Full Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech to the UN and Fox News report

Here is the speech to the UN on September 23. I found his speech (or at least the translation of it) to be remarkably measured, with some good points, if perhaps a little religious. He made an obvious attempt to appeal to the Western world, especially Christians. I thought that the US's reaction to his statements were out of proportion to what he said, though politically, I understand the reasoning behind walking out. I think there's definitely some relation to the Mamdani reading with regards to Political violence/terrorism. The fact that the US refuses to engage Iran in a dialogue not only contradicts Obama's pledge to use diplomacy before force, but attempts to legitimize painting the 'other' as barbaric and irrational by simply not allowing them a 'legitimate' forum to voice their concerns



This second video is a short Fox News clip covering the speech. Not only are statements he made taken out of context and paraphrased to create an antagonistic dialogue, but his statements are coupled with a completely irrelevant blurb about cruise missiles, which, as far as I know are completely legal weapons for a country to own, and are very likely part of the U.S.'s arsenal as well. Is this a sleek, modern version of the barbaric savage? Do you think we will be invading Iran in the near future, and if so, what do you think that will do to our economy, military, moral standing in the world, the middle east, etc?

Power, Power, Foucault and Power

On the internet there is an explanatory write-up

of “The Subject and Power” (1982) that is a dense and formidable four-page read in its own right. Accordingly I won't slave away at unfolding the text word-for-word. I think these blog posts have the possibility of clarifying and summarizing a bit, perhaps focusing too on something the 'poster' found important, but at heart I see them keeping the discussion of what these readings mean, to us, this class, and the world around us, bouncing along. Jake, Josie and others felt that the blog shouldn't be too formal – the idea being that we should not feel daunted by the prospect of participating. So please feel free to take the conversation where ever you want it to go, ask whatever questions want to be asked, and not feel constrained by whatever interests the poster [me in this case (although I'd love some answers to the questions I have!)] ...

Focault says that power relations are a “set of actions upon other actions.” [341] This argument comes late in the essay but seems to be the key-note of his piece. Before exploring what he means by this, I've provided a brief-brush-by of what seems like the important points leading to this claim.

Summary of first bit:

Foucault argues that exploring the 'antagonisms' of power relations (for instance the labeling of sane versus insane) will bring power relations best to light [328-329]. He chooses to focus on power relationships that are “transversal” in that they don't “attack... such-or-such institution of power” etc. but instead oppose “a technique, a form of power.”[331] This power is the power to 'subjugate' in that it both creates a certain kind of subject (i.e. a certain type of person) and subjugates (as in uses power to cast someone as a particular kind of subject). While agreeing that this struggle over the 'subject' sits alongside two other struggles (exploitation and domination) and that this 'subjugation' can be the result of these two other struggles, he argues both that 'subjugation' cannot be fully reduced down to these two other forms of domination and that this struggle over the subject has become more important in the 20^th century. [331-332] From here Foucault discusses pastoral power: something originally of the church that is now taking full expression in the state. Two key points I see here is that one, pastoral power “is linked with a production of truth – the truth of the individual himself” (the creation of the subject) and two, that this form of power relies on 'exploring souls' and 'directing consciences'. [333] Before getting to what I see as the meat and potatoes of the essay Foucault concludes on 336 that the problem of the day is to liberate us “both from the state and from the type of individualization linked to the state.”

Power relations: actions on actions

The heart of Foucault's argument seems to be that power relations are about a set of actions that affect not other people but rather other people's actions and potential actions. “In effect, what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action that does not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts upon their actions: an action upon an action, on possible or actual future or present actions.” [340] This is why violence is distinct from power. Violence is a direct antagonism that opposes two entities. Power could be a result of violence or potential violence. For instance, if a robber held me at gun point (threatened violence) he would have constricted my set of actions (i.e. have power over me). However, they are different -- power does not need violence. Jake, for instance, has power over us by nature of being the teacher (he constrains and directs our actions) but it is not the threat of violence that gives him that power.

Power “is exercised only over free subjects... where the determining factors are exhaustive, there is no relationship of power.” [342] The absolute slave has no possibility of movement, he is merely an appendage of the ruler. Power exists because of a realm of freedom but relies on a constriction of that freedom to function. "Power is less a confrontation between two adversaries... than a question of 'government.'" [341] It is difficult to imagine someone who is either fully “free” or fully “enslaved” – freedom and power are more intricate, often bounded together. Foucault encourages the reader to think about how power, as Jake said in class, is an insidious thing. Something that is internalized just as much as it is externalized. (This is why he brings up this idea of pastoral power earlier as being the key weapon of the state and therefore the key weapon in making the Focaultdian subject.)

thoughts

Foucault's “power relations” can manifest in all-sorts of ways (through economic exploitation, violence, symbols, discourse, institutions, culture, etc.). “Power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not a supplementary structure over and above 'society.'” [343] It is a far-stretching term. Simply by standing in a certain spot I have exercised some power over a friend (for they cannot move to where I am). This leaves me with power relations being a very useful tool to analyze society by; however, I think the difficult task is in sorting out the multitude of power relations so that we can understand which power relations are the most potent ones and understanding how they work together in a network.

I'm left with several questions: Are all social relations necessarily power-laden? If so, is this a bad thing? What constitutes bad and good power? How might Focault's understanding of power lead to a different kind of politics than Fanon/Hegel's idea of the slave rebelling against the master: are they similar, different, what would the two approaches say to one another?

~~Gabe~~
p.s. Foucault once debated Noam Chomsky in a televised debate that's worth seeing.

"Unthinkable" Trailer

"Unthinkable" is a film that deals with "Islamic terrorism" in the US. It is a post-9/11 film that strikes a controversial cord that is definitely relevant in our course. It features various methods of torture--somehow raising an ethical question about how violence is used and how ethical lines are transgressed (more like erased) when the "national security or interest" is threatened.

I have many criticisms about this film, especially with the construction and representation of gender and race alongside the obvious theme of violence and question of ethics.

Readings that might relate to this are:

1. Arendt: "legitimizing" of violence (especially against the "moral" and "juridical" person)

2. Foucault: Discipline and Punish (for torture)

3. Huntington's and Said's piece as well as Unni Wikan's

(Please note that the film might be extremely graphic for some)

Against the Grain

I found this great interview that Rebecca Solnit did last month on local KPFA radio show Against the Grain. I think it would be a good thing to post on the blog, since her book is one of the required readings.

Graham

http://againstthegrain.org/program/341/id/341512/wed-8-25-10-disasters-and-mutual-aid

Reflections on theories of violence

Week 3 ~ Cartographies of War & Empire

Film Trailer: King Leopold's Ghost

This documentary film is based on Adam Hochchild's book King Leopold's Ghost: A Tale of Greed, Horror and Herorism in Colonial Africa. It is the story of how one man came to control a whole colony in central Africa and how millions were brutally enslaved or murdered during his reign. How is it that, in the words of the author, "a death toll of Holocaust dimensions", could be such a silent story in history?

Opening Pandora’s Box: The Arguments Over ‘Avatar’

New York Times Article by Dave Itzkoff

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/opening-pandoras-box-the-arguments-over-avatar/