User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 4/Power

Michel Foucault and Power

Michel Foucault, who was a French philosopher, worked on the notion of power. He studied it on two levels -empirical and theoretical. The first one aims to identify the kinds of power and to understand their evolutions. In premodern area, the exercise of power is established through the “sovereign power” -the power is controlled by the king at the top of the pyramid. However, this form of power is not effective in modern time because of the plurality of interactions. Indeed, the exercises of power has evolved to the “disciplinary power” and the “biopower”.

The second level is theoretical. It grasps the general features of power. According to Foucault, power is omnipresent in all social interactions. However, he did not mean that power explains everything. Power starts from below, from the individual scale (also called micro-level) to the bigger scale (macro-level). Power is intentional: thus, power is used to achieve aims and objectives. It is also nonsubjective. In fact, exercises of power are beyond any individual’s intentions. Thus, micro-events lead power at a macro-level but the later results from multiple actions: so “power consists of multiple force relations” [Taylor, 25]. Foucault also links freedom and power. For the philosopher, power takes place between two free subjects that have an unequal relationship. Power is then the ability to influence the actions of someone else by “shaping [one’s] behavior” [Foucault, 1980]. We could make a reference to Power of Keith Dowding, in which he identifies two kinds of power: “power to” and “power over” [Dowding, 4]. “Power to” refers to the ability to realize an outcome while “power over”, also called social power, is the ability to “change the incentive structure of another actor [...] to bring about outcomes” [Dowding, 5].

Sources

Michel Foucault, Key concepts, Dianna Taylor

Power, Keith Dowding

Application of Foucault’s theory in Medical Research

This distinction that Dowding makes between ‘power to’ and ‘power over’ is interesting, and can be applied to how the disciplines interact when collaborating in a project. Usually the aim is combining their research to result in ‘power to’ shape a theory or understand phenomena, but often this can lead more in the direction of ‘power over’ one discipline by another. If we take Foucault’s assertion that power is omnipresent in all social interactions, it would follow that any time interdisciplinary work is carried out, there is a power dynamic between disciplines. Moreover if this dynamic is recognised, it would not remove the power element, just re-frame it in a more constructive way.

To put this idea into a real world-context, we can look at the combination of traditional Medicine discipline and Social Work discipline. In order for the NHS to work more efficiently and save money, there is a research movement integrate the different elements of healthcare for a more holistic approach. One such project is explained in a joint report by The College of Social Work and the Royal College of General Practitioners, outlining the importance of partnership between social workers and general practitioners within the NHS.

The report immediately addresses potential areas of power imbalance by identifying differences in funding for research within both disciplines, professional cultures and training of both social workers and GPs. (CITE) Due to GPs having to undergo a lengthy education and practical training programme, there is potential to be a feeling that they are more ‘qualified’ in medical understanding, yet the report emphasises the importance of a shared common interest in strengthening local communities, which can motivate both sides to address power imbalances through transparent research.

Interestingly, in the inital summary the report begins by outlining that GPs and social workers have different roles, yet both are important when used together and not in competition. While GPs are involved in active and immediate care, social workers have a crucial job for longer term ‘care reform’. By recognising this difference, the power shifts from competing over the same goal to understanding the allocation of responsibility. A particular point raised in the summary is worth quoting directly: “Social workers and GPs regularly fail to understand each other’s unique role, responsibilities and perspectives, barriers that may have to be dismantled through inter-professional education, co-location and informal networking, among other things.”

The report goes on to give evidence of regional examples where this partnership has begun to flourish, and this is a possible research topic which could be studied in Approaches to Knowledge, looking at a specific case study.

Sources:

College of Social work and Royal College of General Practitioners. GPs and Social Workers: Partners for Better Care [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/basw_104434-7_0.pdf

Koopman C, Haselby S. The Power Thinker [Internet]. Aeon Essays. 2017 [cited 3 December 2019]. Available from: https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever

Why I’m No Longer Talking To White People About Race, Reni Eddo-Lodge (2017)

“Seeing race is essential to changing the system.” [Eddo-Lodge, p.84]

Racism is often described as a discrimination or a prejudice. For Reni Eddo-Lodge, racism comes under power.

Being color-blind is to refuse to talk about race because it is identified as discrimination; however, by ignoring it one fail to see that racism is hidden in the form of the structural racism.

Structural racism can significantly affect people’s life quality, often with not granting them equal opportunity. The author gives some examples in the United Kingdom:

• "black and minority ethnic people are much more likely to live in income poverty than their white counterparts.” [Eddo-Lodge, p.193]. Percentages support the claim with 20% of white people in the UK living in income poverty, 45% of black Africans and 65% of Bangladeshis.
• black women suffer more from unemployment than white women.
• structural racism affects urbanization with the gentrification of neighborhoods.
• the names of candidates have an impact on being called or not for the job interview. In fact, people with white sounding name are more often called for an interview than people with African- or Asian-sounding names.

Racism is still present and it is clear that we do not live in a meritocracy. Some people, white people, benefit from it. T. W. Allen, who was influenced by W.E.B. Du Bois, created the term “white privilege”. Reni Eddo-Lodge defines it as the “absence of”: “white privilege is an absence of the consequences of racism” [Reni Eddo-Lodge, p.96].

Racism and Power

According to Eddo-Lodge, racism is therefore often used as a tool of power, where people with white privileges are usually the one in power, and they have little incentive to give up those privileges. However, racism is a multidimensional problem, requiring interdisciplinary approach. For example, in many countries, United Kingdom amongst them, there is no racism in theory - laws grant everyone equal opportunity, and prevent discrimination on the basis of race. Since this does not translate into practice (as we are told by empirical evidence), we have to see further into the problem. Racism, through power, is present in a society in form of discrimination and prejudices as a result of upbringing, education, etc. - forcing us to seek sociological, psychological approaches to the problem. Starting with education, state should ensure the addressing of racism in sufficient and appropriate manner, as to bring awareness to the problem, as well as seek to prevent any form of racism in schools, where it manifests itself in forms of e.g. achievement gap - where "Although no one is born prejudiced, many of the assumptions, values, and practices of people and institutions hinder the learning of students of color and students from low-socioeconomic classes. Race and class biases in particular are major causes of differential success"

Sources:

Weissglass J. Racism and the Achievement Gap. Education week. 2001; 20(43): 49-50

Power in Documentary Making

'Nanook of the North' made in 1922 by Robert J. Flaherty was the first ethnographic documentary. It presents itself as an observational film, showing evidence for the perils of living as an Itivimuit, with little interaction between the filmmaker and the Itivimuit hunter and his family. In the interview 'Flaherty and Film', Robert J. Flaherty's wife Frances H. Flaherty states that Flaherty's approach was exploratory, in contrast to the theatricality of other documentaries. The Flahertys claim the scenes presented in the documentary to be true, bringing together the exploratory aims of science and art.

It has since been discovered that Robert J. Flaherty enforced the Western idea of life in the North was like upon 'Nanook' the main character in the film (real name Allakariallak). A major part of the film was hunting, shown to be depended on for survival. In the 1920s, the tribe mainly hunted using guns but Flaherty persuaded the hunters to use harpoons. The process of igloo construction is shown in detail, but many say Flaherty 'cheated' because he required two to be built: one to show the process, one double the size, in order to film more easily inside.

It brings the question of truth in documentary into account. Frances Flaherty states that 'one hint of artificiality [makes the true] feeling of oneness disappear' and also states the family were 'not acting, but being'. This claim and intention of the necessity of truth depreciates the final product as it has been found to not present positivist truth due to Flaherty's direction. The actions of the family can be perceived to be natural and truthful due to Flaherty's long relationship with them, but that does not negate Flaherty's direction. The actions shown really did happen, but only due to the filming, thus the presence of the filmmaker changed the truth of the family. It could be argued that reinforcing a truth that is already in the audience's minds, it could hold some interpretive truth for the audience.

This topic has issues in History, Truth and Evidence, but I think the most pertinent is power.

The power of the western filmmaker to manipulate the truth of the lives of vulnerable* subjects. The power of documentaries in sharing a perception of truth to those who understand it as absolute truth, therefore spreading falsities.

To quell some of the historic power dynamics within the media and arts, creators and broadcasters should clarify the difference between positivist and interpretivist truths, so audiences know the boundaries between fact and fiction.

In terms of art, Nanook of the North is a beautiful film, but it blurs the boundaries between documentary and docudrama in a way that the audience are not aware of. Creators of art and media should be more aware of the power they hold over audiences, as well as over the subjects of their films.

*It is known the technology was unknown to the subjects of the film, so they were not fully informed of the extent of the broadcast.

1. ↑ The Physiology of Truth, Neuroscience and human Knowledge Jean-Pierre Changeux
2. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4kOIzMqso0
3. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Flaherty
4. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvzxu3syq_A
5. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/apr/13/1
6. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvzxu3syq_A

Power in Anthropology

As we saw in our lecture, “power is the ability to act or produce an effect, and is a legal or official authority”. I would like to take a look at how power has impacted the discipline of anthropology, specifically social anthropology.

As Dr Lauren Bird said in our history lecture: “Anthropology is a scientific study of humans both past and present. Social anthropology may investigate patterns of behaviours, cultural meaning, norms and values”. Thus, anthropologists aim to understand people and especially people’s connections in communities.

At first, anthropology was a discipline to learn about the “other” which already implies a certain hierarchy as we see the “other” as someone different to us. In the past, anthropology was a racial science and somewhat still is to this day. In fact, the first anthropologists saw themselves as “powerful and superior scientists” as they analysed “the other” and pointed out how they were not as “developed”. By positioning themselves at the top of the hierarchy, anthropologists used their power to judge what was right and considered the people they were studying as “primitive” and “inferior”. They even called them “backwards” and “savage”. With the colonial expansion in the nineteenth century, most anthropologists were white European men and placed themselves above.

Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, one of the founders of the discipline, even stated in his book Primitive Culture in 1871 that there were three stages of human development. The first one was savagery, linked to Magical Thinking, the second one was barbarism, linked to languages, laws and institutions and the third was civilization. He described civilization as the stage a society reaches when it has “reason and science”. Even though Tylor tried to understand individuals and their communities, his view seems problematic nowadays. Every community has different thoughts and outlooks on what reason is and what development is, so judging another as someone who is not “civilized” yet is an assertion of power. At the time, the idea of the “noble savage”, which was the idea that people needed to be conquered and saved, persisted.

However, during the twentieth century, two anthropologists challenged this idea of power and hierarchy in anthropology. The first one is Franz Boas who believed in cultural relativism which is “The idea that all cultures are equally developed, and should be understood on their own terms” (definition from one of the lectures). He wanted to explicitly challenge how people saw race, which is a social construct, at a time where many people believed in eugenics. He actively campaigned for black rights. Du Bois, another anthropologist who was the first African-american to obtain a PHD in the Unites States of America, also challenged the idea of power and race. He fought so that cultures could be analysed without a hierarchical view in anthropology.

Although progress has been made, the fight hasn’t ended as power is still very present in this discipline, whether anthropology fights against power or is directly affected by it. In Abu-Lughod’s article American Anthropologist in 2002, she shows that the mentality of « saving others » still persists. She takes the case of Muslim women in Afghanistan and how some Americans still wanted to “save them” without knowing if they wanted to be “saved”. Therefore, it seems like social anthropology is always connected to power.

Power in the Anthropology of Art

The Anthropology of art has been dramatically reframed with the contributions of Alfred Gell to the discipline, notably found in his works Art and Agency (Gell, 1998). For Gell, the handling of works of art was at risk of falling "under the sway of colonialism" insomuch that only non-Western 'craft' objects were evaluated within the discipline. However Gell protests that anthropology is not a humanity, it is a social science. In this way, it should seek be more inclusive and engage with all art for, "if western (aesthetic) theories of art applied to 'our' art, then they apply to everybody's art, and should be applied so."

As hinted at here, Gell was confronting the reality in how we classify art - and argues that our judging systems of what constitutes art operates from an "unredeemably ethnocentric attitude" (Gell, 1992) that gravitates under the captivating effects of aesthetics. For Gell. this becomes an issue of power because the " attitude of aesthetics is culture-bound even though the objects in question derive from many cultures." The repercussions of this upon this field within anthropology is radical because of the emerging dichotomy of what art pieces are/not evaluated in the anthropological gaze. In other words, anthropology exclusively deals with 'craft' from the beginning of the century and is actively ignorant to what is circulated as 'art' in the 20th century (Gell, 1996).

The reason Gell is challenging the "continuing hold of the 'aesthetic' notion of art over the anthropological mind" is because art functions as more than merely an object. Supposing we evaluate the agency that an object is able to index of the maker/user, we are therefore given insight into the social relations that produced, distributed and maintain circulation of these objects. For Gell, this is the function of the the discipline. Therefore, we have been able to see the dangerous powers of aesthetics in the anthropology of art through its capacity to exclude vast collections of works, which inhibit us in exploring the network of relations that brought and maintain the existence of these art objects today.

Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford, Claredon Press.

Gell, A. (1992). The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology in J. Coote and A. Shelton. (eds), Anthropology, Art and Aesthetic, Oxford.

Gell, A. (1996). Vogel's Net. Journal of Material Culture, 1(1), pp.15-38.

Niccolo Machiavelli and His Study of Power

Statesman, Historian and Italian political thinker of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli observed the mechanics of power. Indeed, in his work 'The Prince', he separated politics from morality and religion. In Machiavel's point of view, the head of state must adapt to the circumstances, and, in that way get rid of morality. For him, that does not mean that there is no morality when it comes to political power, but that whoever holds political power must be pragmatic. In other words, the importance of the efficiency of the head of state is reflected in an immanent morality.

Furthermore than the need of controlling the power by the head of state, this last has a unique purpose : the conservation of power. For that, he has to dominate its opponent and control its image.

However, what would prevent this preservation of power is the homeland. Indeed, power is the central element of politics. There is an essential link between politics power and the homeland, as the people and their patriotism may compromise the power of the head of state, if they have their own liberties.

Power and Religion

Religion has an enormous power - it has the power to unite individuals into a group, community, state. Even if these individuals do not have much in common, they can be united under this same belief, that enables them to cooperate, live together, fight together. Religion has also the power to control and to manipulate the masses - religion itself is one of the most powerful tools of the people in power.

Alamut by Slovenian author Vladimir Bartol is a novel that explores the idea of religion as a tool of power. It takes place in 11th century Persia, in the fortress of Alamut, where self-proclaimed prophet Hasan ibn Sabbah has a vision how to create elite fighters, called "living daggers", that become the most powerful army ever seen. By creating a virtual paradise of Alamut, filled with beautiful women, lush gardens, wine and by blurring the lines between fantasy and reality with hashish, Sabbah convinces the fighters that they can reach the paradise if they follow his commands.

Alamut tells the story of how Sabbah was able to instill fear into the ruling class by creating a small army of devotees who were willing to kill, and be killed, in order to achieve paradise. Believing in the supreme Ismaili motto “Nothing is true, everything is permitted,” Sabbah wanted to “experiment” with how far he could manipulate religious devotion for his own political gain through appealing to what he called "the stupidity and gullibility of people and their passion for pleasure and selfish desires."

The novel cleverly masks moral and philosophical questions in the form of fiction. It deals particularly with the question whether people are unable to live with the acknowledgement that the absolute truth is unreachable and whether it is wrong if someone takes advantage of it and fill the void with virtual paradise they all want to believe in. If all our experiences are evaluated based on how we perceive them, then we can conclude that one is happier leaving in a lie, with a clear view of the paradise – paradise that is just a figment of ruler's imagination and has been used as a manipulation and does not exist – but at the same time does exist in the minds of the manipulated mass whose belief is the only thing that counts in the end. Religion, or particular belief, gives people an illusion of absolute truth, and by doing that, has the power to shape their actions, thoughts, consciousness - and can be exploited to direct it to particular political gains.

We can draw a parallel with the real world - we have a history full of empirical evidences of how religion, or certain belief, has been used to control and direct masses to the causes of the rulers. The Crusades or Thirty Years' Warare just some of many examples how religion was the reason for conflicts and justification of wars. However, as much as the difference in religion seems to be the only cause for such events, it was usually more of a tool of power, a tool to unite people and convince them to fight for various political causes under the pretence of religion.

Comment: I find it really interesting how fiction can be used to explore such grand issues like power and religion. I found especially interesting, though, the idea of it not being religion itself causing the harm, but people using the influence it has on a people to make themselves and their motives more powerful - people of power/authority bringing theology into their politics for higher influence, though the theology might not have actually intended this.

Power and the ecological transition

Power is the ability to influence people’s behaviors. The ecological transition can be defined as an adaptation that aims to anticipate the impacts of climate change, and limit their potential damage by intervening on factors that control their magnitude, such as CO2 emissions. This transition will require adjustments and changes at every level –from small communities to the national and international level. Here, I will explore the ways in which power in politics, economics, sociology and environmental science is involved in the ecological transition.

Politics : The power of governments in the ecological transition

Governments have the power to enable workable and effective adaptation measures, such as reducing our CO2 emissions, by integrating climate change in their policy making, planning and budgeting. The UN scientists recently released an alarming report on climate change. They are convinced that “everything comes down to the government's decision”. They explain that we can only stay below a two degree increase compared to before the industrial revolution if politicians do something about it. In addition, governments have the power to come together to accelerate the process. This was the purpose of the many United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change (COP).

Economics : The economic power over governments is preventing the ecological transition

The ecological transition seems to move very slowly as already 24 of United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change have taken place and no real change has been seen. The power that the free-market has over governments is one of the elements that prevents the ecological transition. First of all, most firms lobby against climate regulations because greater regulation seem to come across economic interest. To do so, these firms hire lobbyists, a discrete pressure group, to attempt to influence the government’s decisions. In 2014, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest commercial federation, spent $90 million towards lobbying around climate change legislation. In addition, the global economic system has a real power over governments. In our current economic system, countries seem to be in competition. In today's global and interconnected world, in order to adapt to climate change, a government can’t change its system on its own.

Sociology: The power that citizens’ have to encourage governments to act

Citizens have the power encourage governments to adapt to climate change. For instance, protesting is a way for people to pressurize the government and ask for a real change. Recently, young generations across Europe, and Australia, have been skipping school to protest: they demand that politicians take actions before it is too late. Their protest is inspired by a 16-years old Swedish student Greata Tunberg who performs a school strike every Friday in front of the Swedish parliament. Some non-profit organisations also pressurize and encourage governments to adapt to climate change. Greenpeace or WWF are one of them. These organisations can point out the governments lack of action in the ecological transition and can also lobby in favor of climate regulations.

Environmental Sciences: Scientists have the power to inform the public about the climate crisis

Scientists publish reports on environmental catastrophes and explain the urgency of the problem also pressurize governments to adapt to climate change. The UN scientists recently released an alarming report on climate change

Power and Gender Inequality

Definition: the ability to act or produce an effect. Inequality is often the result of power being held completely by one person/ place / entity.

Gender inequality has increasingly become a problem in society. Sexism, pay gaps, abuse and discrimination are products of gender inequality. The disciplines of anthropology and psychology can work together to explain how gender-based power has come about. Social role theory suggests that there is a gender-based division of labour and hierarchy where men are seen to be more powerful physically and hold higher status socially. This theory suggests that cultural stereotypes surrounding gender is rooted in biology for example the idea that women are more nurturing because they are linked to child bearing which is biologically true. Stereotypically men are seen as the providers for resources which historically required skills such as bravery and leadership. These traits therefore are seen as having higher status as they have more risk associated with them. This suggests that stereotypes about men and women are not arbitrary and therefore have value in society. One argument suggests that considering gender inequality exists on such a widespread scale, across different cultures and time periods that there must be something intrinsic, perhaps biologically, which means that men have always dominated.

Reference: Laurie A. Rudman, Peter Glick. 2008.The social psychology of gender: how power and intimacy. Shape gender relations. The Guilford Press.

Power and Obstetrics

Obstetric violence

This article talks about obstetric violence in the United States. It begins to be mentioned and acknowledged as causing “physical and emotional harms”. Even though there is no official definition for obstetric violence, we can divide it in three categories: abuse, coercion and disrespect. Abuse includes forced surgery such as forced cesarean and forced episiotomy, which is a violation of the woman’s body. It could also refer to a physical restraint: some women are forced to stay in a position during child labor (on their backs) even if they prefer otherwise (cf 2-). Coercion refers to threats produced by medical staff, forcing the women to consent to a medical act (surgery, use medication...). Disrespect makes a reference to verbal harm: for example, women are blamed to be “too” sensitive to pain or accused to bad mother because they refuse medical act.  

Obstetric violence reflects the power inequalities between doctors and women in a moment of vulnerability. As well as punishing the medical personnel who are directly implicated, the obstetric should be rethink in order to listen and value women’s voice.

An example of obstetrics violence: the evolution of birthing position and its power issues

It is quite a recent development that pregnant women and their partners i.e. anyone with particular interest in the circumstances of the birth get involved with the specific circumstances of how this birth will occur, for instance the position of the woman during birth. When looking at the history of the birthing position though, one can find that the origins of the horizontal birthing position, which may be thought of as the most common/obvious position for the mother, is rather questionable. Lauren Dundes' paper "The Evolution of Maternal Birthing Position" explores the time when the common position in Western cultures for women to give birth changed from upright (either sitting or kneeling) to horizontal (lying down completely flat or reclining), which was about 200 years ago. The reasons she explores seem to lack scientific research and evidence, but rather seem to be rooted in certain power issues. Before this change, female midwives were the only professionals involved during birth, as it was seen as inappropriate for men to see the female body and because birth was considered natural and simply not in need of someone practicing medicine. Male surgeons only started getting involved when there were complications during birth that threatened the mother and needed surgical interference. With time, male surgeons and physicians of high rank caused a shift from seeing birth as natural to more of a disease, supporting their increased involvement outside of life-threatening cases, and lessening the authority of the midwife. It was these surgeons who introduced the horizontal birthing position, based on apparent convenience for both the mother and the one delivering the child. There are also indications that King Louis XIV influenced the change, who "reportedly enjoyed watching women giving birth (and) became frustrated by the obscured view of birth when it occurred on a birthing stool" (Dundes 1988).

The power issues apparent in this example seem twofold: both gender- and discipline based. At the time of the change, midwives' knowledge and experience of the ideal position for the woman giving birth exceeded that of surgeons. However, it was still male surgeons who introduced the new position, and this with little scientific research. Additionally, it is questionable whether the change had only the comfort and well-being of the mother as intention, or largely also the comfort of the surgeon performing the delivery. This makes the interdisciplinary power struggle of surgeons and midwives very evident, to which gender power tensions most likely contribute, as there was a clear distinction of gender visible in the two disciplines.

Reference: Dundes, Lauren. “The Evolution of Maternal Birthing Position.” Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, vol. 43, no. 1, 1988, pp. 47–48., doi:10.1097/00006254-198843010-00013.

Notes

References