PLEASE ask questions, help me find any holes in this argument, be critical of my ideas, etc, so I have some good feedback when I begin to write.
Power exists in both an ontological and a socially constructed form, and power is everywhere. Power exists within localized sites, and is the structuring force of our world. This can be a positive structuring force that is largely good for everyone, or it can be a negative structuring force that benefits a few at the expense of others. However, power can never be repressive, it is an exclusively expressive force. It is the moral thing to do to confront both overarching systems of power and question local technologies of power to neutralize negative constructions of power and create positive constructions. Power over the self and reducing inner conflict is essential to confronting negative systems of power. The issues of power (in both a systematic sense and a local sense) are in part a psychological one, and therefore mastery over the self is an important tool for confronting power structures. Within the material world, power is the structuring force that allows for domains of social interaction to exist. To neutralize negative manifestations of power, and to create positive structures of power, one must first master power within the self. Further, examining the aims of power structures that masquerade as legitimate, inevitable and ontological but in fact exist to create inauthentic expressions within a populace to benefit a select class is also crucial to constructing structures of power that benefit all. Finally, is important to examine the technologies of power, both the inevitable technologies that evolve as part of our historical moment in time, and the socially ones aimed at serving the interest of a particular group. Examining the power of language, of social structures and social ideology, of representation, and of identify, just to name a few, are critical behaviors to creating just structures of power lending themselves to equality. Any system that is designed to benefit a select few at the expense of others is unjust, and will ultimately fail to meet the needs of all. Mastery over the self, questioning the legitimacy of all power structures, and examining the technologies of power are necessary tools for an individual to confront negative manifestations of power and attempt to neutralize them, and then to create power structures that are just, equal, and positive.
Dan -
ReplyDeleteThis is a good start. You have some really interesting ideas here, and I think it will work out to be a good paper. I would like to see you define the term technology/technologies. Also, in your paper it would be good to go into the affects of a positive and negative power structure on society.
The only other thing I would suggest is maybe going through sentence by sentence and rearranging some things, or providing more flow. Especially at the beginning (the end is much better), you have a lot of good ideas but it feels kind of like a pinball machine - "Idea! Idea! Idea! Ahhh idea!"
Maybe go through and put a line between each sentence, and play with rearranging them until it comes into a more logical thought flow rather than a thought attack, including lots of huge words and long sentences. But the ideas themselves are great, and I think you have a really good start.
"Mastery over the self, questioning the legitimacy of all power structures, and examining the technologies of power are necessary tools for an individual to confront negative manifestations of power and attempt to neutralize them, and then to create power structures that are just, equal, and positive."
ReplyDeleteFor the moment i only want to comment on your these which is reproduced above. I guess i just have several questions i would like to pose to you regarding your argument.
Who defines what is a positive use of power as opposed to a negative one? If it is as you say by moral standards that we judge power what is the morality specifically and where did it come from? Do i really have a duty to act to overturn negative power structures? Is it for some reason to my advantage? Why not use our knowledge of the structure of power for our own benefit? Why not become vastly wealthy? If there is no god, and no external universal morality why am i not free to act however i want?
Also, if you do assume that i want to confront power structures is all i need really those three things you outlined above? It seems like that puts a lot of impetus on individuals to act out against power. I would argue that individuals are on the whole not equipped to confront power alone. Like what Arendt said we need to collectivize in order to instigate change.
Just some thoughts.
On the whole though i like it. I think you should work on tightening it up a little. Other than that however i think it is great.
p.s. What does mastery over one's self really even mean?
Dan, you say "To neutralize negative manifestations of power, and to create positive structures of power, one must first master power within the self." There is a strong and well-developed body of Eastern philosophy that is very explicit about this point. "As above, so below" or "Be in the world, but not of it" refer to a belief that human experience is created through the mind of the observer. Much of what we call 'reality' is a series of experiences we filter through our own pre-conceived idea based on prior experience. 2 people can experience the identical situation in entirely different ways.
ReplyDeleteSo, back to your assertion that one has to master self before you can master the external world. If you look at any individual who has had a major impact on history (Gandhi, Churchill, Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, et.al.) you can see they are known for having a strong sense of self that is not driven by external, egoic power, but by a strong inner knowing.
One could also make the claim that the terrible trauma the business world has suffered in the past decade (Enron, Global Crossing, Lehman Bros - the list goes on and on) has been highlighted by the actions of greedy, unscrupulous men (yes, they have all been men) who lacked the inner guidance to understand the errors of their ways.
You then say "Examining the power of language, of social structures and social ideology, of representation, and of identify, just to name a few, are critical behaviors" I want to see what you say about this. This is very important to do; easy to say but hard to do. One of my professors in college pioneered the field that was called at the time Power Structure Analysis (sometimes referred to now as network analysis). He exposed the previously-hidden power relationships between certain business, government and civic leaders. An early form of WikiLeaks.
As we have discussed before, I continue to urge you to write in a clean, simple style without overburdening any one sentence or paragraph with too many words or ideas.
Thanks for the comments, all of this was really helpful!
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like what I am really missing (beside tightening terms, clarifying the writing, etc) is an overall theory of morality. Through the entire course, this is something I am the most unsure of in terms of my person beliefs. Can anything truly be moral? Or is the entire concept of morality simply an instrument of control? I don't want to take too relative a position where I get to a place where it doesn't matter what people do, but I also don't want to be too black and white in my definitions of good/bad power. Something to wrestle with in the paper....
Eric thanks for bringing up individual vs collective action, I will be sure to address this in the paper, and Dad thanks for the ideas on how I can incorporate some ideas from eastern philosophy into my discussion of power over the self. I took detailed notes when a Buddhist monk visited class, and can cite some of that material in the paper.
"It is the moral thing to do to confront both overarching systems of power and question local technologies of power to neutralize negative constructions of power and create positive constructions."
ReplyDeleteI've already asked you several of my questions and I don't want to repeat myself here too much. I will agree with Eric that you need to define the concept of "self-mastery" in order for this argument to have effect.
In regard to the quote above... this sounds like a lot of work. What if we don't want to do this? What makes this happen? What is the impetus behind doing this "moral thing to do" as you outline? Is there a personal benefit? A social benefit? What happens to people who don't choose to do this work? Are we driven to doing this "moral thing to do" by a higher power? (Eric says "no God" but you don't here... if you agree with him than what makes all of this happen?) Are we driven to doing this moral thing by a search for a Truth? What is that?
As I've said before, you will need to define "justice" to make this compelling. I continue to wonder what you mean by "equality" and why we are drawn to that goal in the first place. (One could argue that we live in an inherently unequal society... therefore why is equality a goal and what kind of equality do you mean?)
Hey Dan!
ReplyDeletePlease explain repressive v. expressive as you mean it.
Why are power over self and reducing inner conflict important for CONFRONTING systems of power? What does that confrontation look like?
What are "issues of power" and how are they psychological?
Negative means bad? Not Hegelian negativity?
"Inauthentic expressions"? Define/describe.
As Natalie said, define your terms in the technology sentence. And please explain what you mean more. The parts about historically created technology and especially about socially created technology were unclear.
Technology. Language. Ubiquitousness. What are you really talking about here? You have so many ideas, but what are you really arguing? You bring it together somewhat at the end, but it still feels like a jam-packed and somewhat scattered thesis. And can you convince me that a positive society is better than a bad one, and is worth the trouble? Why does it matter if a society fails to meet the needs of everyone? Why does it matter for those already benefited? What can a person who's not benefited do? Which type of person is the subject (the person you're calling to action) in your paper?
Convince me that this new, positive form of power created by the thoughtful person will ACTUALLY be positive and better. What about all the historical cycles of power in which each new government promises great stuff and then is corrupt?
You have very cool ideas, really. Your writing is good, too, if a bit messy. Like others have said, clean up the writing and focus the ideas and I think this will be great!