華東師範大學教育管理學系教育管理与教育治理的实践基础工作坊

第五、六講權力：教育管理与治理的实践基础（二）Power: Practical Foundation of Educational Management & Governance (2) 華東師範大學教育管理學系教育管理与教育治理的实践基础工作坊

Max Weber’s formal definition of power "In general, we understand by 'power' the chance of a man or of a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action" (Weber, 1948, p.180) The constituents of the concept of power A and B in interaction A’s will B acts in compliance with A’s will even it is against B’s own will Max Weber’s Definitions of Power: The Origin of the Inquiry

Formal Definition of Power Actor B Actor A Realization of A’s will Against B’s

Robert Dahl’s behavioralistic and pluralistic definition of power Dahl’s definition of power: "A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something B would not otherwise do" (Dahl, 1957, p. 203) The analogy of billiard ball and example of traffic policeman Dahl’s conception of political community as polyarchy and pluralism Different Perspectives of Power

Denis Wrong’s conception of power of intention Wrong defines power as “the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others.” (Wrong, 1979, p.2) Additional constituents Wrong inserted in the concept of power Intentionality in power Effectiveness of power Different Perspectives of Power

Denis Wrong’s conception of power of intention Wrong’s distinction between intended and unintended influences Dominant and overprotective mother does not intend to feminize the character of her son A boss does not mean to plunge an employee into despair by greeting him somewhat distractedly A woman does not mean to arouse a man’s sexual interest by paying polite attention to his conversation in a cocktail party Different Perspectives of Power

Bachrach & Baratz’s thesis on Two Faces of Power (1962) Criticism on Dahl pluralistic decision –making thesis Distinction between power of decision making and “non-decision making” A non-decision making situation refers to "A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A.” In this way, they suggest, B is hindered in raising issues which may be detrimental to A’s preferences. (Clegg, 1989, p. 76) Different Perspectives of Power

Bachrach & Baratz’s thesis on Two Faces of Power (1962) Mechanism of non-decision making in organization Mobilization of bias and non-issue Rule of Anticipated reaction Negative decision-making Different Perspectives of Power

Potential cause for B to formulate a grievance Not formulated Formulated Mobilization of bias Not articulated Articulated Anticipated reaction Not resolved Resolved Decision Negative Decision-making Refused Accepted

Steven Lukes defines “the concept of power by saying that A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests.” In this definition “the notion of interests” is given a significant and evaluative position. (Lukes, 2005, p. 37) Accordingly Lukes differentiates power into three dimensions. Different Perspectives of Power

Lukes’ three dimensions of power and the radical approach 1st dimension of power: It involves "a focus on behaviour in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of interest, seen as express policy preferences, revealed by political participation" (Lukes, 2005, p.19). This dimension of power assumes a liberal ontological position, which "takes man as they are and applies want-regarding principles to them, relating their interests to what they actually want or prefer, to their policy preferences as manifested by their political participation." (2005, p.37) Different Perspectives of Power

Lukes’ three dimensions of power and the radical approach 2nd dimension of power: It involves "consideration of the ways in which decisions are prevented from being taken on potential issues over which there is an observable conflict of interests, seen as express policy preferences and sub-political grievances." (p. 25) This dimension of power assumes a reformist ontological position in "seeing and deploring that not all men's wants are given equal weight by the political system, also relates their interest to what they want or prefer, but allows that this may be revealed in more indirect and sub-political ways – in the form of deflected, submerged or concealed wants and preferences." (p.37) Different Perspectives of Power

Lukes’ three dimensions of power and the radical approach 3rd dimension of power: It assumes a radical ontological position, in which people in subordination and their real interest hampered or “may not express or even be conscious of their interest.” (p. 28) That is because “people's wants may themselves be a product of a system which works against their interests, and in such cases, relates the latter to what they would want and prefer, were they able to make the choice." (p. 37) Hence, this dimension of power set out to theorize and evaluate actual behavior by revealing models of what people would do if they knew what their real interests were. Different Perspectives of Power

Debates on Lukes' three-dimensional conception of power Debate on the notion of real interest Bradshaw suggests that Lukes has confused “choices of preferences of autonomous individuals with 'real interests'” (1976, quoted in Clegg, 1989, p.94). It is difficult to distinctively differentiate the two, especially in cases of substantiating individual’s autonomous choice is not of her “real interest” or her non-preference is of her “real interest”. Wall's example of heroin addicts’ choice to continue taking the drug (1975, quoted, Clegg, 1989, p.95) or smokers, etc. Different Perspectives of Power

Debates on Lukes' three-dimensional conception of power Ted Benton’s criticism on Luke’s conception of the unconscious real interest of the dominated Benton queries that “the judgment as to which class of wants, preferences, choices, etc. do constitute the interests of an actor who is subjects to an exercise of power has to be made by the external observer, or analyst on behalf of the actor. The judgment that has to be made is how the actor would feel or behave under conditions which do not now hold, and may be never have, nor ever will hold. No matter how well-intentioned the observer, this is still other-ascription of interest and not self-ascription.” (1981, p. 167) Different Perspectives of Power

Ted Benton’s criticism on Luke’s conception of the unconscious real interest of the dominated Benton's concept of paradox of emancipation “In its simplest form this is the problem of how to reconcile a conception of socialist practice as a form of collective self-emancipationwith a critique of the established order which holds that the consciousness of those from whom collective self-emancipation is to be expected is systematically manipulated, distorted and falsified by essential features of the order. If the autonomy of subordinate groups (classes) is to be respected then emancipation is out of the question; whereas if emancipation is to be brought about, it cannot be self-emancipation. I shall refer to this problem as the ‘paradox of emancipation’.” (Benton 1981, p.162) Different Perspectives of Power

Debates on Lukes' three-dimensional conception of power Gaventa’s mechanism of the 3rd dimension of power Apathy or fatalism Underdevelopemnt of political consciousness Political consciousness having been disorganized chronically and/or systemically Different Perspectives of Power

Foucault’s Studies of Power (1926-1984)

Foucault’s conception of power “Power must be understood in the first instance (1) as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization; (2) as the process which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverse them; (3) as the support which these force relations find in one another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions which isolate them form one another; and lastly, (4) as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.” (1978/90, Pp. 92-93) Foucault’s Studies of Power Technology of Power

The “general theme” of Foucault’s studies of power: The subject “I would like to say, first of all, what has been the goal of my work during the last twenty years. It has not been to analyze the phenomena of power, nor to elaborate the foundations of such an analysis. My objective, instead, has been to create a history of the different mode by which, in our culture, human being are made subjects... Thus it is not power, but the subject, which is the general them of my research.” (1982, 208-209) Foucault’s Studies of Power

The “general theme” of Foucault’s studies of power: The subject “My work has dealt with three modes of objectification which transform human being into subjects.” (1982, p. 208) “The first of the modes of inquiry which try to give themselves the status of sciences for example, the objectification of the speaking subject in grammaire generale, philology and linguistics;.... the objectification of the productive subject, the subject who labors, in the analysis of wealth and economics;..... the objectification of the sheer fact of being alive in natural history and biology.” (p. 208) (The most representative work is The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences, 1966) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Foucault’s Studies of Power

The “general theme” of Foucault’s studies of power: The subject “My work has dealt with three modes of objectification which transform human being into subjects.” (1982, p. 208) “In the second part of my work, I have studied the objectivizing of the subject in what I shall call ‘dividing practices’. ...Examples are the mad and the sane, the sick and the healthy, the criminals and the ‘good boys.” (p. 208) (The representative works are Madness and civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, 1961; The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perspective, 1963; Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 1975) Foucault’s Studies of Power

The “general theme” of Foucault’s studies of power: The subject “My work has dealt with three modes of objectification which transform human being into subjects.” (1982, p. 208) “Finally, I have sought to study...the way a human being turnshim or herself into a subject. ...I have chosen the domain of sexuality - how men have learn to recognize themselves as subjects of ‘sexuality’.” (p. 208) (History of Sexuality, vol. 1-3, 1982-1-84 are of course the representative works) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Foucault’s typology of power: In Foucault’s studies of power, four conceptions of power may be found: Disciplinary power Biopower Pastoral power Sovereign power Foucault’s Studies of Power

Disciplinary Power: Technology of the body and power (Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, 1977/75) The project of docility: “In every society, the body was in the grip of very strict power, which imposed on it constraints, prohibition or obligations.” “Docility …joins the analyzable body (intelligible body) with the manipulatable body (useful body).” (1979/75, p. 136) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Disciplinary Power: Disciplinary power astechniques on “manipulatable and useful body”: Foucault has specified a list of techniques of disciplinary power, “which made possible the meticulous control of the operations of body, which assured the constant subjection of its forces and imposed upon then a relation of docility-utility.” (1979/75, p. 137) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Disciplinary Power: Disciplinary power as techniques on “manipulatable and useful body”: They include The art of distributions The control of activity The organization of geneses Composition of forces “To sum up, it might be said that discipline creates out of the bodies it controls four types of individuality: …it is cellular (by the play of spatial distribution), it is organic (by the coding of activities), it is genetic (by the accumulation of time), it is combinatory (by the composition of forces).” (Foucault, 1977, p.167) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Disciplinary Power: Disciplinary power as training on analyzable and intelligible body “The chief function of disciplinary power is to ‘train’. …Instead of bending all its subjects into a single uniform mass, it separates, analyses, differentiates, carries its procedures of decomposition to the point of necessary and sufficient single units. It ‘trains’ the moving, confused, useless multitude of bodies and forces into a multiplicity of individual elements ─ small, separate cells, organic autonomies, genetic identities and continuities, combinatory segments. Discipline ‘makes’ individuals.” (Foucault, 1977, p.170) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Disciplinary Power: Disciplinary power as training on analyzable and intelligible body “The success of disciplinary power derives …from the use of simple instruments: (1) hierarchical observation; (2) normalizing judgement and their combination in a procedure that is specific to it, (3) examination.” (Foucault, 1977, p.170; my numbering) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Disciplinary Power: Disciplinary power in the Panoptic on: The self-surveillant body “Bentham's Panopticon is the architectural figure ….. We know the principle on which is was based: at the periphery, an annular building; at the centre, a tower; this tower is pierced with wide windows that open onto the inner side of the ring; peripheric building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole width of the building; they have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding to the windows of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows the light to cross the cell from one end to the other. All that is needed, then is to place a supervisor in the central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man a worker or a schoolboys. By the effect of blacklighting, one can observe from the tower, standing out precisely against the light, the small captive showers in the cells of the periphery. …. Visibility is a trap." (Foucault, 1977, p. 200) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Disciplinary Power: Disciplinary power in the Panoptic on: The self-surveillant body “The major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that is architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmate should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.” (, p. 201) Foucault’s Studies of Power Distinction between A and B practically vanished

Biopower: Power/Knowledge on Life (History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, 1978/76) The institutionalization of biopower "Starting in the seventeenth century, this power over life involved in two basic forms: One of these poles …centered on the body as a machine: its disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the parallel increase of its usefulness and its docility, its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls, all this was ensured by the procedures of power that characterized the disciplines: an anatomo-politics of the human body. Foucault’s Studies of Power

Biopower: The institutionalization of biopower "Starting in the seventeenth century, this power over life involved in two basic forms:… The second, somewhat later, focused on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes: propagation, birth and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the conditions that can cause these to vary. Their supervision was effected through an entire series of interventions and regulatory controls: a bio-politics of the population." (Foucault, 1978, p.139) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Biopower: The institutionalization of biopower "During the classical period (i.e. 17th century)…there was the emergence in the field of political practices and economic observation, of the problems of birthrate, longevity, public health, housing, and migration. Hence, there was an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for subjugation of bodies and the control of populations, marking the beginning of an era of 'biopower'". (Foucault, 1978, p. 140) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Biopower: The institutionalization of biopower The concept of biopower: "Power would no longer be dealing simply with legal subjects over whom the ultimate domination was death, but with living beings, and the mastery it would be able to exercise over them would have to be applied at the level of life itself; it was the taking charge of life, more than the threat of death, that gave power its access even to the body. If one can apply the term bio-history to the pressure through which the movement of life and the processes of history interfere with one another, one would have to speak of bio-power to designate what brought life and its mechanism into the realm of explicit calculations and made knowledge/power an agent of transformation of human life." (Foucault, 1978, p. 142-433, original italic) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Biopower: The constitution of sexuality and the power/knowledge on life Sexbecome a political issue and subject to power: It is within the historical context of the institutionalization of biopower, it "enable us to understand the importance assumed by sex as a political issue." (Foucault, 1978, p.145) That is because "sex was a means of access both to life of the body and the life of the species." (Foucault, 1978, p. 146) "At the juncture of the 'body' and the 'population', sex became a crucial target of a power organized around the management of life rather that the menace of death." (Foucault, 1978, p.147) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Biopower: The constitution of sexuality and the power/knowledge on life The constitution of sexuality: "Through the themes of health, progeny, race, the future of the species, the vitality of the social body, power spoke of sexuality and to sexuality; the latter was not a mark or a symbol, it is an object and a target." (Foucault, 1978, p. 147) As a result, sexuality has gradually developed into the norm, knowledge, life, meaning, the disciplines and the regulations." (Foucault, 1978, p. 148) It is in this conjunction of power and knowledge (i.e. power/knowledge) that sexuality can be understood as "the correlative of that slowly developed discursive practice which constitutes the scientia sexualis." (Foucault, 1978, p.68) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Pastoral power: From confessional to modern-state apparatuses “Since the Middle Ages at least, Western societies have established the confession as one of the main ritual we rely on for the production of truth, …with the resulting development of confessional techniques. …The confession became one of the West’s most highly valued techniques for producing truth. …Western man has become a confessing animal.” (Foucault, 1978, p. 58-59) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Pastoral power: “The confession is a ritual of discourse in which the speaking subject is also the subject of the statement; it is also a ritual that unfold within a power relationship, for one does not confess without the presence (or virtual presence) of a partner who is not simply the interlocutor but the authority who requires the confession, prescribe and appreciates it, and intervenes in order to judge, punish, forgive, console, and reconcile. … By virtue of the power structure immanent in it, the confessional discourse cannot come from above, …through the sovereign will of a master, but rather from below, as obligatory act of speech which under some imperious compulsion, break the bonds of discretion or forgetfulness. … The agency of domination does not reside in the one speak, but in the one who listens and says nothing, not in the one who knows and answers, but in the one who questions and is not supposed to know.” (Foucault, 1978, 61-62) Foucault’s Studies of Power

Pastoral power: The concept of pastoral power: Confessional discourse as part of the institution of Christianity, it has espoused "a very special form of power", which Foucault called "pastoral power." Foucault’s Studies of Power

Pastoral power: The concept of pastoral power: It is made up of the following features. (Foucault, 1982, P. 214) "It is a form of power whose ultimate aim is to assure individual salvation in the next world." "Pastoral power is not merely a form of power which commands; it must also be prepared to sacrifice itself for the life and salvation of the flock." "It is a form of power which does not look after just the whole community, but each individual in particular, during his entire life." Finally, this form of power cannot be exercised without knowing the inside of people's mind, without exploring their souls, without making them reveal their innermost secrets. It implies a knowledge of the individual himself." Foucault’s Studies of Power

Pastoral power: Two aspect of pastoral power: The ecclesiastical institutionalization aspect: This aspect of pastoral power, according to Foucault's analysis, "has ceased or at least lost its vitality since the eighteenth century." (Foucault, 1982, p. 214) The functional aspect: Foucault contends that the function of pastoral power, has spread and multiplied outside the ecclesiastical institution." Foucault underlines that it is the state, which has become "a new form of pastoral power." (Foucault, 1982, p. 215) Foucault’s Studies of Power

華東師範大學 教育管理學系 教育管理与教育治理的实践基础 工作坊