Utility/power

[adrienmundi]

Lately, especially after lots and lots of talk with the Pantheonic, it's becoming harder and harder to deny that I have available at my disposal a not inconsiderable amount of power. No matter how I might run from it, it's more persistent than even my shadow; if I try to ignore it, I may succeed, but others certainly still seem to note, and that gets all sorts of disjunctive. So, with a semi-resigned sigh, I'm going to try and turn and face it, and figure out what it is, how it works, and maybe even what to do with it.

I still have lots and lots of worry about worthiness; can I be trusted with power? For years, I think I managed to convince myself that all power I experienced (from the receiving end, of course) was coercive, that it did some degree of violence to me. I think (now) that that was way, way too simple. (Yes, yes, the Foucault quote you love so much) If power is definitionally coercive, why on earth would I want it? Wouldn't anyone wanting it be automatically suspect? Thus, I think that's part of my fear, that I still haven't fully extricated the idea of necessary coercion from power.

Too, I tend to trust my perceptions (I'm reluctant to call it insight; that seems too much) a great deal. Combine that with my impatience, and, as the smartest fairy I know has pointed out, it could get messy. She's absolutely right; power excercised upon others in the service of expediency, even with "good intentions", is probably a bad thing. But damn, I'm so impatient. I will watch myself on this (probably compulsively), but I will insist that all of you must call me on this if I miss it.

I will not have any power I may possess be used as an excuse to remove me from those I care about. I don't care if it's elevation, demotion, or exile, I just won't have it. I'm not sure what this power is, or what it's used for, but I know I will use it to fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. I'm tired of being "out there", and I don't want to go back, no matter how well intended the reason. I'll fight to stand right beside you, and I'm annoyingly stubborn in things like this.

Prevaricating faculties waking up; got to stop for now.

Comments

[cmpriest.livejournal.com]

i do not lightly place my faith --in fact, i am a profoundly distrustful person.
take that for what you will.

and sure--we could get all spiderman here and launch into the "with great power comes great responsibility," but frankly you have such a good attitude towards it that even your reticense inspires confidence.
;-)

[adrienmundi]

I honestly had no idea you were distrustful; for what it's worth, I always assumed you were perhaps a bit too trusting. I guess you're intimating that I can even have that misperception is probably kinda complimentary?

And, thanks. Trust is an all too rare commodity, so it's important when it's present.

[cmpriest.livejournal.com]

"a bit too trusting..."

mistake ye not "accepting" for "trusting."
i.e., i accept (and frankly expect) that a person or two we collectively know is unreliable. clearly i do not trust him (masculine pronoun for convenience, of course)--note, if you will, the barrage of e-mails you receive from me with such a thrust; and note also my reluctance to even cash in paypal pre-order money until the merchandise was in my hot little hand. no, quite clearly i do not trust him. to be aware and accepting that i'm going to be used is not the same as trusting those who dole out the screwing.

you, however, have maintained a consistent professional attitude with regards to this whole publishing thing--even when my own attitude has been less than so [rage. tearing. out. hair]. this is not to say you are not friendly and personable, but merely that you have also proven yourself reliable. when i see that you've typed, "i'll see what i can do," a sense of hope lifts my little spirits. even when you don't know the answers, you first of all ADMIT such, (and that simple response is much more than i'm likely to get from other avenues), and then you've always come back to me with helpful information and commiseration.

it's meant more than you know--especially to a little newbie to the biz like me. i fully expected to be screwed at every turn (no vaseline, no kiss), but so long as you're at the other end of my keyboard, i always feel like i've got someone on my side.

but anyway, as i can't say enough,
thanks again.
;-)

[fairyhead.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm ... I'm not sure that you actually carried away the message that I wanted you to. I don't think power has an inherent value to it. Intentions and execution can color the end result of power. I think that, since we're talking about humans weilding power, it will always be flawed. Sometimes, though, that can be in a good way. All of us have power in various forms. There's no getting around that and that's not a bad thing. I think that we all just need to keep in mind what we do with it and why. Not as an overwhelming, must-be-watched-24/7 kind of thing, but as just one of the things that we do, as we strive to grow. That goes, not just for you, but for everyone. If someone 'removes' you, that's not necessarily an expression or reaction to your power, but to that someone weilding their power. It always goes both ways.

Anyway, I think the agitation of awaiting payroll resolution is making me ramble too much ...

[scottopic.livejournal.com]

Nah, you made sense to me.

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

I'd venture to guess that you've not read much Foucault (just because i doubt he comes up much in the kinds of things that seem your intellectual staple)
Which makes this even more impressive, since more than likely we are witnessing "independent invention"
Though I suppose this is no surprise
Nail
Head
Halleluia

[adrienmundi]

No, it makes sense to me, too (and damn, isn't she impressive?).

But I guess the whole point was, "Hey, look; I'm examining my (potential) power, instead of running from or denying it!"

[fairyhead.livejournal.com]

Hee hee! Thank you! I take that as a huge compliment! (Plus, it gets me off the hook from actually reading Foucault!)

Re:

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

sheeeeit! the way it looks, you don't need to read the dude!
He's fun though (in that brilliant sort of way)

One thing i do have to say though, is that one of the most delightful things is that you are focusing on a much 'smaller scale' and 'nearer' segment of power structures, rather than his overarching societal power/knowledge. My wee brains are still wishing for some grounded examples though.

[fairyhead.livejournal.com]

My wee brains are still wishing for some grounded examples though.

Remind me sometime, face to face, and I'll give you some. I just think it would be too burdensome to try to explain it online ... :-)

Re:

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

most certainly

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

Foucaultesque loyalty--
- Power=the ability to act upon another's possible field of action.
- All parties are by necessity free (point of contention there, but he did say it, so we need to report it as satated)
Note that the action is upon another's possible field of action and no actual outcome is postied. Plus, here is where Gramsci did such a tremendous job elaborating upon/adding to Marx: Hegemonies (regimes of knoweldge), "moral and intellectual leadership," in other words, why does anyone bother to do what another will tell one?
Power is much more than a simple "wielding," control, coersion or the shaping of will by will. Or rahter, that may be one kind of power (aaaah i wish we spoke more of heterarchy as the broader form of organization of elements, rather than the oftentimes too simplistic hierarchies).

What do you mean "can you be trusted with power?" What do you mean "might run from?" Do you interact? Then by definition (or foucaultesque definition at any rate) you apply a force in the field, to be met by the other forces, the swirly concoction will then simmer and boil and something will come out. you have it (so you cannot even really ask whether you can be trusted with it) and "running from it" or trying to deny that you have it is perhaps one of the very few ways you could do harm with it, as you act but deny the fact that you have impact ("I may think this but if you decide to act on knowledge-power- you gained by this interaction I have absolutely nothing to do with it because i am inconsequential".
Is this not the basic idea notre cher Michel? That any interaction is some sort of power exchange? The relative equality we all share in our interactions makes it so that you do not even necessarily come close to >i>determining anything, but at the same time you DO have power because those around you choose to allow you to, listen to you, think you may have quite a bit to offer, or just care about your opinion and your respect/esteem. I would like to think that part of the "growth" in one's life (and i would hope and trust that you, as well as most of us, aspire to this, are active, and -dare I say?- progressively successful) is to surround ourselves with those who have power enough and respect enough to interact more on the productive/pleasurable/discursive side rather than the coersive/whatever side. And the reason we give one another power is not because of some weakness/custom/lack fo thought/whatever -as in a bourdieuian universe- but by deliberate choice -of that non-morally-wrong-or-exploitative-a-la-silly-'objectivism' "selfish" variety. You are not a despot. You will more than likely never be one, especially among those you care about.

ARrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr so much to say and it is all coming out jumbled. Too damned jumbled. Gah
Guess will have to try again and again. I hate when i do not know exactly what you mean ;)~

[adrienmundi]

I think I understand what you say (probably because you've said it to me repeatedly, but it's finally starting to sink in, maybe). I'd say you do pretty well understand what I mean, as well, but that generally goes without saying.

Re:

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

long-ass rambly posts about dead frenchmen aside, by the way, I think it is quite awesome you are exploring (your) power in this way