Workshop Power & Agency SS
Presentation 1:
Foucault:
Maria: Gaining agency is an illusion. You cannot really become aware, your resistance is also part of
this powerstructure. So even if you think you resist, and you try to resist, you are still in this field of
power.
Bauman:
Maria: With the colonization of public by the private, I wanted to add that: Individualism leads to
egoism. And Bauman states in his text that there are no buildings anymore you can storm. If you want
a revolution you can’t just find a building and storm it, there are no buildings anymore. And it’s
liquid: you can do one thing here, but you don't know what happens somewhere else. No
revolutionaries anymore. There are no people anymore to take the responsibilities to change anything,
because of this egoism and individualism (only busy with themselves and their private life’s). They
need these solids that were melted to create collective action, so that's why they have to become
citizens and indivual de facto.
3 main points Bauman (Maria):
1. There are no buildings anymore to storm.
2. Power is liquid; You don't know how to change the situation, because you don't know how
your acts will turn out.
3. There are no revolutionaries anymore, we’re only individuals.
There is still hope concerning agency with Bauman: Individuals de Jure can become a citizen and
turn in de Facto (this is not about collectivism, but your positioning in society). De Facto is still an
individual, not a collective. You become more aware of the city and the relation to the society, and
this is a source of agency.
Similarities Bauman - Foucault
If you compare Bauman with Foucault, the definition of power is quite similar. Power is everywhere,
it is invisible, it’s not tangible anymore. You are very much reproducing the power. You think you are
free, you have the illusion of freedom, but you are reproducing this powerstructure without realizing it
(so very similar to Foucault).
Differences Bauman - Foucault
Bauman gives more space for agency, because if you are reflective about these powerstructures, then
you can become de Facto and this means you’re having more agency. Foucault is less positive about
that and says: even if you become reflective about that you are part of the discourse; so you can never
escape.
Foucault:
Maria: You placed him quite high on agency, because he says; where there is power, there is agency.
That is true, but this agency is still part of this discourse. Like marriage: if you chose not to marry
(you think this is agency or resistance), you’re still part of another discourse in which a lot of people
don't marry. So you resist to one discourse, but go on with the other. Halleh talks about Foucault
saying that competing/clashing discourses can create more agency; people being pro-executions vs
activists against executions. Even though they fail most of the time, the prisoner dies differently
Presentation 1:
Foucault:
Maria: Gaining agency is an illusion. You cannot really become aware, your resistance is also part of
this powerstructure. So even if you think you resist, and you try to resist, you are still in this field of
power.
Bauman:
Maria: With the colonization of public by the private, I wanted to add that: Individualism leads to
egoism. And Bauman states in his text that there are no buildings anymore you can storm. If you want
a revolution you can’t just find a building and storm it, there are no buildings anymore. And it’s
liquid: you can do one thing here, but you don't know what happens somewhere else. No
revolutionaries anymore. There are no people anymore to take the responsibilities to change anything,
because of this egoism and individualism (only busy with themselves and their private life’s). They
need these solids that were melted to create collective action, so that's why they have to become
citizens and indivual de facto.
3 main points Bauman (Maria):
1. There are no buildings anymore to storm.
2. Power is liquid; You don't know how to change the situation, because you don't know how
your acts will turn out.
3. There are no revolutionaries anymore, we’re only individuals.
There is still hope concerning agency with Bauman: Individuals de Jure can become a citizen and
turn in de Facto (this is not about collectivism, but your positioning in society). De Facto is still an
individual, not a collective. You become more aware of the city and the relation to the society, and
this is a source of agency.
Similarities Bauman - Foucault
If you compare Bauman with Foucault, the definition of power is quite similar. Power is everywhere,
it is invisible, it’s not tangible anymore. You are very much reproducing the power. You think you are
free, you have the illusion of freedom, but you are reproducing this powerstructure without realizing it
(so very similar to Foucault).
Differences Bauman - Foucault
Bauman gives more space for agency, because if you are reflective about these powerstructures, then
you can become de Facto and this means you’re having more agency. Foucault is less positive about
that and says: even if you become reflective about that you are part of the discourse; so you can never
escape.
Foucault:
Maria: You placed him quite high on agency, because he says; where there is power, there is agency.
That is true, but this agency is still part of this discourse. Like marriage: if you chose not to marry
(you think this is agency or resistance), you’re still part of another discourse in which a lot of people
don't marry. So you resist to one discourse, but go on with the other. Halleh talks about Foucault
saying that competing/clashing discourses can create more agency; people being pro-executions vs
activists against executions. Even though they fail most of the time, the prisoner dies differently
