this is an excerpt from a paper i wrote for a grad theory class i am attending this term. we were asked to write about two theorists that relate to the way our world view, personal interactions and inner feelings are shaped. i decided to post it here because i thought some day it would be good to look back on and re-write once i have a more concrete understanding of the theories i read. left to folders and desktop destinations, papers and essays are lost forever to me. i need secondary reminders, at the least.
Brian Gerow 11/20/08
Grad Theory, Professor Blazak
Thought Paper 6
As a young anarchist punk I read a piece by Bakunin, and thought it to be the gospel for my scope of the world. The state is the true and omnipresent evil of every society. Not capitalism, avarice, religion, spaghetti monsters or the oxford comma, but the government that decides the fate of existence for them all. I next moved on to Kropotkin, whose theories of Anarcho-Communism were much more sensible and necessitated less violence. Now in my ripe old age, I tend to see the world through a much more pluralistic looking glass. The "evils" of the world, not as capitalism, the state or religion but all of these and myriad more. Furthermore, the construction of what is popularly believed to be "evil" is often subjectively created as such for the gain of some power structure. The world as a complex corpulent bladder of fluidity, that cannot be named and pinpointed with one specific origin or destination.
In his piece titled, ”On Authority”, Friedrich Engels dispelled many of the unidirectional ideas of anarchist theorists who wrote in his day. He explained that with the way societies have come to depend on larger scale forms of production, authority is inherent, and can not simply be abolished. “We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large scale industry and large scale agriculture and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority.” (Tucker p.732) Simply stated, as populations grown, so grow the demands of production, and the industries that produce. These larger industries require a minimum level of authority to exist. Engels gave an example of a ship on the ocean with a full crew. When gale force winds whip through the sails and the ship is in danger of sinking, the crew of hundreds instantly looks to the guidance of very few skilled authority figures for a plan of action. This may be a slightly extreme example of necessary authority, but Engels was dealing with some fairly extreme folks. This same genre of scare tactic is used today to legitimate and bolster authority within the United States government. After the attacks on the World Trade Center in Manhattan, the pulse of the U.S. population was set to a “terrorist alert system” that told citizens what color their perceived threat was related to for that day. This alert, and the event that preceded it, created a loyalty (read nationalism and xenophobia) to the authority in the U.S. that had not been seen for quite some time. Regarding population growth, authority and social needs, the theories of Friedrich Engels and several similar social theorists are very similar to the way I view the world today.
On a more micro level, no one other than Michael Foucault can better explain the way I feel about the concept of power in the world and in my own inner struggles. Foucault describes power as a truly fluid and necessarily ubiquitous phenomena in the world. In “Power as Knowledge” he wrote, “Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. And ‘Power’, in so far as it is permanent, repetitious, inert, and self reproducing, is simply the overall effect that emerges from all these mobilities, the concatenation that rests on each of them and seeks to arrest their movement.” (Lemert p. 466) Foucault describes power as a field of relations that join at a conflict, or the name we attribute to a “complex strategical situation” in society. I try to look at issues of conflict in my personal life through a scope similar to this, however difficult it is to see through some days.
For example, my relationship with my ex-partner and our daughter has become a writhing ball of confusion in the last year. It is easiest to deal with every interaction with my ex-partner on face value, and have every argument that comes up because we both want the power position regarding how our daughter is raised. To pull away from the situation and look at the complexity of the conflict creates a whole different picture of what is going on. We, the presumed holders of power, have expectations put upon us from all different angles of society that are influencing our conflict. Our peers, parents, social norms and values, ideas about how we were raises, expectations for the future, and endless other factors (agents of control) are creating this conflict. There is no one simple place to point a finger and blame a party for their ideas or actions in this or any other conflict, because the real culprit is everything. From here it is necessary to look at all of the origins of the conflict, and with all parties involved in the struggle, determine which are more valid to the outcome or “resolution” than others. That all sounds a lot more simple than it is in practice. That is why I love social theory! It can make sense of things that make no sense at all!
from here i will go on to write about Jurgen Habermas' theories of communication and the boundaries to conflict resolution that are created by our gendered bias verbiage. recall, "pure communication".
.jpg)
