John Rey D.

Quines
December 23, 2019
jreyquines@gmail.com

“Power Play”

In this busy world, power can be seen and exercised in all activities may it be in

educational institution, church, family or even in a mere group of individuals. With the numerous

authors in different perspectives power was defined multiple times. In Political Science, politics

cannot exist without power and in all relationship there is politics. As the old line of Aristotle

“Man is a political animal” as he claims that every person has the capability of exercising power.

Talking about power and politics, Foucault is an author that shouldn’t be overlooked on

this matter as he delivered several arguments about this. The way he spoke about power is

somewhat different as others talk about it. The following are the attention catching arguments of

Foucault and my thoughts over it.

Power is not held, rather it is executed: Foucault recognizes the omnipresence of power

as he claims that power is not held but can be executed by anyone.It is not a thing but is a

relationship. Hegger (2012) summed Foucault’s work that “relationships of power” exists

everywhere and everyone can execute power. Moreover, power is never concentrated in one

entity or individual that radiates or ripples. I agree on this claim since power is relative. Power is

not like money that can be transferred and kept by a single person but rather it can be compared

to a fire that it goes tougher as people who possess it to use it collectively. As an example, in our

country all person is entitled to express their own thoughts and desires on what they wanted the

government should do for them as a service. In a diplomatic means, asingle person may opt to

use a paper and pen to deliver his/her message of his/her group to the government. It is a right
and a way of showing power, but in reality a single person to represent a huge group is often

seen to be weak and hence catching less attention as if it is a single person speaking. But if the

whole group decides to flock the government’s office, display public rally and demonstrations, it

catches almost everyone’s attention which may lead them to display sturdy power. Party lists are

a good example of this, the GabrielaWomen’s Party for instance displays the collective power of

women to make them visible compared when they use it individually. This entity does not

monopolize power but is a collective execution of power. Which Foucault may refer to as the

“dispositif” a French term generally means (O’Farrell, 2007) to indicate the various institutional,

physical and administrative mechanisms and knowledge structures, which enhance and maintain

the exercise of power within the social body. The original French term dispositif is ‘apparatus’

and ‘deployment’ in English translations of Foucault’s work.

Furthermore, Foucault as cited by Hegger (2012) claims that since power is everywhere,

one is never free of power. Wherein even the so called free will and the ability to choose may

come from relations of power, since one had to learn how to choose. But this doesn’t mean that

power is slaving, because Foucault argues that it is not exercised directly but power acts upon the

individual’s or groups’ actions; it is action upon action. Meaning,the kind of power can be seen

depending on the responses and actions of a person or an entity. For instance, in a teacher and

student relationship. In class decision makings like in setting of rules, the students are less in

power over their teacher compared to the teacher over the students, but teacher decides according

to how s/he expects the students responds. The limited power of the students over the teacher

still influences the action of the teacher. While if the teacher disregards the power of the students

and imposes a rule that the students never agreed with, the teacher will become powerless if the

students will retaliate and will not abide by it, or in other words resistance.
 In any execution of power, there may be a resistance. Most of the time I agree with this,

resistance is ignoring an action or power which may make the executing person or entity

powerless. For instance, the government or the state was explained by Foucault that it is a

codification of relations of power at all levels and across the social body. It is also a concept

providing a ‘scheme of intelligibility for a whole group of already established institutions and

realities’. Further, ‘the State is a practice not a thing’ and is not the primary source of power. But

despite the capacity of the state to execute power, the people can still make the estate unable to

execute power through which Foucault includes in his discussion of freedom. Foucault claims

that freedom is a condition for the exercise of power. The choice of a person is an execution of

power, but at the same time, the choice is influenced by the cause of deciding and acting.

A very good example to use Foucault’s thought of dispositif, freedom and resistance is

the EDSA Revolution over the reign of Marcos.It was on the 21st of September 1972 that Marcos

declared the Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus or the Martial Law. Marcos claims that he

declared such suspension to easily halt the continuous crimes and chaos in the country. But then

the declaration of Martial Law wasn’t appreciated by a lot of people as it was believed to boost

the abusive power of the Marcos and his cronies. As a result of the long run abuses and the not

so satisfying leadership of Marcos made the people to continuously display their insubordination.

The People Power Revolution which is commonly known as the EDSA Revolution and the

Philippine Revolution of 1986. It was a series of popular demonstrations in the Philippines that

began in 1983 and culminated in 1986. The revolution cracked due to the belief of many that

there was an abusive, oppressive and self-centered leadership of Marcos. Furthermore, the public

demonstration heated up due to the assassination of Aquino. As a result of the assassination,

people of about 2 million gathered on the long stretched EDSA. Some came to show support to

Aquino, some came to shout for the stop of the abuses of power and some came to show their

desire for reform. People from different status, from various groups of varied purpose of joining

the rally displays what Foucault’s dispositif or the apparatus of the people to fearlessly express

their insubordination to the reigning power of Marcos. The people gathered in the said revolution

was not solely to support the Aquino’s political battle with Marcos, rather have their own reason

of hate against Marcos. But Aquino’s supporters grabbed this opportunity to implement their

political plan to overthrow Marcos. The revolution then served as the instrument or apparatus to

eliminate Marcos despite the fact that these gathered people has a different reason of doing such.

EDSA revolution was a display of insubordination or resistance, most of the country’s capital

city do no longer follow the orders of the government. Meaning, no matter how many orders of

Marcos to his soldiers if the people does not abide by it, he becomes weak and powerless. The

EDSA revolution is as well a display of freedom. Foucault says that men is never free of power

but they have the freedom on how they should respond to the power around them. The people

have thought of exercising their individual powers collectively. This collective exercise of power

made Marcos realize that he should leave his political seat.

On the other hand, I would like to throw questions over Foucault’s work. I agreed on

most parts of his works but I find several things missing or I find less emphasis of some point

which I consider as essential supposedly.I haven’t encountered any on how Foucault discusses

the type of power and sources of power. What are the types and sources of power? Are all power

the same? Is my exercise of power be the same with somebody else? He may have discussed the

exercise and nature (on the distribution and execution) of power but I haven’t seen any type or

source of power discussed by him. He may have claimed that power is not held by anyone but
rather can be exercised by anyone, furthermore, he claimed that power is the one that may move

a person and not the other way around.

He said that every person has the capacity to exercise power but we should consider that

a person may have the capacity to exercise power but it does not give any assurance for him/her

to dominate or over power his/her opponent or there is no assurance that when a person exercises

power that it may have the same result as other does. A good example for this is the Hacienda

Luisita Masacre. On the 16th of November 2004, was the day where 7 (other reports says 14)

farmers were shot dead and about 200 workers of the Central Azucarera de Tarlac and Hacienda

Luisita, Inc. were arrested. About 5,000 sugar farm workers and 500 sugar mill workers went on

strike to demand, among others, the reinstatement of 327 workers led by union leaders earlier

laid off by the Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) management. The strike was led by two major

unions, the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU, union of the plantation workers) and the

Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (Catlu) of the milling workers. Aside from the

reinstatement of laid-off workers, other strikers too are shouting for the Land Reform which was

already an issue long before the sugarcane farms were bought by Jose Cojuanco. But the people

were dismayed of what happened during the strike. The Philippine National Police and Armed

Forces of the Philippines was used not just to control the strikers, rather to silenced them by the

use of bullets. The (The Internationalist, 2004) Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)

assumes jurisdiction for the dispute and therefore the people expects a peaceful means of

dispersing them. But then, three military battalions were ordered to take down the picket lines

and disperse the strikers. While it is a fact that police are not allowed to break up non-violent

pickets, and the more that a military forces of eth government cannot be used like a security

agency to solve the problems of private businessmen. It was such a dismay that the government
who should protect them in their labor rights was used to protect an elite family’s company

against the martyred workers. On the other hand, the people was also dismayed on the elected

president that year, it was Gloria Arroyo. Who was well informed of the issue but did not do

much on it, making the people to suspect that she might have shut her mouth since she was

supported and campaigned by Kris and Noynoy Aquino on the election 6 months before the

incident.

On the case, it was clear that the laborers have exercised their power as they had their

laborer strike while the Cojuanco-Aquino family also exercised power through the use of arms.

But in the end, the laborers seem powerless despite their collective efforts. Now, this is the

reason I am looking for the types and source of power that Foucault should have considered. It is

not enough to say that all has the capacity to exercise power, it gives false hope to the weak. We

should also consider that power acts upon the individual’s or groups’ actions; it is action upon

action as mentioned earlier. Therefore, a power that may eliminate a specific power is its equal

power of the same source and type. An elite bourgeois can only be eliminated by its equal power

and never will be by the peasants who holds a different type and source of power. For instance, a

priest may be powerful inside the church but is a weakling before the court of law. A teacher

may be powerful inside the classroom but is nothing when s/he joins the public crowd. The

source of power of the workers is backed-up by different source compared to the elite bourgeois

whose power was backed-up by their possessions - the means of production and the monetary

affluence. The elite and the working class may have the same opportunity of exercising power

like what Foucault is claiming but the level of their power, their source of power is not equal, it’s

a mismatch to let their power to be in battle.

 Foucault mentioned only two types of power: the sovereign power which involves

obedience to the law of the king or central authority figure; and the pastoral power which

involves governing or guiding people’s conduct as individual members of a population as to

organize them as a political and civil collective. Foucault do not believe or have not considered

that institutions and wealth is a propelling agent in the exercise of power. The situation of the

Luisita Massacre was a proof that status and wealth is a very influential source of exercise of

power. At this point, I do not go with Foucault. Just like the claims of the Marxists “there is a

limited amount of power in society, which can only be only be held by one person or group at a

time… the structure of society is determined by the nature of its economy, or its “economic

base”. The ruling class control the means of production and the wealth, while the working class

abides and becomes dependent making them weak and holds no source of good power.

REFERENCES:

Dychiu, Stephanie (2010): How a workers' strike became the Luisita Massacre
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/specialreports/182515/how-a-workers-strike-became-the-luisita-massacre/story/

Hegger, Bert (2012): Power, Retrieved on December 9, 2019 from

http://geography.ruhosting.nl/geography/index.php?title=Power_(according_to_Foucault)

O’Farrell, Clare (2007): Michel Foucault: Key Concepts, Retrieved on December 9, 2019 from
https://michel-foucault.com/key-concepts/

No Author (2004): The Internationalist, Retrieved on December 9, 2019 from

http://www.internationalist.org/philippinesluisitamassacre0412.html

Välikangas, Anita and Seeck, Hannele (2011) Exploring the Foucauldian interpretation of power and subject in organizations.