This is the first book I read this morning:
(Smart, Barry. 1985. Ellis Horwood Limited).
I didnt go through all pages, but went straight away to chapter three – Subjects of power, objects of knowledge , starting p. 71 – instead hehehe
Barry begins chapter three with the issues of power. He starts from Weber’s definition of power. Things that interest me is not his definition of power (Weber define “power” as a tool to help people to achieve certain will), but how he associates power with classes, status group and parties – as if a loner would be unable to exercise power. He mentions about forming a group is a way to increase the power. To join or own groups will give someone privilege that is not available for outsider. This for him is also a form of power, that a group can determine/pursue their own relationship/goals and therefore can exercise power by limiting/excluding others outside group. Anyway, I see power need groups/classes/parties as media for its existence.
I think he purposes to frame Foucault ideas is the reason why he chose to mention something about Mannheim. *gosh, what is Mannheim’s saying about sociology of knowledge?* ==> because Foucault’s ideas of power link to knowledge.
Something I get from Foucault, is that he has different definition of power (different to Weber, at least). The most important difference is about how power cannot be possessed. Thus, for him power has nothing to do with class’ or groups’ or parties’ distribution of forces, instead power has strong relationship with knowledge:
“power produces knowledge (and not simply be encouraging it because it seves power or by applying it because it is useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relaiton without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations “(p. 76).
TIME TO PICK UP GITA
Quote for today: Don’t get angry, get even
and.. Ken cleaned up my desk! Yay! *thanks Ken!!!!*