CLASS-11

MARCH 16, 2021 (TUESDAY)

TIME: 9.00- 11.30
POWER:
LAST CLASS- WE HAVE DONE POWER by TICKNER
TODAY- POWER BY THOMAS.E.WARTENNBERG
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A CRITIQUE OF REALIST PERSPECTIVE OF POWER, BUT IT IS A CRITIQUE
OF FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE OF POWER. IT IS NOT JUST A MASCULINE CRITIQUE OF CRITIQUE
OF POWER IN TERMS OF DOMINATION. BUT HE IS QUESTIONING THE CONCEPT OF POWER
IN THEORECTICAL SENSE.
WARTENBERG- COME UP WITH DIFFERENT VIEW OF POWER WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM
FOUCAULDIAN IDEA OF POWER, IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE IDEA OF DOMINATION.
FIRST FACE FEMINIST- CRITICIZES THE IDEA OF POWER AS MALE DOMINATION AND THEY
TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE POWER IS WORKING IN THE HANDS OF MAN AND HOW
THE MALE DOMINANCE WORKING THROUGH THE ACCESS OF POSITIONS OF POWER. THEY
ARE ANALYSING POWER IN THAT SENSE.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT MOTHERING IN TERMS OF POWER. OR WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND
DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF POWER IN TERMS OF MOTHERING.
WARTENBERG- IT IS MISTAKE TO UNDERSTAND POWER AS DOMINATION IN THE TERMS OF
MOTHERING. HERE, WE ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF POWER IN
TERMS OF MOTHERING AND CARING WHICH IS NOT ONLY ABOUT DOMIANTION BUT IT IS
ABOUT ENABLING OTHERS. HE DOEST TAKES DOMINATION IN NEGATIVE TERMS. HE IS
TAKING POWER IN TERMS SELF- ENABLING AS WELL AS MAKING OTHER ENABLE AND
AUTONOMOUS WHICH IS POSITIVE PHASE OF POWER.
HE UNDERSTANDS POWER IN TERMS OF TWO SENSES:
1. POWER OVER- POSITIVE FACE OF POWER- TALKS ABOUT MALE DOMINATION.
2. POWER TOO- NEGATIVE FACE OF POWER- FOCUS ON ENABLING OTHER AS WELL
ONE’S OWN SELF TO DO TASKS OF LIFE.
HE TALKS ABOUT BOTH THE POWERS BUT HE SAYS THAT DOMIANTION IS NOT ALWAYS
IN NEGATIVE SENSE IT IS ALSO IN POSITIVE SENSE.

WARTENBERG-
NOTION OF POWER- IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL THE FEMINISTS. IT IS CORE OF FEMINIST AS THEY
INVESTIGATES HOW SHARE OF POWER IS UNEQUALLY DIVIDED IN THE SOCIETY CREATES MALE
DOMINANCE. THEY INVESTIGATE MALE ACCESS TO UNEQUAL POWER AND CREATE DOMIANTION.
LIBERAL FEMINIST—WOMEN NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC SHARING AND NOT GET ACCESS
TO POWER IN PUBLIC SPHERE. MAIN REASON FOR THEIR DOMINATION AND RELLIGATION IS –
WOMEN ARE NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLC SPHERE THAT’S WHY THEY RELIGATE TO
DOMESTIC SPHERE AND THIS THE REASON FOR THEIR DEVALOURIZATION. IF THE BARRIERS THAT
OBSTRUCT THE WOMEN PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC SPHERE THEN THE PROBLEM WILL SOLVE. THERE
WILL BE EQUALITY. MALE HAVE ACCESS TO POWER IN PUBLIC SPHERE THAT’S WHY THEY HAVE
DOMINANT POWER SHARE.
RADICAL FEMINIST- LIBERAL FEMINIST IDEA IS UTOPIAN AND SUPERFICIAL. SEXIST IS SO CERTAIN
THAT THEY ARE BECOME MORE COMPLEX. BASIC SEXUAL PRACTICES AND SEXIST BELIEFS ARE SO
DEEPLY ROOTED THAT YOU CANNOT REMOVE/ERADICATE THE SEXIST BARRIERS BY JUST SIMPLY
MAKING WOMEN PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC SHARE AND GET ACCESS TO POWER. IT IS UTOPIAN
THING. ACCORDING TO THEM, LIBERAL WOMEN ARE NOT REALIZING THE TENANCY, COMPLEXITY OF
SEXUAL BELIEFS AND PRACTICES. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THAT AUTHOR COMING UP DIFFERENT
ASPECT OF POWER.
WATERNBERG- HE IS FOCUSING OF CONCEPT OF POWER IN FEMINIST THEORY. HE JUST NOT
CRITICIZING THE POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, BUT HE IS CRITICIZING THAT CONCEPT OF
POWER WHICH IS CONCIVED BY FEMINIST.
WARTENBERG CRUX:
1. UNDERSTANDING HOW FEMINIST CRITICIZING THE POWER AS MALE DOMIANTION IN
TERMS OF MOTHERING.
2. HOW IN RECENT FEMINIST WRITING PRIORITIZES MOTHERING BY USE OF
TRANSFORMATORY ASPECT OF POWER.
THIS IS THE DISTINCTION CREATED BY FEMINIST. BUT THIS DISTINCTION HAS GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE
TO SOCIAL THEORIES AND NOT LIMITED TO MOTHERING CONCEPT. WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
TRANSFORMATIVE CONCEPT OF POWER IT COMES UNDER CONTRAST AND CRITIQUES OF
FOUCAUDIAN CONCEPT OF POWER.
AS FOUCAULT- SHOWS HOW POWER WORK AS NEGATIVE AND RESTRICTIVE IN SOCIAL RELATIONS.
WARTENBERG- WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW POWER WORKS IN A POSITIVE TERMS THROUGH THE
TRANSFORMATORY USE OF POWER.
CRITICISM OF TRANSFORMATORY USE OF POWER;
1. MOTHERING AS IDEAL LOCATION IN TRANSFORMATIVE USE OF POWER.
2. THERE ARE DIFFERENT SIDES AND PRACTICES WHERE IT COULD BE APPLY, WHERE WE CAN
FIND SPACE FOR TRANSFORMATORY USE OF POWER LIKE SOCIAL THEORY WHICH
RESTRICTED BY FEMINIST TO MOTHERING.
TYPES OF FEMINIST
1. LIBERAL FEMINIST- TALKING ABOUT PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC SPHERE.
2. RADICAL FEMINIST-FINDING THE ROOTS OF MALE DOMINATION IN SEXUALITY AND
PATRIARCHY.
3. SOCIALIST FEMINST- FINDING MALE DOMINATION IN UNEQUAL ECONOMIC REALTION
BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE.
WARTENBERG- WHEN WE LOOK INTO THE FIRST WAVES OF FEMINIST THEN WE ARE FINDING THAT
ONE SOCIAL PRACTICE THAT FEMINIST THEORY IS FOCUS UPON IS OR IS CRITICIZING IS THE
PRACTICE OF MOTHERING. HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POWER AS DOMINATION. ACCORDING TO
THEM, THE ROLE OF MOTHERING RELIGATES WOMEN TO THE SECOND CLASS STATUS THROUGH
WHICH WOMEN INTERNALISE THEIR OWN DOMINATION. WOMEN SHOULD GO FOR OTHER POWER
ROLES RATHER THAN PLAYING THE ROLE OF MOTHERHOOD. THEY ARE TAKING MOTHERING AS A
SEXUAL WORLD AND NEGATIVE SOCIAL PRACTICE THAT DEVALUE THE POSITION OF
MOTHERPRACTICE OF MOTHERING SEEN IN THE TERMS OF DOMINATION: THAT’S WHY THIS IS
CALLED FEMINIST THEORY OF DOMINATION. HOW MOTHERING IS PLAYING THE IMPORTANT ROLE
IN THE SUBJUGATION OF WOMEN.
EXAMPLE: THE MOMENT SHE BECOMES A MOTHER HER LIFE CHANGED. HER RESPONSIBILITIES
INCREASED TOWARDS HER CHILD WHICH MAKES HER FEEL ALIENATED FROM THEIR BODY.
SOMETIMES WHOLE PROCESS OF MOTEHRING BECOMES TORTURING. MANY TIMES SHE NEEDS TO
LEAVE HER JOB. THERE IS ALWAYS A BURDEN ON MOTHER TO BE AN IDEAL MOTHER. BUT TAKING
CARE OF CHILD IS PARENTHOOD AND NOT MOTHERHOOD. CASE- BREAST FEEDING.WHEN WOMEN
NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE MILK, THE GUILT REAMINS IN THE MOTHERS, THAT THEY ARE NOT IDEAL
MOTHERS OR NOT ABLE TO FULLFIL THE PROCESS OF MOTHERING, IF THEY NOT ABLE TO FEED THEIR
KIDS.
PROBLEM IS PRODUCING MILK- ATTACHED WITH MODERN WOMEN- THAT THE MODERN WOMEN
DO NOT WANT TO FEED HER CHILD. IT TRAUMATIZES A MOTHER AS SHE FEELS THAT HER BODY IS
NOT PRODUCING MILK SO I AM NOT WORTH TO MY CHILD.BUT, MOTHERHOOD IS NOT SOMETHING
IDEAL BUT IT IS A SEXUAL PRACTICES AND IT IS A SOURCE OF SUBORDINATION.

WARTENBERG- IT WOULD BE WRONG TO SEE MOTHERING ONLY IN NEGATIVE TERMS OR POWER IS

NOT CONCERN ONLY ABOUT NEGATIVE ASPECT OF MOTHERING, THERE IS POSITIBVE CONCEPT OF
MOTEHRING AS WELL. MOTHERING SHAPED BY WOMEN FOR THEMSELVES. MOTHERING
EMBOIDING SOME VALUES, AND THROUGH WHICH WOMEN CAN EXERCISE POWER. IT IS STIGMA
THAT WOMEN DO NOT HAVE POWER TO MAKE OTHER ENABLE. WOMEN ARE ALL ABOUT PASSIVITY.
BUT MOTHERHOOD IS A PROCESS THAT MAKES A PERSON AS FULL FLEGED PERSON. IT IS THE
POWER OF MOTHERING THAT MAKES INDIVIDUAL AS FULL FLEGED ENTITY OR BEING.
FOR EXAMPLE- WHENEVER THERE IS PROBLEM OF DIVORCE. THIS IS POWER OF MOTHERING
THAT CHILD IS GIVEN TO MOTHER IF SHE WANTS. THIS MAKE WOEMN TO ENABLE OTHER
ENABLE HER CHILD TO BE AUTONOMOUS.
COUNTER ARGUMENT- ULTIMATELY IT BRINGS OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HER.
ARGUMENT- IT IS ON WOMEN THAT SHE WANTS TO TAKE HIS CHILD. IF YES THEN SHE CAN DO
AS IT PREFERS TO GIVE CHILD TO MOTHERHOOD. THUS, POWER IS NOT JUST SEEN AS
DOMINANCE. FOR THEM IT’S NOT ABOUT POWER TO BUT POWER OVER.
PLATO:
MEN GIVE BIRTH TO KNOWLEDGE
WOMEN GIVE BIRTH TO CHILD
IN THIS WAY HE IS DEVALUING THE ROLE OF WOMEN, AS CHILD GIVEN BY WOMEN CAN DIE BUT
KNOWLEDG EAND IDEAS ARE IMMORTAL AND IT IS THE WORK OF MEN.
MEN- ALWAYS SAY WHAT YOU DO AT HOME? AND IF YOU WORKING WOMEN DO HOUSE WORK
THAT SHE APPRECIATED NOT AS SHE HAS DONE SOMETHING BUT SOMETHING SHE HAS DO.
HER WORK DOES NOT GET VALUE FOR THEIR WORK; THEIR WORK HAS BEEN NATURALISED AND
UNIVERSALISED.
BOTH THE WORK OUTSIDE AND INSIDE HOME DEVALUED. MOTHER AS DOMINATION OR
THEORY OF POWER AS MALE DOMINATION, HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MALE DOMINATION
HAS BEEN CREATED OR CONSTRUCTED BY DEVALUING THE CAPACITY OF WOMEN. AND, WHEN
WE TALKING ABOUT FEMINIST THEORY OF POWER, THE ABILITY OF A WOMAN IT HAS BEEN
EXPLORED BY SOMETHING, THIS THEIR MAIN TASK IS TO VALURAISED THE VALUE OF WOMEN
AND CAPACITY.
WARTENNBERG- WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TWO DISTINCTION OF POWER WE DO NOT FOCUS ON
DISTINCTION RATHER WE SHOULD INCLUDE THAT DISTINCTION INTO GENERAL THEORY OF
SOCIAL PRACTICE.
AUTHOR- IS SAYING THAT TO START WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN POWER AS DOMIANTION OR
TRANSFORMATIVE USE OF POWER IS WRONG TO CONCEPTUALISE THE POINT THE FEMINIST
TALKING ABOUT POWR IN TERMS OF MOTHERING THAT WILL PROVIDE DISTORTIVE
UNDERSTANDING OF POWER.
THERE ARE REASONS WHY FEMINIST DO NOT WANT TO BOTH THE CONCEPTS OF POWER (POWER
OVER AND POWER TOO).
1. IT IS VERY CONTRADICTORY TO DESCRIBE THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN MALE DOMINANT
SOCIAL STRUCTURE AS SOMETHING LACKING AS WELL AS HAVING POWER OVER. FEMINIST
THEROY OF DOMINATION, WOMEN ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH POWER AS DOMINATION.
THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MOTHERING WOMEN RELIGATED TO THE SECOND CLASS
STATUS, HERE THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WOMEN POWER RATHER THEY ARE TALKING
ABOUT MEN POWER.
2. THE SECOND HESITATION ON WHICH FEMINSTS ARE NOT USING THIS TERMINOLOGY OF
DOMINATION WHEN THEY ARE TALKKING ABOUT WOMEN, IS THAT THE DOMINATION IS
SOMETHING OR POWER OVER IS SOMETHING NEGATIVE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FEMINIST
WOMEN AS A WHOLE THEN THEIR TASK IS TO TRANSCEND THE CONDITION OF WOMEN. IN
THIS SENSE IF WOMEN USING THE CONCEPT OF POWER OVER AS SIMILAR AS MALE DOES
THEN THEY WOULD NOT ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE MAIN TASK OF FEMINIST MOVEMENT
THAT IS TRANSCEND MALE DOMINATION AND POWER OVER. THUS BOTH THE CONCEPT ARE
CONTRADICTORY TO EACH OTHER.

NANCY HARTSOCK: SHE IS ALSO COMING UP WITH ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT OF POWER WHERE
SHE IS ASSIMILATING BOTH THE POWERS; POWER OVER AND POWER TOO. SHE IS PROVIDING A
MORE EXTENSIVE DESCRIPTION ABOUT POWER WHICH IS LINK TO WOMEN AND HER ROLE IN
MALE DOMIANTING STRUCTURE. AS WOMEN HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES THEN MEN THAT’S
WHY THEY HAVE DIFFERENT CONCEPTUALIZATION OF POWER.
EXAMPLE- WHEN WE LOOK THE PROCESS OF MOTHERING POWER OVER GRADUALLY
TRANSFORM IN AUTONOMY AND MUTUAL RESPECT NOT ONLY ON POWER HOLDER BUT TO
HIM OR HER ON WHOM POWER HAS BEEN EXERCISED.. EXAMPLE- WHEN YOU ARE ON
MOTHERS LAP OR IF YOU MOTHER IS ANGRY ON YOU, IDEA IS NOT TO SUBORDINATE BUT TO
TRANSFORM YOU TO BE AN AUTOMOUS BEING.
SARA RUDDICK IN EARLIER CLASSES WE USED MATERNAL THINKING IN TERMS OF CONFLICT
RESOULTION. SHE IS COMING UP PATERNALTHINKING OF POWER AND SHE IS COMING UP WITH
THE POINT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS THROUGH WHICH MOTHERINHG MATERNAL
PRACTICES ARE TAKING PLACE.
THESE THREE THINGS ARISING OUT OF PATERNAL PRACTICES.
SHE IS SAYING THE WAY MOTHERHOOD PRACTICES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH WOMEN IN MALE
DOMIANTING SOCIETY THERSE PRACTICES ARE BRINGING MATERNAL MODE OF BEING AND THIS
MATERNAL MODE OF BEING CONSTRUCT BY 3 INTERESTS AND IN MALE DOMMINATING STRUCTURE
MOTHERHOOD IS RESTRICTED BY THESE THREE PRACTICES. HERE SHE USES MATERNALTHINKING IN
THE WAY THE PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH MOTHERHOOD IN MALE DOMINATING
STRUCTURE/SOCIAL FABRICATION WHICH NOT ONLY BRINGS PATERNAL THINKING BUT MATERNAL
MODE OF BEING WHICH BASED 3 INTERESTS.
1. PRESERVATION
2. GROWTH
 3. ACCEPTABILITY OF CHILDREN
CHILDREN ALSO DEVELOPED ON THESE IMPERATIVES OR THESE 3 DISTINCT WAYS. IN THAT WAY
MATERNAL PRACTICES ARE SHIFT BY DEMANDS WHICH ARE CONSTRUCTED BY MASCULINE
SOCIAL STRUCTURE. THESE SET OF SOCIAL PRACTICES OF MATERNAL THINKING OR MODE OF
BEING SEEMED TO BE BRINGING NEW PERSPECTIVE.
ONE HAND WOMEN PLAY IMPORTANT ROLE IS PRESERVATION, GROWTH AND ACCEPTABILITY OF A
CHILD BUT ON OTHER HAND WOMEN HAVE TO GROW THE CHILD IN A PARTICUALR MANNER THE
WAY SOCIETY WANTS. THESE PARTICULAR MANNERS (SANSKARS) ARE SOCIALLY FABRICATED.
MOTHERHOOD PROCESS OR MOTHERING IS NOT AN AUTOMOUS PROCESS. IT IS THERE TO MAKE A
STATUS QUO. THUS MOTHERHOOD DO NOT REALISE MATERNAL MODE OF BEING IN TRUE SENSE
AND THAT IS SOMEHOW PROBLEMATIC IN RADDWICK WORKK.