail.

But we'll be moving on to the material that exlains, to a significant extent, how I think about the material in this course--the idea of essentially contested concepts.

We'll read the essay that coined the term and the concept (Gallie), and an essay that demonstrated what difficulties this concept causes for social science (Connolly). I think these are important essays, and the challenges that face those who analyze these sorts of concepts are made clearer by attention to this idea. Some questions to think about, as you're reading:

1) Why can't we simply settle all these contestations by looking it up in the dictionary?

2) What are Gallie's 5 conditions for essentially contested concepts? Other than the ones he discusses, what are some other examples?

3) What does it mean to refer to a concept as "appraisitive"? What particular challenges do these concepts provide for those who want to study them as impartial social scientists? What about those who study them as normative political theorists.

4) Some have suggested that if we grant that concepts like democracy and power are "essentially contested," we might as well throw up our hands and say "anything goes" when analyzing these concepts. Do you agree? Why or why not?

5) Connolly suggests that if we accept the idea of essentially contested concepts, it raises some serious concerns for how we do social science research. What does he mean? Is this true?

6) A different approach to concepts like "power," "democracy," and "art" might be to a)acknowledge that many people use many different definitions of these concepts, and b) argue that one group of people is simply correct about the definition, and the others are incorrect or confused in some way. Why, according to Gallie/Connolly, should we reject that approach?

(Feel free to post any other comments or questions on the Gallie and Connolly articles, or the idea of ECCs more broadly, in this discussion thread).

Power's sources and legitimacy

2006-01-03T10:06:00.000-08:00

What are the main sources of power that impact your life?

Which of these sources and forms of power are legitimate? Which are illegitimate? How can we tell the difference between illegitimate and legitimate power?

Power: some questions

2006-01-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

To begin this course, I'd like you to answer a couple of questions.

First, off the top of your head, without looking at a dictionary, any course readings, or any of the previously posted comments, how would you define "power"?

Welcome to the Concept of Power

2005-12-22T09:49:00.000-08:00

This is the course blog for The concept of power, Political Science 273, University of Washington-Seattle, Winter 2006. The course meets from 10:30-12:20 T/TH in Mary Gates Hall 241. The course will meet for the first time on January 3rd. This website will be used for announcements, links, discussion questions, and more so you'll want to bookmark it and check it regularly throughout the term.

The syllabus can be found here.

More information forthcoming. The e-reserve material is not up yet, but the first two readings, Connolly and Gallie (for class on 1/10) should be up by the start of the term, with the others following shortly thereafter. The books are all in the bookstore.

If you have any questions about the course and/or requirements, feel free to post them here or email me.