In this article I propose an interpretation of Foucault’s conception of power. In part 1 I analyze his vocabulary, distinguishing three different uses of the term “pouvoir”: (1) pouvoir-1, or simply “power”, meant as (capacity or exercise of) intentional influence over others’ actions; it is a neutral sense (power is not necessarily something bad for those over which it is exercised) and a subjectivistic one (power is necessarily referred to someone, individual or group, who can act intentionally); (2) pouvoir-2 indicates complex social situations which consist of networks of power relations, or structures of collective action “functionally analogous” to the exercise of power; it is a neutral sense, but an objectivistic one (those situations are considered independently of their being intentionally produced); (3) pouvoir-3 indicates situations of the type of pouvoir-2, but with special concern to their connection to conditions of “domination” and/or “subjection”, which are negative for those which are dominated or subjected; it is therefore an objectivistic sense, but not a neutral one. Basing on this conceptual lexicon, in part 2 I will reconstruct Foucault’s main thesis: that the diffusion of “disciplinary” and “governmental” techniques of power in contemporary western societies has lead to an enormous increase of power in social life.
|Numero di pagine||78|
|Rivista||DIRITTO & QUESTIONI PUBBLICHE|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2014|