Machiavelli codified power well: his ‘Prince’ needed to be strong and
gentle at the same time, cunning, smart, tolerant and well-meaning as well as ruthless,
impulsive and brutal; he needed to look at immediate dangers as well as at long-term
risks. The powerful must never be perceived as not being in power.
This brings us to another level of distinction, for which Machiavelli can again be used:
power as an individual feature versus power as a systemic feature. Napoleon had
power; Hitler as well, and Stalin too. Consequently, a lot of literature on historical
leaders describes such figures as ‘the’ men in power, the only power in the system
they ruled. It is often said that Machiavelli lifted this individual absolutism to the level
of doctrine in his Prince, but of course he was far more intelligent than that. To
Machiavelli, the strong (individual) Prince needed to work with the people, and he
required the support of his people. A purely and obsessively oppressive autocrat was
not a good leader to Machiavelli; he could only be part of a larger system that upheld
his power and (we can now add) his authority and to which he responded.
distinguishes between a ‘war of manoeuvre’ and a ‘war of position’. The war of
manoeuvre is violent, revolutionary action aimed at seizing control over the state – a
putsch, rebellion or insurrection come immediately to mind as examples. According to
Gramsci, however, a successful power regime requires a war of position too: a slow
and more careful battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people. Once hard power is
ours, soft power must make us accepted as rulers and must create popular support for
our rule. This is where propaganda comes in and where the concept of hegemony
emerges, to which we return below.
2. A similar distinction is very widespread and finds very useful codification in Hannah
Arendt’s On Violence. Arendt distinguishes between strength, power, authority and
force. Concentrating for a moment on the distinction between power and authority
here, we see that Arendt follows Gramsci in suggesting that authority resides in
consensual support for the regime, while power is the ultimate ‘stick’ of that regime.
When the regime loses or lacks authority, it has to resort to power (and to
force/violence, in order to restore its strength). For Gramsci as well as for Arendt,
authority is the dominant form while power is the determinant form. To illustrate this:
as long as people have confidence in elected parliaments and governments, those can
rule by authority; when such confidence is lost, the government has to use its power
and send the tanks in the streets to control the masses (which then often seems to
prompt the political leaders to wear military fatigues or uniforms). Here, too, we see
how ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ forms of power are typologically distinguished but procedurally
connected: they operate in synergy with one another, and power is a system of
composite forms. Machiavelli codified this well: his ‘Prince’ needed to be strong and
gentle at the same time, cunning, smart, tolerant and well-meaning as well as ruthless,
impulsive and brutal; he needed to look at immediate dangers as well as at long-term
risks; and he should never be perceived as not in power.
3. This brings us to another level of distinction, for which Machiavelli can again be used:
power as an individual feature versus power as a systemic feature. Napoleon had
power; Hitler as well, and Stalin too. Consequently, a lot of literature on historical
leaders describes such figures as ‘the’ men in power, the only power in the system
they ruled. It is often said that Machiavelli lifted this individual absolutism to the level
of doctrine in his Prince, but of course he was far more intelligent than that. To
Machiavelli, the strong (individual) Prince needed to work with the people, and he
required the support of his people. A purely and obsessively oppressive autocrat was
not a good leader to Machiavelli; he could only be part of a larger system that upheld
his power and (we can now add) his authority and to which he responded.
4
4. Systemic power has of course been the mainstay of Karl Marx’s work. Capital
describes a system of production which systemically exerts power over the working
classes. This power is not individual; destroying capitalism therefore requires more
than just imprisoning Bill Gates. Resistance against this power is a matter of changing
the whole system, either by violent revolutionary means that would destroy the fabric
of the old system (Gramsci’s ‘war of manoeuvre’) or by evolutionary ones, aimed at
extensive and deep participation of the oppressed classes in the system of power. The
power system described by Marx (and several Marxists after him) is one in which
power is distributed over a wide variety of actors: the state collaborates with industrial
capital and with the social classes that have immediate benefits from it, against those
who have no benefits from it (the working classes). Power, thus, has not one locus, but
is spread all over the system of social organization.
5. A crucial ingredient of this systemic power, less theorised by Marx than by Gramsci,
Althusser and Lenin, is ideology. As Gramsci said, a regime can only be successful if
it has acquired ‘soft’ power. He saw that the bourgeoisie not only controlled the (hard)
means of production and the powers of the state, but that they also controlled the fields
of culture, spirituality, ideas and science. They ruled not just by force and exploitation,
but also by ideological hegemony: the complete dominance of their culture and ideas
in society. Thus, a bid for power also needs to be a bid for hegemony, for control over
the hearts and minds of the people. People must accept the new ideology as a nonideology,
as a normal state of affairs.
6. This point, of the normalization of power, became a central ingredient in Bourdieu’s
views of habitus. Habitus was the way in which we, as individuals, had incorporated
social structure (that is: the structures of inequality that define societies), and the way
in which we articulate our position in that social structure in every ‘habitual’ act,
including speaking and writing (see especially his Distinction). Bourdieu’s view of
symbolic violence revolve around very much the same pivots as the ones we saw in
Gramsci’s work: the power of the ruling elites is also cultural power, and that cultural
power is no longer perceived as power, it has become the normal state of things and it
has begun to organise our lives in such a way that we don’t any longer perceive it as
oppressive, irrational or questionable (which is why we are sometimes embarrassed
about our working-class or non-native accents). Thinking about consumerist societies
is greatly helped by this insight.
5
7. Foucault, too, very strongly oriented towards this point in his work, while he, too,
described power as an all-pervasive system. Foucault described in his oeuvre the
gradual becoming of a particular regime of power, which went hand in hand with
forms of knowledge. Power and knowledge became one. The birth of the modern
prison went alongside the emergence of modern criminology, psychology and
psychiatry, and sociology. These knowledge domains – épistèmes – provided
‘rational’ arguments for sustaining a particular power regime, which became, in
Foucault’s terms, capillary power (power that stretches into the smallest and most
private aspects of life), biopower (power that controls the way we live our lives as
physical entities, through hygiene, public health, formal education), and
governmentality (the bureaucratisation of all aspects of life). These forms of power
create the modern subject – the individual which is at the core of our self-perception –
and the individual is thus a product of power. Through such shifts, power became
largely invisible, a series of commonsense and inevitable ingredients of life in a
modern society, and a thing we accept ‘for our own good’. Rather than ‘power’ in its
widespread sense, therefore, Foucault rather talks about ‘surveillance’: power is
exerted by means of a panoptic organisation of society, in which all aspects of our
lives are visible and open for inspection by (often invisible and unnamed) people ‘in
power’. Decentralised, capillary power thus strengthens the power of the centre rather
than to weaken it.
Source:
Paper 7.
Notes on Power
Jan Blommaert
University of Jyväskylä
No comments:
Post a Comment
PLEASE send comments to
cheeverspeter@hotmail,com