----- Original Message ----- From: <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:05 AM Subject: Re: power
> At 2:33 PM -0800 4/12/02, Ian Murray wrote:
>
> > > This is a very real and the very oldest form of power. Such power is
> >quite natural, so natural in fact that it might not even occur to us to
> >see it in that light. But when the baby cries out in the night, it is not
> >only a plea, it is a command backed by real power.
> >
> >===================
> >
> >This seems like projection to me.
>
> Projection of what?
====================
A projection of a definition of power and command that are so malleable for use in redescribing social relations such that nothing could count against such redescriptions. It is an immense stretch of the imagination to interpret a baby's cry in the night as a command or a manifestation of power-over.
> The baby has the power that its parent's love gives. Of course its parents are free not
to give in to their love. So they do have choice, but the existence of choice does not
mean no power exists.
====================
Well that may be the case if you decide to define every capability human beings have in terms of power-to. However the drawback from so doing displaces the manner in which other concepts and vocabularies of explanation are used to understand human communication and behavior; a variant of the "if everything is power-to, then nothing is power-to."
> No, that wasn't the point at all. The point was about the power of love, not the power
of the state.
===================
Again the issue is one of defining power in such a way that it dissipates it's role in explaining human interaction. If I can define love as power, what human capability can I not describe in terms of power? The issue was whether love relationships manifest the absence of power-over and render the capability of explaining love in terms of power-over somewhat silly if the participants in the relationship interpret their behaviour vis a vis each without recourse to power in the sense of power-over.
>
> > but isn't the whole point the fact that the
> >overwhelming number of parents want to feed and love and cherish their
> >baby, despite when they have bad hair days?
>
> That's right. but you are confusing lack of choice with power. You can choose not to go
to work tomorrow, but that doesn't mean your employer has no power over you. I can choose
not to feed and clothe my kids, but because i love them it isn't a very attractive choice.
Far less attractive than not going to work.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
====================
And you are conflating power-to with power-over and not recognizing the distinction of using power as a term to define and power as a term of explanation.
Ian