Page 49 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Changing Definitions of Politics and Power 35

structures are reproduced. Gender and sexual identities may be particu-
larly important in this respect, not just in reproducing intimate relations
in private, but also in securing hierarchical relations across the social

field. For example, formal politics in the state has traditionally been
a very masculine activity: we have only to consider photographs of
“ world leaders ” at, for example, G8 summit meetings to see that this is
the case. On the other hand, if we think of the carnivalesque protests
against neo - liberal globalization that take place at these same events,
except for the small number who actively seek violent confrontation, we
have a very differently gendered picture in mind. This is not to say that
men and women are inherently different. It is rather that the gendered
division between male and female is one that appears to be very well -
established and stable – the queer politics we will consider in chapter 4

notwithstanding – and identities across the social field that are tied to

masculinity and femininity may be particularly difficult to challenge and
shift (see Butler, 1993, 1997 ).
Having outlined, then, the importance of culture to politics, let us turn
now to politics itself. No easier to pin down than “ culture, ” in very
general terms, politics involves struggles over power. Political struggles
are always, in some of their dimensions at least, “ negative. ” They are
always against existing social relations, concerned with challenging or
resisting power as it is exercised by some over others. As I have suggested
above, Foucault ’ s analytics of power as productive of compliant minds
and docile bodies is concerned above all with this dimension of politics.
On the other hand, politics may also be “ positive, ” carrying forward what
we sometimes call “ political vision, ” a sense of how social relations
should or could be re - arranged.
The sociologist of globalization Manuel Castells has suggested a two -
dimensional definition of power that usefully complements Foucault ’ s

understanding of power as productive. Defi ning power generally in
Weberian terms as the probability of an individual or group being able
to exercise its will despite resistance, Castells sees the Foucauldian under-
standing of power as shaping the mind – and, we should add, bodily
practices too – as its most important aspect (Castells, 2009 : 15 – 16).
Power shapes understandings of reality, of “ how to go on ” with social
routines, and the establishing of standards and norms with which social
actors are expected to comply in social practices. The exercise of power
always involves the successful construction of meaning that is routinized.
In addition, however, Castells also argues that it is important to under-
stand how power may, on occasion, involve force, or the threat of
force. As we have seen, Foucault viewed the use of force as involving a