Page 38 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

24 Changing Definitions of Politics and Power

at all? If power is productive rather than repressive, Foucault could have
said that everything is socially constructed rather than that everything is
produced in relations of power, without losing the sense of his analysis
(Fraser, 1989 ). Secondly, it is argued that, if power is productive of all
capacities, it follows that individuals are nothing more than “ place -
fi llers, ” without resources to resist it: they have no capacities for autono-
mous self - creation or the generation of meanings and values which they
could use against the effects of power (McNay, 1994 : 102 – 4). On this
understanding of Foucault ’ s work, far from freeing us from the limitations
of seeing power as negative, he actually portrays it as absolutely repres-
sive, allowing no possibility of resistance.
In Foucault ’ s early work on power, there does seem to be an inconsis-
tency between his theoretical commitment to an “ analytics of power ” as
positive and the overwhelmingly negative tone of the historical analyses
he carried out. He implies, and sometimes states blankly, that power is
everywhere, as in this notorious statement from The History of Sexuality ,
volume I: “ Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but
because it comes from everywhere … Power is not an institution, nor a
structure, not a possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic
situation ” (Foucault, 1984b : 93). Critics are undoubtedly right to point
out that if power is everywhere, it becomes a metaphysical principle and
loses all normative and explanatory content. As Peter Dews ( 1984 : 21)
puts it: “ [O]nly if we can produce a counterfactual, specifying how a situ-
ation would change if an operation of power were cancelled … can [this]
concept be empirically applied. ”
In his later work, however, Foucault ’ s ideas about power developed in
ways which meet these objections, at least to some extent. The most sig-

nificant developments in this respect are his ideas on domination, power,
and resistance. The question of whether these new ideas mean that he
actually breaks with his previous ideas is controversial. There are those
who see this work as a radical new departure, or at least a change of
direction (McNay, 1994 ; Hindess, 1996 : 19), while others argue that
Foucault ’ s work is “ at root ad hoc , fragmentary and incomplete, ” and
should not be interpreted as developing according to an ideal of unity at
all (Gutting, 1994 : 2). It is indisputable, however, that his later thoughts
on power are a good deal more complex than those used in the earlier
analyses.
In “ The Subject and Power, ” Foucault discusses the relationship
between power, domination, and resistance in contemporary society. He

argues that, as a matter of definition, where there is power there must be
resistance. He had sketched out this idea in his earlier work, but here he