Entanglements of Power

Geographies of Domination/Resistance

Ronan Paddison, Chris Philo, Paul Routledge, Joanne Sharp

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN:
  9780415184342
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134668953
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

This book argues that practices of resistance cannot be separated from practices of domination, and that they are always entangled in some configuration. They are inextricably linked, such that one always bears at least a trace of the other that contaminates or subverts it. The team of contributors explore themes of identity, embodiment, organisation, colonialism, and political transformation, examining them from historical, contemporary and more abstract perspectives within a wide geographical and cultural spectrum. Case studies include German Reunification; Jamaican Yardies on British Television; Victorian Sexuality and Moralisation in Cremorne Gardens; Ethnicity, Gender and Nation in Ecuador; Sport as Power; the film Falling Down. Entanglements of Power presents an exciting and challenging account of the symbiotic relationship between domination and resistance, and contextualises this within the parameters of geography with a rich body of case-study material and a respected team of contributors.

1
Entanglements of Power

Geographies of domination/resistance

Joanne P. Sharp, Paul Routledge, Chris Philo
and Ronan Paddison

Power must be analysed as something which circulates . . . And not only do individuals circulate between its threads; they are always in a position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power.

(Foucault 1980: 98)

The purpose of this book is to explore fresh perspectives on the geographies of power. In particular, we wish to emphasise the myriad entanglements that are integral to the workings of power, stressing that there are — wound up in these entanglements — countless processes of domination and resistance which are always implicated in, and mutually constitutive of, one another. We thereby wish to retain a clear focus on the domination/resistance couplet, notwithstanding Pile's (1997: 3) remark that assumptions about this couplet now 'become questionable', our understanding is that the entanglements involved here can never escape from the endless circulations of power. At the same time, our use of the term 'entanglements', suggesting an image of knotted threads, is intended to underline the deep 'spatiality' of this spinning together of domination and resistance within power. We talk about 'entanglements' to indicate that the domination/resistance couplet is always played out in, across and through the many spaces of the world. In one sense, we obviously use the term 'entanglements' metaphorically, and we aim to introduce what we hope will be a helpful new spatial metaphor, one that brings with it other connotations, maybe a more optimistic sense of possibilities for change, than are conveyed by the more common metaphors deployed in this respect (see also Massey, Chapter 14 in this volume). At the same time our use of the term is intended to be more than just metaphorical, since it is supposed to flag the countless material spaces, places and networks which sustain, practically as well as imaginatively and symbolically, the knottings that are the subject of our attention.

Orthodox accounts of power, particularly as translated into the literatures of political and historical geography, tend to equate power straightforwardly with domination. Power thus becomes almost exclusively conceived of as the 'power to dominate' or as 'dominating power' (see Box 1.1). Similarly, orthodox accounts of resistance, particularly as translated into the literatures of social, cultural and development geography, tend to pit resistance against power or against domination (understood as a coherent oppressive force), or even to portray dominating power as so ubiquitous (as just so 'powerful') that acts of resistance appear either futile or trivial. In such accounts, moreover, matters are rarely conceived of in terms of the 'power to resist', what might be called 'resisting power' (see Box 1.2). In this introduction we briefly describe these two more orthodox strands in the understanding of power, hinting at how their simplified conceptualisations, ones which consistently strive to binarise domination and resistance, tend to become scrambled when striving to provide more grounded commentaries alert to the chaotic muddle of empirical situations. In mentioning these scramblings, we begin to signal rather different ways of thinking about the workings of power. Indeed, leading from these orthodox materials, we use the remainder of the chapter to develop an alternative perspective which concentrates squarely upon the messy and inherently spatialised entanglements of domination/resistance, as always energised and traversed by the machinations and effects of power. Something akin to this perspective on the geographies of entangled power relations is then explored substantively, so we would suggest, in the chapters that follow.

Following Foucault, we understand 'power' as having both positive and negative dimensions, operating in ways which can be repressive and progressive, constraining and facilitative, to be condemned and to be celebrated. The word power comes

Box 1.1

We understand dominating power as that power which attempts to control or coerce others, impose its will upon others, or manipulate the consent of others. These circumstances may involve domination, exploitation and subjection at the material, symbolic or psychological levels. This dominating power can be located within the realms of the state, the economy and civil society, and articulated within social, economic, political and cultural relations and institutions. Patriarchy, racism and homophobia are all faces of dominating power which attempt to discipline, silence, prohibit or repress difference or dissent. Dominating power engenders inequality and asserts the interests of a particular class, caste, race or political configuration at the expense of others.

Box 1. 2

We understand resisting power as that power which attempts to set up situations, groupings and actions which resist the impositions of dominating power. It can involve very small, subtle and some might say trivial moments, such as breaking wind when the king goes by, but it can also involve more developed moments when discontent translates into a form of social organisation which actively co-ordinates people, materials and practices in pursuit of specifiable transformative goals. Social movements of various sorts can be mentioned here, many of which co-ordinate everyday forms of resistance that still fall short of open confrontation, but some situations may eventually lead to violent actions. In order for all of these resistances to occur, power has to be exercised and realised, both by the leaders (in a form that can become dominating in its own right) but also in a more 'grass-roots' fashion by everyday people finding that they have the power to do and to change things.

from the Latin word potere, meaning 'to be able'. In this sense, power should not be viewed solely as an attribute of the dominant, expressed as coercion or political control, since it is also present in the ability to resist. This resistance can enable resisters to find common ground in struggle (as in the power to mobilise others), and to become empowered in the very act of resistance. The implication is that power is operative in moments of both domination and resistance, and hence can be assessed in both positive and negative terms. In addition, we continue to find in Foucault valuable clues for thinking about the entangled spatialities of power, for conceiving (as in the opening quote) of the spatialised threads along and through which power circulates, entering into the worlds of individuals and groups as they are 'simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power'. As such, in this introduction we revisit some of Foucault's main contributions in this respect, but we also acknowledge criticisms which can be levelled at him for giving greater attention to the pervasiveness of an anonymous dominating power, one to which resistance appears impossible, than to the potentialities of resisting power. We also note aspects of his lesser known later work, wherein he started to uncover spaces of power within which creative acts of resistant 'self-fashioning' can perhaps gain a measure of effectivity.

Orthodox accounts I: power equals domination

While our reading of power highlights its contested nature, the theoretical foundations on which much geographical analysis has been built demonstrate the significance of certain orthodox interpretations. In these, power tends to be equated with domination and coercion, rather than giving 'space' to notions of resistance. In one sense such an emphasis has been understandable, if blinkered. While there was at least a measure of consensus over the significance of power in shaping social action, the task of identifying the sources of such power was a perfectly logical one. Whether couched in terms of institutions — the state, in particular — or in terms of individuals, particularly as they operated within institutions, power relationships became understood principally in terms of the means by which dominance over others (both inside of institutions and beyond) was achieved. Surveying the developing analysis of power (over the post-war period, for example), we can argue that such a bias has been increasingly challenged with the growing recognition that, where power is more diffuse and clearly not restricted to the formal processes of governing, researchers need to take cognisance of the more nuanced ways in which the ability to shape social action takes place. It may nonetheless be useful to trace the ways in which orthodox accounts of power have foregrounded the processes of governance, and thereby the ability of rulers to govern.

Accounts of the state, both liberal and Marxist, present an image of power in terms of power as authority or domination. Liberal accounts are offered by 'pluralist' theorists in which the state is seen not only as the legitimate site of authority, but also as one which (classically) is presented as relatively neutral to different competing interests as represented by a plurality of different groups. Such a state is taken as responding to the needs of these different groups in a situation where political processes are assumed to be more or less open, where the state is construed as both responsive and neutral, and where individuals and groups are interpreted as rational actors pursuing their interests. It is understandable that such a state comes to be seen in terms of exercising legitimate power over its subjects in the interests of social order (Pringle 1999: 216). Admittedly, such pluralist accounts have been modified: 'neo-pluralism' admits to the uneven terrain over which political processes occurs, and in particular to the distinctions between individuals and groups who are relatively powerful and powerless within the overall processes which influence the actions of the state. Even so, how power is construed and located remains fundamentally unchallenged, and the centrality of the state and its ability to harness legitimacy, together with the notion that power is rooted in particular institutions, remain largely unquestioned assumptions. The overall presumption in liberal formulations continues to be that examining power equates with identifying the processes of governing.

Pluralist ideas duly became a rich source of empirical work, later sometimes termed 'surface analysis', which began to investigate both where power could be seen to reside and how it might be measured. Pioneering studies such as that by Hunter (1953) were to set the agenda, particularly for political scientists working within sub-state political arenas. The ensuing 'community power debate' (most vigorously developed among US political scientists) broached issues to do with the openness and the accessibility of the state, and also considered the extent to which power could be centralised within particular elites, a 'fact' which was measurable (in Hunter's methodology) through the use of something called 'reputational analysis'. As such, then, power not only could be centralised, but also was the means of domination, if not coercion. Such notions about power were expressed more systematically in Dahl's influential analyses of the late 1950s (Dahl 1957, 1961), which continue to enjoy some support among political scientists. His intuitive idea of power, 'that A has power over B to the extent that he or she can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do', highlights both power in terms of domination or coercion and the presumption of the unilinearity of the relationship between the two hypothetical characters. The origins of Dahl's approach lay in the need, as he argued, to achieve greater precision in the attribution of power. Yet, in empirical analysis the rigour attained by his formal model of power might be spurious:

while considerable attention is paid to constructing a precise instrument for measuring power in terms of responses to its exercise, many less precise aspects of analysis are to be found in the model's application to the empirical analysis of the community of New Haven.

(Clegg 1989: 9)

One of the defining features of much pluralist analyses has been its tendency to view power in individualistic terms, rather than adopting a more structural conception of its exercise. This was to be emphasised by Bachrach and Baratz (1962, 1963) with their notion of 'non-decision-making', wherein they were deeply critical of Dahl's one-dimensional analysis of power. While accepting the importance of observable events as outcomes of power relationships, their point was that such results also reveal the importance of events which are concealed (and often deliberately so). If power is interpretable through decision-making, then it is equally so through non-decision-making, in which there is power given by the ability to withhold from the agenda issues which might otherwise gather widespread support. Borrowing from Schattschnieder's (1960) 'mobilisation of bias' argument, Bachrach and Baratz's thesis presupposed that behind the exercise of power in any particular setting was a 'structure' which to a greater or lesser extent determined how interactions occur and outcomes arise. Clearly, such a 'hidden' source of power enabled elite groups potentially to dominate the political agenda, and, even if in their subsequent analysis (Bachrach and Baratz 1970) the thesis became somewhat diluted, it still represented a potent model of how (local) political practice could be dominated by particular interests.

Non-decision-making analysis extended the debate by showing how the study of power must take account of the unobservable rather than just the observable. In other words, power could now be read as a multidimensional concept, the 'higher' dimensions assuming an understanding of the structures within which power games take place. Such an idea of the different dimensions to power was extended by Lukes (1974, 1977), whose 'third dimension' — the first two corresponding to surface analysis and non-decision-making analysis respectively — was to underscore the reality of just how unequal power relationships could become in practice, not least because of the biases generated by the dominant ideas underpinning how society should be organised. Part of the significance of Lukes's contribution is that, when compared to the community power debate, power as such was given direct emphasis; but in addition, and as set within the terms of the 'structure/agency' debate (e.g. Giddens 1979: esp. 88—94), it identifies the role of ideology within power relationships. Subsequently, much Marxist analysis has extended the debate on power in terms of the role of dominant ideologies fashioned by hegemonic interests, thus speaking of the state being co-opted by dominant classes in order to exert control, authority and, indeed, power over others who conform or occasionally choose to resist. Marx himself once described the state as merely 'a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie' (quoted in Paddison 1983: S). In versions with a more structural Marxist bent, power simply emerges or 'condenses' from a society's underlying structure of class relations (e.g. Poulantzas 1973, 1978), but — and perhaps almost inevitably once the balance of inquiry tilts decisively in the direction of structure — power ends up being conceived of almost entirely on the side of domination.

Where so much of this endeavour had been concerned with the distribution of power, contemplating the practice of power identified the need for more subtle understandings. Other accounts, as in the work of Clegg (1975), have looked at the practices of power, the various ways in which organisations are able to devise the 'rules of the game' by which power is effected. Again, the emphasis is on the mechanisms by which organi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of contributors
• Preface and acknowledgements
• 1 Entanglements of power: geographies of domination/resistance
• 2 Victorian sexuality and the moralisation of Cremorne Gardens
• 3 Power as friendship: spatiality, femininity and 'noisy surveillance'
• 4 Nomadic strategies and colonial governance: domination and resistance in Cyrenaica, 1923—1932
• 5 The neighbourhood as site for contesting German reunification
• 6 Sport as power: running as resistance?
• 7 Entangling resistance, ethnicity, gender and nation in Ecuador
• 8 Jamaican Yardies on British television: dominant representations, spaces for resistance?
• 9 Organisational geographies: surveillance, display and the spaces of power in business organisation
• 10 Entangled humans: specifying powers and their spatialities
• 11 Anti-this — Against-that: resistances along a human—non-human axis
• 12 Falling down: resistance as diagnostic
• 13 Entanglements of power: shadows?
• 14 Entanglements of power: reflections
• Author index
• Subject index