Gramsci and Foucalt – The Source of Power
In comparing Gramsci’s analysis of domination and Foucalt’s idea of the formulation of power presented the main contradiction arising is the actual source of that power. Gramsci philosophy and ideas depend upon a collection of intellectuals comprising what can be considered a aristocracy while Foucalt’s focus is not simply on any particular individual but the structure of the given organization providing positions of authority to act with power. Just as one can take the more scenic route or choose to take the more succinct to find themselves at a destination our philosophers in question take a different perspective and direction to drive to the central point of focus-the power itself.
Foucalt’s route is that of the exterior. More than any subject that could possibly be a source of power the idea is that the power itself is provided via organization and/or culture. As is stated, “the individual is an effect of power, and at the same time, or precisely to the extent to which it is the effect, it is the element of its articulation.” So, much more that what may be visible on the surface, with what may appear to be the individual manufacturing power and position, it is the organization or structure that that individual finds himself that is his manufacturer and source of the power. The individual himself is merely a manifestation of the authority, dominion, and power.
The intellectual is our focal point in our Italian philosopher’s evaluation of domination. Or rather the group of elite intellectuals joined to format truth. In any organization Gramsci would argue that at the head, that position where power is exercised and decisions are made would be a regime of individuals linked with their abilities master minding a structure and function which will cycle and continue to benefit itself. Where one intellectual with specific capacities of engineering (or any vocation) may arise and communicate with another in certain capacities of finance(or any other vocations) both will collaborate to create a hegemony which will in turn benefit the “powerhouse” while dominating those which the power is being imposed upon.
The source or manufacturer of power is the question and contradiction between our two philosophers in questions. Where does it come from and how is it enforced. I believe both arguments are in conjunction with reality. The fact of the matter being that any social structure is of course going to have position of authority which imposed power. But the question is how do the individuals within the social structure find themselves in those positions of authority? History will tell that typically it is one of two ways; First, the individual is once of stature in communication and vocation needed to complete the functions involved for the position or, Second, the intellectual is within connections to an individual who in facts has the same traits as first described.
Tiana Van Dyke