With respect Fil,
> I think this because I believe that how power relationships manifest does
> vary between different disciplines.
> If "power" is a key factor worthy of investigation (and I don't see why it
> shouldn't be), then it makes sense IMHO to draw data and narratives from as
> many design disciplines as possible to enrich subsequent discussions and
> study.
> Doesn't that make sense?
I think you miss my point. Power is exercised in all social relations to constitute discourse, practice, organisations, disciplines, etc., rather than a ‘key factor worthy of investigation’. In other words, power can’t be separated out from social relations as if it is a distinct entity. As Luke suggests, how power is understood is an epistemological issue.
I see power from a Foucauldian perspective. Here, power is conceptualised as a relational and productive force that both enables and constrains differently positioned people to act in different ways, rather than a negative, repressive entity that some people have and others do not (in other words, it cannot be owned, gained or lost). Power therefore, is conceived as a spatial organisation of various forms of cellular grids or nodal networks, rather than a hierarchy (as Marxists might understand). Organised as social networks, such as this list, discourses and bodies circulate in space, regulated by discipline. Again, following Foucault, discipline can be understood as an apparatus for the control of populations. Here, it is the population of designers and researchers who subscribe to the list, who are ‘disciplined’ to speak, or not, by those in powerful positions.
Again, in the case of this list, the content and direction of any discussion, whether it be about what is and isn’t design or whether we should dismiss the views of less than 100 people who responded to a poll that potentially could have almost 3000 responses, is constituted by the social relations of power that ‘discipline’ individuals. Who gets to speak (and have what they say listened to, taken seriously, discussed with respect, and possibly intervene in or disrupt the ‘disciplinary canon’) is an issue of power. The content of what they say is almost irrelevant – the issue is who is positioned to exercise power and who is not. As others have pointed out many times before in many different ways, through the intersection of the social constructs of gender, age, class, race, ability, wealth, etc., some people on this list, such as for example, white, male professors, are positioned to exercise power that enables them to make claims to know in ways that sometimes shut down others’ points of view. Thus, people are ‘disciplined’ not to speak (out loud, in public, and on this list).
For example, in explaining Terry’s point, you state your claim – to know how power manifests differently in different disciplines and that data and narratives from all 800+ disciplines will enrich discussions and study – then end with ‘doesn’t that make sense?’ This implies you are appealing to logic to convince me that your disciplinary/disciplined viewpoint is more reasonable, rather than asking questions about my understanding of power, which would mean engaging in what I actually said.
Doesn’t that make sense?
teena
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|