Working Some Ideas Out---Reader Beware!

Preface: I have heard that Foucault's work is challenging to understand.  And, as I prepared that entry, I think I understand why. Please note this entry is just my attempt to work things out (a self-dialectic so to speak). I am not sure I have a real point in this entry, nor am I sure that I am even in the playing field with my assertions. So, you have been warned, LOL. Perhaps turn back now!

Dear Classmates,

As I was reading this week’s selections, I was particularly drawn in by Herrick’s description of Foucault (see pages 26 through 252). In reading this, I got the sense that Foucault might have seen “power” as a living entity. It seems to be the result of discourse, and it changes (as pointed out on page 247). So, in thinking about this, for me to “talk about something”/ “keep the discourse alive” is a way of conveying power (to the topic); if something is part of the active discourse in our lives, then, in a way, to me, I think it holds “power.”

An example that comes to mind is “the government bailouts.” Everyone was talking about them. The discourse was active—and ‘alive’—within our culture.  But now, it is not—it’s disappeared.  So, if you buy into my argument that “discourse” conveys power to the item being discussed, then my logic becomes if discourse confers power to something (a topic), then he who drives the discourse has the power to begin with. In our society, a lot—if not most—of the discourse is driven by the media and news reporting. Thus, I speculate momentarily that that the phrase “the power of the media” does carry weight!

But, as I read further, my thoughts changed. On page 251, we can take my ramblings a step further and see that Foucault argues that power does not originate with institutions—rather, institutions are subject to power.  To me, this means that in my example, “the media” doesn’t actually have “the power” either—they are conveyed it through the act of someone else—namely us, the viewers. We grant them “power” by turning them on and tuning in and by buying their newspapers, and by reproducing their views in our discourse about news topics.

So, as I work through these thoughts of power, I see a relationship between us and media in which power is cyclically transferred through action and discourse. I think this is but one example that could inductively represent a larger spectrum of ‘flowing’ power that I think Foucault was describing? But if power is constantly shifting and not really held in a fixed point, then does “power” really exist?  Doesn’t the term power convey “authority” and “control”? If it is in flux, then what I see is more a stasis system here in which all effect is a negotiation of changing positions. A simple way to think of it might be two people taking a long trip, and, every so often, they switch off who drives so the other can sleep. Overall, there is no absolute, overall “power” we think of in the traditional sense—there are only moments in which one (whoever is driving) holds a higher position over the other. For lack of a better term, it’s an illusion of power…because it is only temporary and will be conferred to other person when he drives....??

Okay, my head is spinning, LOL.

Cris