Theories of power (Butler seminar)

[William S. Lear]

I agree with Jim that the notion of power, as used by Butler (in the
pages I have read so far) is too abstract for my taste, though I don't
agree that it therefore leads inexorably to apologetics.  There is,
however, a very serious claim Jim makes that I find rather ill-founded
and altogether outrageous:

On Mon, January 11, 1999 at 11:07:10 (+0000) Jim heartfield writes:
>...
>2. Duhring's successors
>
>Engels view of the philistinism of the force theory are fully justified
>by its subsequent adoption by charlatans of all stripes. The theory of
>Power is such an obvious short-cut to real analysis, that it has been
>invented and re-invented by every faker going, right up to Foucault and
>Butler.
>
>Take this load of old hogwash from Britain's ultimate intellectual fraud
>Bertrand Russell:

To say that Russell is an "intellectual fraud" for investigating power
as he does is unfounded, particularly when you realize that Lukes's
book *Power*, referred to by Jim, contains an essay by Nicos
Poulantzas called "Class Power" in which many of Russell's essential
points are subsumed under a Marxist analysis.  To claim that Russell
is otherwise an "intellectual fraud" is nothing more than bilious
nonsense.

As to the "waspish statements against Marx that are really motivating
Russell" that Jim declined to include in his quote from Russell, I
find no reference in Russell's essay to either Marx or Marxism.

Coincidentally, Russell's essay is actually in the Lukes book, and is
there titled "The Forms of Power".  Butler makes the claim that
subjection is a "form of power" --- a claim that leads, in my opinion,
to much mischief.  More on this for later.

Bill