Countering Power
This week’s dispatch continues to probe how I would go about making the worlds that I have envisioned.
My thesis here is that the “living worlds“ that I have envisioned must not to be made by seeking power but, rather, they must be made by countering power.
But what is power and how is it countered? And how do those processes “pivotal” to the making of living worlds contribute to countering power?
This dispatch has been adapted and developed from an earlier series of sketches on power written during the summer of 2020, inspired by the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. It follows from this that the text below takes as its informative anecdote the racist powers that mediate between black and white populations in America. That being said, however, I believe that the broader claims about power in this text apply just as well to the sexist powers that mediate between men and women, to the nationalist powers that mediate between nationals and foreigners, to the careerist powers that mediate between professionals and laypersons, to the humanist powers that mediate between humans and non-humans, and so on.
All power is power to mediate.
Power always mediates between contending factions.
The contending factions that a power mediates between may or may not precede the formation of a power. In other words, a power is either formed in response to the existence of contending factions or a power crafts contending factions in order to form itself.
Taking racist powers as our informative anecdote, the contending factions that we call “races” did not precede the formation of the powers that mediate between them. Rather, “races” are constructs that racist powers have used to form themselves.
From this it follows that, on the one hand, to simply take the existence of races for granted is to take the workings of power for granted, and, on the other hand, to simply deny the existence of races is to make oneself oblivious to the workings of power.
Instead of simply taking the existence of races for granted or denying the existence of races, we must deconstruct the workings of power that bring races into existence.
Power, in order to perpetuate itself, must make “immediate relations" intolerable.
The power to mediate between factions becomes null and void if immediate relations between factions are tolerable, for then there is no call for there to be a mediator between factions.
The power to mediate between factions only functions when immediate relations between factions are made intolerable. Indeed, a power often forms itself by making immediate relations between existing factions intolerable or by crafting factions that are intolerant of one another. Power then functions by seizing upon intolerance between factions and mediating between them in the name of tolerance.
Returning to our informative anecdote, racist powers formed themselves by crafting factions, so-called “races”, that were intolerant of one another. Racist powers will preach tolerance, yes, but they do so in order to make themselves the mediums and guarantors of tolerance.
Intolerance is the result of relative over-concentrations of properties amongst factions. Greater intolerance is generated when distributions of properties amongst factions are skewed so that one faction possesses desirable or undesirable properties in excess over others.
For example, there will be greater intolerance amongst whites and blacks if a desirable property, be it housing, education, or employment, is increasingly concentrated in white populations relative to black populations. A power formation can exploit this greater intolerance by casting itself as the means by which blacks can acquire the desirable property that they lack. Such a power formation does not endeavor to do away with lack but, rather, such a power formation endeavors to keep those suffering from an intolerable lack dependent upon it for a more tolerable existence.
An alternative example: there will be greater intolerance amongst whites and blacks if an undesirable property, like criminality, is increasingly concentrated in black populations relative to white populations. A power formation can exploit this greater intolerance by casting itself as the means by which the undesirable excesses of blacks can be pacified. Such a power formation does not endeavor to do away with the undesirable excesses but, rather, such a power formation endeavors to keep those who cannot tolerate undesirable excesses dependent upon it for a more tolerable existence.
To counter power is to make “immediate relations" tolerable and, thus, to obviate the want for a medium and guarantor of tolerance.
Taking “anti-racist criminal justice reforms” as our informative anecdote, one must be wary of attempts to create new commissions, offices, and task forces that will mediate between black populations and the police in order to guarantee that relations between black populations and the police become more tolerable: this approach redoubles our want for power instead of obviating it.
Instead, let us ask ourselves: how does one obviate the need for the police to serve as a medium and guarantor of tolerance? What intolerances do the police foment and feed off? How can we reduce these intolerances so that the police can no longer feed off them? We ask these questions when our aim is to make immediate relations tolerable. We do not ask these questions when our aim is to subordinate police powers to kinder and friendlier powers, to so-called “social services”, that perpetuate racism in order to act as mediums and guarantors of tolerance in a much less conspicuous and much more insidious manner.
Whereas the power of the police pivots on blacks possessing the undesirable property of criminality in excess, the power of social services pivots on blacks lacking desirable properties like housing, education, and employment. Either way, both powers tell us that blacks have a problem: blacks are either excessive in their criminality or lacking in social niceties and necessities. Either way, both powers tell us that blacks will need more administration and greater supervision if they are going to live tolerably alongside whites. Both powers tell us that the freedom of blacks must be sacrificed, either to temper their excesses or to compensate for what they lack.
Intolerance is reduced and greater tolerance is achieved when distributions of properties amongst factions are varied in such a way that no property tends to be concentrated in any one faction. This dissipative variation of distributions is what liberates us from the want for power, from the want for more administration and greater supervision. Administration and supervision are all about identifying and separating out those factions that pose intolerable risks from those factions that cannot tolerate risks. Liberation, by contrast, is about sharing risks amongst different factions so that risks are made more tolerable for all the different factions, so that no faction needs to be identified and separated out from others for being a risk or for being at-risk.
Our age is defined by the ceaseless proliferation of administrative and supervisory organs that service “at-risk” populations, and this is a sign that our age is one in which “at-risk” populations are less free and more oppressed than in previous ages. This oppression may be less brazen than the oppressions of previous ages, yes, but this oppression is far more pervasive than the oppressions of previous ages. Indeed, oppression today can afford to be less brazen because it is so much more pervasive: e.g., the New Jim Crow can afford to be less brazen than the Old Jim Crow because it is far more pervasive than the Old Jim Crow.
Ruling powers are mediators that enable one faction to rule over others.
A ruling power is constituted by ritualized spectacles that organize subjugated factions according to a rule, the result being that the ruling faction stands out as an exception to the rule.
The sovereign stands, everybody else kneels: thus, the sovereign, as he who stands while others kneel, appears as the exception to the rule. The sovereign boldly demands taxes and tribute from his subjects, but everybody else receives the sovereign’s beneficence: thus, the sovereign, as he who boldly demands while others humbly receive, appears as the exception to the rule.
The racism of the white supremacist invokes ruling powers. To put it in crude but accurate terms, the white supremacist wants all other races to kneel and pay tribute to the white race as a rule, the result being that the sovereign white race becomes the exception to the rule, standing tall and giving beneficence to the subject races.
It is important to note, however, that the ruling powers invoked by white supremacy do not belong to the sovereign white race but to the organs that administer and supervise the ritualized spectacles that maintain white supremacy. These mediating organs may or may not be white. On the plantation, for instance, both the white overseer and the black “Uncle Tom” could effectively wield the ruling powers that maintained white supremacy.
Disciplinary powers are mediators that enable one faction to determine the norms that other factions are supposed to conform to.
Disciplinary powers are constituted by routine examinations that distinguish the stereotypical individuals belonging to a given faction from the atypical individuals belonging to the given faction.
The racism of the white meritocrat invokes disciplinary powers. The white meritocrat will make the untested anecdotal observation that the stereotypical black man has athletic ability but no mind for mathematics. As such, the white meritocrat, seeking to develop and exploit the “natural” talents of the stereotypical black man, will routinely send talent scouts and coaches to predominantly black high schools in order to examine for, discover, and develop those “natural” athletic talents stereotypically found in young black men. This same white meritocrat wouldn’t bother sending talent scouts and coaches to examine for, discover, and develop talents for mathematics that are considered “unnatural” amongst black men: it is assumed that, because mathematical talents are not stereotypically found in black men, examining for mathematical talents in predominantly black schools is a waste of resources. Thus, the white meritocrat will only examine black students for the bare minimum of mathematical skill that is needed to “get by” in the modern workplace, and they will leave it up to the discretion of individual parents and teachers to bring black men with “unnatural” mathematical talents to their attention. The result is that black men who would become mathematicians will always need to take non-standard routes to do so, while black men who would become great athletes have standard routes to follow.
Again, it is important to note that the disciplinary powers invoked by white meritocrats belong to the organs that administer and supervise the routine examinations that maintain white meritocracy. These organs may or may not be white: black coaches and black math teachers can wield the disciplinary powers that maintain white meritocracy as effectively as white coaches and white math teachers.
Normalizing powers are mediators that enable one faction to determine the distribution of another faction’s probabilities.
Normalizing powers are constituted by biased surveys that substantiate and qualify stereotypes.
The racism of the conservative white technocrat invokes normalizing powers. The conservative white technocrat substantiates and qualifies the untested and anecdotal observations of the white meritocrat by carrying out biased surveys that are designed to verify the white meritocrat’s untested and anecdotal observations. Thanks to the conservative white technocrat’s biased surveys, it becomes a technical fact that predominantly black schools are less likely to produce mathematicians relative to predominantly white schools.
It must be stressed that the conservative white technocrat takes that which was an anecdotal observation and transforms it into a technical fact, which means altering environments, implements, and statements so as to ensure repeatability or test–retest reliability of the observation. Whereas the white meritocrat takes it for granted that predominantly black schools underachieve based on scant evidence, the conservative white technocrat needs to make certain that predominantly black schools underachieve by manufacturing a preponderance of evidence. Predominantly black schools that overachieved flew under the radar of the white meritocrat but they are subject to extreme scrutiny by the conservative white technocrat who needs to justify excluding them as outliers.
Again, it is important to note that the normalizing powers invoked by a conservative white technocrat belong to the organs that administer and supervise the biased surveys that maintain a conservative white technocracy. These organs may or may not be white: the black social scientist can wield the normalizing powers that maintain conservative white meritocracies as effectively as the white social scientist.
Optimizing powers are mediators that enable one faction to modulate the distribution of another faction’s probabilities.
Optimizing powers are constituted by variable controls that modulate a populations characteristics in predictable ways.
The racism of the progressive white technocrat invokes optimizing powers. Working from biased surveys which “prove” that predominantly black schools are less likely to produce mathematicians relative to predominantly white schools, the progressive white technocrat endeavors to make predominantly black schools “measure up” to predominantly white schools by “controlling for the confounding variables” that have favored predominantly white schools in the production of mathematicians over predominantly black schools.
Whereas the conservative white technocrat was content with making it a technical fact that predominantly black schools underachieve relative to predominantly white schools, the progressive technocrat subjects predominantly black schools to increased administration and supervision in order to make them “measure up”. The end result is that educators at predominantly black schools are subject to more and more rational controls and they are given less and less freedom to educate their students in ways that make sense.
Again, it is important to note that the optimizing powers invoked by a progressive white technocrat belong to the organs that administer and supervise the variable controls that maintain a progressive white technocracy. These organs may or may not be white: the black social reformer can wield the optimizing powers that maintain progressive white technocracies as effectively as the white social reformer.
Ruling powers, disciplinary powers, normalizing powers, and optimizing powers are often at odds with one another.
White technocrats, white meritocrats, and white supremacists do not always see eye to eye. The white technocrat, for instance, is dismissive of the white meritocrats' untested and anecdotal observations when there is no way that these observations can be substantiated, and, what’s more, the white technocrat cries foul when white supremacists make claims without reference to any observations at all. Indeed, white technocrats are very often heard disparaging white meritocrats and white supremacists for their lack of scientific rigor. In response, the white supremacist and the white meritocrat will lament that the white technocrat wastes time and resources trying to prove that which needs no proof because it should be regarded as obvious or self-evident.
Those who would counter racist powers must be careful not to side with white technocrats against white meritocrats and white supremacists, for the white technocrat is no less of a racist.
Countering power is one thing, fighting those who seemingly benefit from power is another.
It is one thing to fight against individual white supremacists, individual white meritocrats, and individual white technocrats; it is another thing to counter the ritualized spectacles that enable white supremacy, to counter routine examinations that enable white meritocracy, and to counter the biased surveys and variable controls that enable white technocracy. Naming, shaming, and maiming individual racists, however satisfying that may be, doesn’t necessarily contribute in any direct or indirect way to countering racist powers. Much to the contrary, racist powers can feed off the naming, shaming, and maiming individual racists.
What power wants, above all else, is to craft definite and unambiguous distinctions: the ruling powers invoked by white supremacists use ritualized spectacles to craft definite and unambiguous distinctions between blacks and whites; the disciplinary powers invoked by white meritocrats use routine examinations to craft definite and unambiguous distinctions between stereotypical blacks and atypical blacks; the normalizing powers invoked by conservative white technocrats use biased surveys to craft definite and unambiguous distinctions between blacks that fall within the normal distribution and blacks that are outliers; the optimizing powers invoked by progressive white technocrats use variable controls to craft definite and unambiguous distinctions between blacks belonging to an intervention group and blacks belonging to a control group. In other words, individual racists will continue to proliferate for as long as racist powers are able to craft definite and unambiguous racial distinctions through ritualized spectacles, routine examinations, biased surveys, and variable controls. There will always be another racist to rise and take the place of a fallen racist as long as there are means to make definite and unambiguous racial distinctions.
To counter power is to prevent definite and unambiguous distinctions from being made, which means promoting ROUGHNESS, NOT-SEPARATENESS, and DEEP INTERLOCKS AND AMBIGUITIES amongst factions. To counter the ruling powers invoked by white supremacists is to make it so that there can only ever be rough and ambiguous distinctions drawn between blacks and whites. To counter the disciplinary powers invoked by white meritocrats is to make it so that there can only ever be rough and ambiguous distinctions drawn between stereotypical blacks and atypical blacks. To counter the normalizing powers invoked by conservative white technocrats is to make it so that there can only ever be rough and ambiguous distinctions drawn between blacks that fall within the normal distribution and blacks that are outliers. To counter the optimizing powers invoked by progressive white technocrats is to make it so that there can only ever be rough and ambiguous distinctions drawn between blacks belonging to an intervention group and blacks belonging to a control group.
That which liberates will only ever demand that people make rough and ambiguous distinctions between themselves and others; only that which oppresses demands that people make definite and unambiguous distinctions between themselves and others. Going further, that which liberates demands that even rough and ambiguous distinctions amongst people be made as sparingly as possible, which means promoting SIMPLICITY AND INNER CALM.
Power persists because feeling powerful and feeling powerless are addictive.
One who is addicted to feeling powerful is one who is addicted serving as a mediator. The person addicted to feeling powerful is one who feels compelled to stand between opposing factions and to play the role of medium and guarantor of tolerance.
One who is addicted to feeling powerless is one who is addicted to mediation, addicted to the services of the mediator. The person addicted to feeling powerless is one who feels compelled to identify themself with one faction over and against others, and, being intolerant of others, the person addicted to feeling powerless is compelled to seek out a mediating authority to stand between them and others.
Like all other addictions, the addiction to feeling powerful and the addiction to feeling powerless are ways of coping with pain. As a noted writer on the topic of addiction, Gabor Maté, writes:
[A]ddiction is neither a choice nor primarily a disease. It originates in a human being’s desperate attempt to solve a problem: the problem of emotional pain, of overwhelming stress, of lost connection, of loss of control, of a deep discomfort with the self. In short, it is a forlorn attempt to solve the problem of human pain. All drugs—and all behaviours of addiction, substance-dependent or not, whether to gambling, food, sex, alcohol, cigarettes, the internet or cocaine—either soothe pain directly or distract from it. Hence my mantra: “The question is not why the addiction, but why the pain.”
Feeling powerful and feeling powerless are perhaps the most addictive of behaviors. Indeed, one will be hard pressed to find an addictive behavior that does not invoke the feeling of being powerful or the feeling of being powerless. It follows from this that one cannot effectively counter power unless one is able to effectively tend to the sufferings that drive people to take refuge in and to become addicted to the feeling of being powerful or powerless.
The reverse is also true: a power cannot effectively maintain itself unless it is able to effectively aggravate the sufferings that drive people to take refuge in and to become addicted to the feeling of being powerful or powerless. Indeed, all powers — ruling powers, disciplinary powers, normalizing powers, and optimizing powers — maintain themselves by aggravating people’s sufferings and by claiming that there is a higher sense or a reason that justifies the aggravation of people’s sufferings. Those who seem to benefit from the maintenance of a power are always, in fact, suffering from the maintenance of the power that benefits them; it is only that they are able to distract themselves from their own suffering with the superficial consolations that power confers on them. Those who believe that power can provide anything more than superficial consolations are foolish and pitiable creatures, for power only ever provides a short-term pleasures while aggravating long-term sufferings, so as to make us crave more and more power.
The ceaseless proliferation of administrative and supervisory organs in our time betrays the fact that our age is the most power hungry of all ages. The arduous task confronting generations now living is to take pains to help each other withdraw and recover from our all-consuming addiction to power, to the feelings of being powerful and being powerless. In this, I find myself echoing Ivan Illich, who wrote in Tools for Conviviality, “Withdrawal from [our addiction for power] will be painful, but mostly for members of the generation which has to experience the transition and above all for those most disabled by [their addiction to power]. If their plight could be vividly remembered, it might help the next generation avoid what they know would enslave them.”
