Hello and welcome, friends to this third and
concluding lecture on power.
Today, we will be focusing on this connection
between power and knowledge, where we will
be using Foucauldian conception of power and
we will see how, his conception of power is
a kind of radical departure from the usual
common sensical and in ordinary sense of the
term, when we use power as a domination of
one over the other.
And in that conception of power, we will also,
see how for Foucault power is not merely,
a kind of negative or a kind of suppressive
thing, but it also, enables, it is also a
productive thing for the individual and society.
So, this conception, we will study and discuss
through Foucauldian conception of power.
Then, we will discuss, some other conception
of power like feminist conception and Marxist
conception and also, pluralist notion of power.
Then, we will conclude these lectures on power.
So, to understand this idea of this radical
conception of power, it is necessary, to understand
this relationship between power and knowledge.
Now, this relationship is very unique and
many scholars have argued and some of you
may also be familiar with this idea that knowledge
is power.
So, if you are knowledgeable about something
that knowledge empower you or gives you power
to do something, about that knowledge.
So, knowledge, here, is understood as a kind
of enabling thing for an individual about
doing something or to use that knowledge for
certain purposes for society, for self or
for humanity and so on.
So, knowledge is seen as power.
So, Francis Bacon, the knowledge is power
is something, which is very crucial to understand.
So, this relationship between knowledge and
power, we conventionally or in ordinary sense,
understand knowledge as enabling power.
It gives power to the person who holds knowledge
about something.
Now, in Foucault, we will see the kind of
departure from this relationship between knowledge
and power, where how certain forms of knowledge
is regarded as knowledge in the first place
is the exercise of power.
So, for example, say in modern times, the
healing exercise.
So, we have many methods of healing like ayurvedic,
unani, allopathic and so on.
Now, why, allopathic is regarded as the solution
for the medical problems in modern times.
Precisely, because in the modern times, the
power is structured and it is hierarchy, creates
a condition where medical knowledge especially,
the allopathic is regarded as the most authoritative,
most acceptable forms of healing and therefore,
the other modes of healing is regarded in
that hierarchy not really, effective or not
as effective a knowledge in modern times.
So, but at one point of time, these other
modes of healing were also, regarded as a
effective modes of healing.
So, in India, in many parts, there is a still
struggle to assert those modes of healing.
So, the point, I am trying to make here is
that how knowledge is regarded as knowledge
is itself the creation of power structured
and that is, what Foucault contributes to
this relationship between knowledge and power.
So, in this relationship, this radical view
about this relationship is put forward by
Michel Foucault and he emphasized upon a different
aspect of power as productive.
So, usually, we see, power as a kind of repressive,
power suppressed something.
But, in Foucauldian understanding, we will
find, he see power not merely, as a negative
phenomena or a kind of suppressive thing,
but it also, it has some productive elements
to it.
So, in the ordinary understanding of power
as coercion, repression or subjugation, Foucault
moves beyond that.
The term power is productive explains the
subtle nature of power.
So, the way, power functions or operates is
not in some in terms of actual domination
or subordination.
Power, in Foucauldian sense, is invisible,
but it is always there, it flows through the
system, when domination, subordination or
contestation or assistance to the exercise
of power happens that shows the effect of
power.
So, there is nothing without the exercise
of power in that sense.
So, the term power is productive explains,
those subtle or the nuance or the invisible
pervasiveness of power throughout the system,
where domination, subordination and resistance
to such domination and subordination occurs.
So, knowledge of individuals or subjects is
integrally, related or linked to the power
or effects of power.
So, in one of our topics on governmentality,
when we will discuss state, we will come again,
to this point of how state use knowledge or
the knowledge of the subjects or the citizens
as a tool for governmentality is you know,
here, the knowledge is also used as a tool
for the exercise of power.
So, knowing the subject, to make once populations
visible or the administration aware of the
population and it is characteristics helps
the state to exercise its power more effectively.
So, knowledge, in that sense is helpful for
the exercise of power.
So, it generates an integral relationship
between power and knowledge, where the relationship
between power is not really, one supporting
the other, but it is a kind of interdependent,
where how knowledge is regarded as a knowledge
is itself, the outcome of the structure of
power, but knowledge as a tool also, enables
the agent or the institution or the state
to exercise its power more effectively, in
the society.
It defines, how both knowledge and power works
simultaneously, and not independently.
So, the exercise of a knowledge and power
is a kind of simultaneously, and not separately.
So, in Foucauldian understanding, this relationship
is not of one enabling the other, but how
it simultaneously, create the effects of power,
where power and its exercise becomes more
effectively, in terms of controlling, in terms
of governing the population, society or individual.
Now, the Foucauldian understanding of knowledge-power
relations point out to new ways of observing
human beings in a society.
So, through this interconnection between knowledge
and power, it enables the state and its institution
to see the individual in the society in a
new way.
So, for him, power is not always, then repressive
or brute or punishes people, but exercise
of power is more about techniques or use of
techniques like surveillance or gaze, to gather
knowledge about the subject people and to
make effect of power that is, realized over
the docile subject bodies.
So, the exercise of power is not just a kind
of repressive, brute exercise, but it uses
the techniques such as surveillance.
So, in prison if you know the way, the inmates
are controlled or governed or managed is something,
the exercise of this constant supervision
or surveillance over them.
Similarly, any state, while governing or controlling
the population uses certain techniques of
power and that techniques of power is not
just about merely, brute or suppressive exercise
of power, but it is something, where the role
of knowledge, techniques or the modes of such
techniques like surveillance and gaze enables
the state to gather knowledge about the subject
and then that knowledge enables that institution
to govern and control them in a more effective
manner.
So, here, again the relationship between power-knowledge
is reflected through the use of techniques
like surveillance to gain knowledge or to
know about how people works or how they behave
and how the self reacts under effects of disciplinary
power.
So, the power of state is more kind of disciplining
the body without directly, physically in the
brute manner forcing or repressing someone
to do something.
So, in modern times, and more on this, we
will discuss, when we will discuss governmentality,
when governmental power is more effective,
when government is not physically available.
So, it creates a condition or structures or
which conditions the individual to act, behave
and express in a certain way and that invisibility
of government is a reflection of its most
effective use of power through the techniques
of governmentality or disciplinary power.
So, power not only restraints or constraints,
but in most ways, power produce something
called knowledge and knowledge is an exercise
of power and power is a function of knowledge.
So, there is a kind of again inter-relationship
between these two phenomena which we call
knowledge and power.
So, it is not as if, it functions independently,
from each other, but it is a kind of interdependent
phenomenon.
Now, Foucault, in order to understand the
relationship between power-knowledge also,
emphasized on subjugated knowledge.
So, how, is the knowledge or what we term
as knowledge is the exercise of power or to
understand this relationship between or inter-relationship,
rather between knowledge and power.
He tried to argue it through this idea of
subjugated knowledge.
Now, he made a distinction between subjugated
knowledge or disqualified knowledge and knowledge
which is imposed by an order based on scientific
significance or having scientific hierarchism
over local knowledge.
So, in a society, you have different modes
of knowledge, different kinds of knowledge.
Why in modern society, for example, only the
scientific education or the technological
education is regarded as superior to the traditional
or conventional knowledge.
Now, at one point of time, those traditional
knowledge or conventional laws may be useful
or relevant and those are still relevant for
many people and communities, today.
But, in this hierarchy of knowledge in modern
times, the scientific and technological education
is regarded far more superior to the conventional
or a traditional knowledge.
Here, the traditional or a conventional knowledge
or local knowledge is regarded far more inferior
or in a kind of subjugated knowledge than
say, modern, scientific and technological
knowledge.
So, for him, subjugated knowledge is understood
as a set of disqualified or local are believed
to be inadequate or insufficient knowledge
which is considered inferior to the knowledge
derived from science or under scientific hierarchism.
So, these are the forms of subjugated knowledge
which is understood as a disqualified, local
or believed to be inadequate or insufficient
knowledge, in comparison to, the knowledge
that is derived from science or under scientific
hierarchism.
So, some of the disqualified or subjugated
knowledge that Foucault talked about were
psychiatric patients, ill persons of the nurse
or doctors and knowledge about the medicine.
So, he talks about a lot of forms of subjugated
knowledge and that reflects the constant power
struggle in terms of creating or positioning
one form of knowledge as superior, scientific,
hence, acceptable and other forms of knowledge
as inferior, traditional, conventional or
insufficient, inadequate knowledge.
So, he argued that the re-emergence of such
disqualified or subjugated knowledge makes
us realized that historical struggle.
So, this point is very crucial to understand
how a particular form of knowledge becomes
an authoritative form of knowledge or superior
forms of knowledge that is about the historical
struggles or conflicts of opinions took place
between hierarchy of knowledge available on
grounds of it is having scientific validity
or not.
So, here, the basic argument about the knowledge
and power and the hierarchy of knowledge is
that nothing, which we take as for granted
or which we assume as a superior, it was not
superior or it has not been superior throughout
the history.
There have been constant struggles or conflicts
of opinion about a particular knowledge or
forms of knowledge, whether it is superior
or not.
This idea of scientificism or rationality
and other things which comes much later, but
this struggle over what constitute knowledge
and what is not which form of or what method
of knowledge or enquiry can be regarded as
a superior or not.
So, in modern times, a lot of things you may
happen.
For example, I give this example that a form
of knowledge is most scientific which is based
on the experiment and that experiment legitimizes
that knowledge.
That means, any person in any lab sitting
across the globe involve in the same experiment
should arrive at the same result, only that
form of knowledge is considered as most scientific
or acceptable form of knowledge.
However, human beings, also have other modes
of knowing.
For example, intuitions or gut feeling, and
so on.
Now, those modes of knowing through your gut
feeling so, which you know, but you cannot
experiment you cannot explain, scientifically.
So, that form of knowledge regarded as inferior
in this hierarchy of knowledge.
So, those are the questions which lead us
to understand the making of any knowledge
as superior or inferior.
It is part of the historical struggle, where
the scientificism, rationality and methods
of enquiry becomes merely, as a tool for establishing
some modes of knowledge as superior and de
legitimizing or disqualifying other modes
of knowledge.
So, the structure of power and knowledge is
in constant inter-relationship, in creating
this power structure or hierarchy of knowledge.
So, the re-emergence of such kinds of local
or disqualified or subjugated knowledge also,
provides perhaps, a scope to critique knowledge
or to argue, or find out the difference existed
or existing between different kinds of knowledge.
So, it happens in the contemporary times,
also.
So, when the authority of allopathy as a mode
of healing is widely, acceptable.
However, there are constant challenges or
criticisms to this mode of healing by the
practitioner of say, unani or homeopathy or
ayurvedic medicine and so on.
So, thus in Foucauldian perspective, we find
power is understood as productive.
It produces newer identities and subjectivity.
So, we may assume, I will discuss this point
again, when I will discuss the next sentence
that is, in his definition of power, it is
more like a capillary flowing throughout the
system like blood in the capillaries of our
bodies.
So, this is the most radical, comprehensive
understanding of power which believes power
is not just domination, it is not just subordination,
it is not the physical or the brute force
of one over the other, but it is seen as the
productive and how productive, I will discuss.
But, the circulation of power in the system
is like capillary in the veins, the blood
which flows through our capillary throughout
our bodies.
Similarly, power circulates throughout the
system when we see the instances of say, domination
or subordination or resistances to such dominations
and subordination, those are the effect or
the particular instances of power, but power
is always, already flowing throughout the
system.
So, it flows through between a doctor and
the patient, teacher and the pupil, the superior
officials or the subordinate officials.
So, those circulation of power is already,
always present.
When a superior or a teacher or a medical
practitioner uses that power, that is, the
particular instance or effect of power, not
really, the power which is…
So, the both here, the teacher or the pupil,
subordinate or the superior, doctor and the
patient are the subjects of power.
The power over whom it is exercised and the
one who is exercising the power both are here,
the subject of this circulation of power throughout
the system.
Now, in this definition of power, you may
find this definition, similar to say, Talcott
Parsons, idea of power as money functions
in the economy or for example, Hannah Arendt
idea of ‘power to’.
It is a kind of positive power.
However, in Foucault, we have very radical
and most comprehensive account of power so
far, where the exercise of power in terms
of controlling or discipline really, its effect
power is already, present and flow through
the system which produces newer identities
and subjectivities through the techniques
of governmentality.
Now, there may be a kind of misconception,
when you get to know that power is like all
pervasive phenomena, then what is the scope
of any alternative or newer identities or
subjectivities that can be produced.
This is precisely, the point which Foucault
is trying to argue that power is not just
about suppression, but it also, has enabling
capacity.
So, human subjectivities, when is conditioned
by the structure of power, that is in operation,
it also, gives him or her the opportunity
to resist to those power, to resist such domination
and that resistance is again, coming from
the same structure of power, but enables or
creates the possibilities of creation of newer
identities or newer subjectivities.
So, it is not like that power when understood
as all pervasive closes any possibilities
or restrain or limits any alternative imagination
of identities or subjectivity.
In fact, power is like enabling thing, where
individual can create newer identities and
newer subjectivities, and not just become
merely, the subject or the victim of power.
So, now, that is the conception of power by
Foucault which we have seen through this dichotomy
between knowledge and power.
Next is the feminist conception of power,
where the focus is the basic idea that how
the structure of society or family or the
state which claims to be neutral makes this
suppression or discrimination of women almost
invisible in its discourse.
So, the focus of feminist writings or feminist
scholarship is how, power relationship operates
in the society which makes half of the population
vulnerable or discriminate them against the
other half of the population.
So, how, this subjugation of women or suppression
of women is ensured through these particular
modes of power which radical feminists, argue,
as the patriarchy.
So, these structure of power which we will
discuss.
So, feminist questions first the women’s
systemic, structural and the unequal access
to power.
So, feminist believes that the system of patriarchy…
and which we will discuss, what is this patriarchy?
It subjugates or dominates and deprives women
of resources and equality.
So, it started right from the family and not
necessarily, in the society or in the state.
So, what happens, to women in the society,
and state is the extension of domination and
discrimination that women faces in the family.
So, the real power struggle or real justice,
or quest for justice, starts with the family,
where men and women should be treated equally.
They should be given equal opportunities right
from the family to the society to the state
and therefore, they do not just talk about
discrimination in the society or state, but
also, in the family and the patriarchy, therefore,
is that structure of power which subjugates,
which justify, this subjugation and discrimination
of women and put them in the inferior condition
and so on.
So, patriarchy, as a system of domination
operates at different levels in society, economy
political and cultural and so on and at the
same time, it overlaps, with other system
of power also.
For example, the idea of race, class, caste,
which also, divides the population on the
issue of race or class or caste.
Now, sometimes, the structure of patriarchy,
overlaps with these structures of power that
is based on class, race or caste.
For instances, a Dalit or a lower caste woman
is affected differently, under the system
of patriarchy in India than a white upper
caste women.
So, their operation or subjugation is not
equal.
So, that shows, the inter-sectionality in
terms of how, power structure often come together
to treat a particular subject in a different
way, depending upon his or her social, historical
status.
But, operation or subjugation of women exists
in different setups across the globe.
Now, in the context of India, I have given
the examples, similarly, between black and
white women, although, they both are women
face different kinds of subjugation or discrimination.
So, we have different kinds of feminists.
So, liberal feminists, particularly, highlights
the shortcomings of concepts of liberty, equality,
rights and justice that fails to pay attention
to them, women or gender issues prevalent
in society.
So, they argue, for equality, such as that
power should be equally, distributed among
men and women, so that women too, enjoy equal
power like men in society and can live with
dignity, respect and identity of her own and
so on.
So, these are the arguments of liberal feminists.
Thus, they focus on say, equal pay for equal
work, equal rights, equal freedom and justice
like their male counterparts, to address gender
based discriminations and inequality in society.
So, the liberal feminists, will argue about
equality, freedom and justice for women like
their male counterparts to address the gender
discrimination in the society.
So, the Marxist explanation of politics is
based on this idea of class.
There, they are almost blind to the other
kind of discrimination based on gender or
caste.
So, Marxist feminists, will argue about the
gender blindness of the class analysis and
in the analysis of gender just society, radical
feminists, further questions the very basic
division of society on gender basis.
So, this idea, many of you may be familiar
with this difference between sex and gender.
Now, this discrimination or difference that
is based on sex is biological right and the
gender is something, which is socially and
culturally, constructed.
So, what a particular gender and what role
a particular gender should perform, it is
not biological, it is socially, and culturally,
constructed.
Now, the radical feminists will go one step
ahead than the Marxist or the liberal feminists,
who argue about this basic division of society
on gender basis and they emphasized on the
rule of patriarchy which is the root of all
discriminations against women in the society,
state and in the family.
So, they emphasize on patriarchy as the major
reasons for subjugated positions of women
in the society.
So, for feminists, gender is the prime category
of social and political analysis.
So, they look at the gender and through gender
lens, they study the power structure in the
society in the family and in the state.
However, there are significant differences
between the families.
So, as I have discussed with you, the differences
between liberal feminists or Marxist feminists
or radical feminists is significant and within
that there is also, other kinds of feminist
say, Dalit feminists, black feminists and
so on, and so forth.
So, for instance, a liberal feminist will
differ from Marxist and radical feminist will
differ from both or vice versa.
So, there are rich differences and debates
within feminism.
However, the common agenda that unites them
is making a society, more just by ensuring
equal opportunities for the women.
Now, in feminist contribution to social science
or philosophy of knowledge and science is
then, it opens up new kind of debates about
thinking, about a just society or a more equal
society.
So, the point is for a very long time, there
was a kind of assumption that state really,
do not discriminate between men and women
because it is a neutral, or so is the society.
But, here, feminist scholarship questions
such kind of assumptions and establishes how,
the gender discriminations or gender which
discriminations are made invisible by this
assumption of state neutrality or neutrality
of the society, and so on which makes the
discrimination or injustices, that is, meted
out to women invisible.
And, the relationship therefore, between men
and women is not that of equality, but is
hierarchical, one exercising his power over
the other.
Now, another point that we needs to focus
is that according to the feminists, how a
women is treated by a men is not result of
the bad behavior or the bad manners of that
particular individual, but it is systemic,
it is structural.
That means, women faces discrimination or
subjugation or oppression in different forms,
in different situations historically, across
the society.
Their degree may vary, as I said about the
Dalit women or the upper caste women or the
white women or the black women and so on.
But, nonetheless, they all face such discriminations
and that unites them on this question of gender
and they see power operates through the gender
lens.
Now, the next is the Marxist conception of
power which talks about the idea of exploitation.
So, Marxist conception of power basically,
emphasizes upon the exploitative nature of
power, where it enables one section of the
society to extract surplus from the other
section of society and that gives a kind of
tool in the hands of a powerful, to exploit
those who are vulnerable or those who are
in the condition of marginality or vulnerability.
So, in the Marxist conception of power, it
is seen as a kind of exploitative and it is
seen as coercive tool to exploit the liberals
or the weaker section in the society, particularly.
So, Marxist theory of power, pointed out specifically,
to a particular type of capitalist mode of
production controlled by an economically,
dominant class.
So, those who exercise domination economically,
they also, get to exercise domination politically,
socially, culturally and so on.
So, in Marxist analysis, state in a capitalist
society is constitutive of two classes, basically,
the bourgeoisie which owns the modes of production
and the proletariat whose life and very survival
is dependent on that modes, without owning
that modes of production.
So, their relationships are determined by
their relationship to the means of production.
So, if a person owns that means of production,
that is, the bourgeoisie or the capitalist
class and the one who is subjected to or whose
very survival is dependent on that means of
production, without owning them is the proletariat
and they are in the large number and they
are always, in the minority.
So, we are not going into that details, but
the very relationship between the two is determined
by their relationship to the means of production.
So, if that is a society, that is a capitalist
society, the nature of a state in such a society
is that it works on behest of or on behalf
of the dominant capitalist classes and it
is often, portrayed as the instrument in the
hands of the dominant classes.
So, state in a capitalist society, works on
behalf of bourgeoisie or the capitalist and
it protects, the interest of the bourgeoisie
and therefore, in the Marxist writing, you
may say, that you may find many Marxists,
argued, about the withering away of the state.
So, there is no need of a state because state
is the instrument of class exploitation.
So, it argues, that the legal and the political
equality and freedom in the absence of real,
social and economic freedom to everyone is
hollow and makes very little sense, to a large
number of population.
Hence, it argues, for social and economic
freedom and equality.
So, in the Marxist conception, the idea of
power is basically, about exploitative in
nature which ensures the domination of one
class over the other, where state also, functions
like an instrument in the hands of dominant
classes.
So, in the Marxist analysis, it is said that
state is there, to manage the common affairs
of all bourgeoisie and facilitates.
The exploitation of the proletariat or those
who not own the property or means of production,
their exploitation is facilitated by the state
on behalf of or for the benefit of bourgeoisie.
So, that is about the capitalist mode of economy
and how power operates there, according, to
the Marxist conception of power.
Now, a pluralist conception of power, emphasize
on the point that power is exercised by different
political groups.
So, in the pluralist conception of power,
there is no single small group of people in
societies which exercise power.
It is largely, exercised by different groups,
different individuals and so on.
So, various political groups participate in
the decision-making processes or influences
important policies of the state.
So, power, it is not something, which is in
the hands of single or the small group of
people, but there are different groups, different
actors, different institutions, which exercises
the power.
So, they all participate in the decision-making
processes or influence the important policies
of the state.
So, power, really, do not resides in one person
or a group of person or a very few institutions.
It is like more plural, in terms of its exercise
or in terms of those who yields power or holds
power.
So, thus, it questions the view that any one
person or group uphold or exercise political
or economic power in society.
Unlike, the sociological account of power
which emphasis on the centralization of power,
the pluralists argue about decentralization
of power in decision-making process.
So, the best example is a vibrant democracy.
So, power, as it operates, leads to centralization,
but the democracy as a system of rule or governance
focuses not on one person, one party, and
one group and so on.
But it gives scope for other groups, other
parties and other individuals.
So, this leads to a more decentralization
of power away from the sociological understanding
or emphasis of power which talks about the
centralization of power in the society, in
the hands of single or small groups.
So, in contrast, to pluralist understanding
of power, C. Right Mills, in his work, The
Power Elites rejects the view that USA enjoys
separation of powers or it enjoys, decentralization
of power.
So, he argues, basically, that it is in the
hands of elite, where power resides and in
turn elites enjoy the power, but larger section
of the societies always, the subject to that
power which is exercised by the elites and
power rotates among the elites and not really,
among the masses.
So, there are other criticisms to pluralist
conception of power.
It is argued that it focuses only on the behavioralist
approach, how power actually, functions and
not really, the wider dimensions of or the
inherent pervasiveness of power, even when
many others are involved who actually, controls
the decision-making.
So, P. Bachrach and M. Baratz, questions the
pluralists, about the organized political
agenda, where some of the important socio-political
issues gets unobservable or invisible such
as race and minority interests issue.
So, in this approach, the forms of discriminations
or subjugations mean never be made visible
or observable, because they do not see the
hidden structure of power which puts a particular
committee or a group of people in the condition
of subordination.
So, they also, criticized the pluralist for
not directly, focusing on the power relationship
as existing in a society which proliferates
in terms of domination and subjugation of
various classes in the society.
So, in the pluralist approach, they may see,
the visible participation or a exercise of
power, but power, by its very nature also,
have some hidden or some invisible characteristics,
where it puts some individual or some groups
precisely, because of certain decisions, certain
policies and so on in the condition of subordination
and pluralists failed to understand those
conditions of dominations and subjugations
of various classes in the society.
Now, in these three lectures, we have seen
different conceptualization of power and we
have studied its relationships between authority
and legitimacy.
Now, power, remains one of the central, but
most, complex and essentially, contested concept
in political theory and this we have discussed
through different scholars and different perspectives
and their approach to power.
So, it reflects, the contested nature of such
conceptualization.
However, it is central in the organization
of modern state and politics.
So, you cannot think about and argue about
politics in any society or state without referring
to power.
So, the power, remains the central category
in any discourse on modern society or modern
polity.
However, it is often, not that visible or
expressed.
So, through many examples, we have seen that
the way power is understood in the common
sensical, ordinary sense as suppression or
the brute force or the domination is not really,
the adequate understanding of way power operates.
So, right from the Steven Lukes, three stages
of power or three-dimensional view of power
to Talcott Parsons to Gramsci and then Foucault,
we have seen how, power is most effective,
where its operation is made almost invisible.
So, the comprehensive or the most adequate
understanding is to understand the functioning
or the operation of power, where there is
no direct or a visible agent involving in
its exercise, where everybody feels that everything
is fine and they are doing for some great
thing and yet they are subject to a particular
ideology or a particular power structure.
So, power in that sense is most effective,
when its use or its exercise is made invisible.
So, we have to finally, remember both its
negative as well as the positive dimensions
of power.
So, power, when it operates or it creates
a structure of domination and subordination,
it does not only, have the negative role,
but it also, has the positive dimensions,
where it enables one to do something, to become
something and provide them the opportunities,
and scope to produce newer subjectivities
and newer identities.
For example, I am giving you this hypothetical
example, for a very long time Indians were
ruled by the British rule and generation after
generation, they believed that British rule
will be there and that is their fate, then
they should abide by or subject themselves
to the British rule.
But, gradually, they in the same power structure,
they realized, they mobilized and form and
created a newer subjectivities which give
them the confidence to fight against the British.
Now, how, you understand that situation, if,
it is just…power is just about domination
and subordination, but power also, has the
productive or the positive dimension, where
it enables the subject of its power to create
newer subjectivities and newer identities
which we must also, take into account, when
we discuss and debate about the power.
It is not merely, about domination and suppression.
Now, to conclude this lecture, you can refer
to some of these writings like Norman P Barry’s,
An Introduction to Modern Political Theory
and then, Rajeev Bhargav and Ashok Acharya’s
book, there is a chapter by Menon in Political
Theory: An Introduction, on power.
On Michel Foucault, you can read from Power
and Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings.
So, this is a very original text on Foucauldian
conception of power and the relationship between
power and knowledge, and from Rhode Deborah,
you can study, “Feminism and the State”.
So, these are some of the readings for this
lecture, today, and with that we conclude
this lecture on power.
In the next lecture, we will take a new topic
that is on state and sovereignty.
So, please write to us, what you feel about
this lecture and also, write your queries.
We will be happy to respond.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you all.
