Powered by Foucault: New Historicism′s Concept of Power

by: Karolin Dunschen

Contents

Introduction

1. Foucault’s Concept of Power

1.1. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
1.2. Powered by Nietzsche: Michel Foucault

2. New Historicism’s Concept of Power

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

I don’t want to “improvise”¹ on the metaphor Deleuze used to describe the way he made use of fellow philosophers (though he usually made use of them in quite a gentle manner) to come across with his own ideas. I rather like to think of such theorists as Nietzsche, Foucault, or Greenblatt² in a more detached manner as atomic particles that hardly ever meet, but sometimes do, and when they crash make something emerge that may be new and may be not. I’d like to take some of that enthusiastic energy Greenblatt felt when first he met Foucault and heard him lecture³ and let this paper run on it. I will follow that ‘thread’ of power that in a way puts Nietzsche, Foucault, and Greenblatt in touch in order to figure out whether there is anything new about new historicism’s concept of power as compared to that of Nietzsche and Foucault. In the following a brief outline will be given of how Nietzsche employs power to understand how the cosmos works. Then I shall describe Foucault’s understanding of how power relations condition society, government, discourse, and the way we look at things. Afterwards I shall discuss new historicism’s concept of power, focussing on the consequences this concept of power has for the understanding of the relation between society and works of art and for the interpretation of literary and historical texts. In the end there will be a short outlook on what could be an answer to the question of whether there is anything new about new historicism’s concept of power.

1. Foucault’s Concept of Power

Most commentators on new historicism agree on the fact that Foucault had a major impact on the theory of new historicism in general and on new historicism’s concept of power in particular⁴. Greenblatt and Foucault both worked at Berkeley in the 1970s. So, probably, it was there that two ‘atomic particles’ in the ‘universe’ of cultural studies collided and thus produced a new ‘world’ of literary theory called ‘new historicism’ or ‘the poetics of culture’. But before Greenblatt’s ‘collision’ with Foucault, the latter had already gone through another important encounter: his ‘collision’ with Nietzsche. Not only Payne and Deleuze are aware of the fact that some of Foucault’s theories are of a profound “nietzschéisme”(Deleuze 2004:78). It was by Nietzsche, namely by his mature work, that (not only) Foucault was considerably influenced in his thoughts on power and knowledge. In the following we will discuss a few aspects of power as outlined by Nietzsche in his posthumously published “Der Wille zur Macht” (1906, which can be considered to be some kind of a forerunner to much of Foucault’s and also Greenblatt’s and Montrose’s findings.

1.1. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Nietzsche was among the first to integrate “power” into the concept of a soulless, godless universe of pure physis. To Nietzsche the universe (Welt) is nothing but power (Kraft), or, described more accurately, it is: ”ein Ungeheuer von Kraft, ohne Anfang und Ende.” (Nietzsche 1964: 696). Staying true to his physical, materialist view of things, Nietzsche opposed the hypostization of “power” as well as a too static view of it by conceiving the interactions of powers to be the essential condition for the existence of what he calls: “meine dionysische Welt” (Nietzsche 1964: 697). The world is “power(s)” in motion⁵. This network of contending forces is what Nietzsche calls life ⁶. The will to power, i.e., the will to participate in the process of life, is the basic will, the fundamental drive all organisms, cellular micro-organisms as well as social macro-organisms, have in common⁷. This vital will to power is also the necessary prerequisite for the existence of all kinds of change⁸. The will to power has its object in obtaining as much life, i.e. power, as possible. The more life there is, the more pleasure can be enjoyed. The struggle for power is really a struggle for pleasure; it is hedonism⁹.

Since every power, i.e., every living organism, tries to obtain maximum pleasure, there is a constant fight going on among them. Every single living being must decide constantly whether it is preferable to fight against or to contain or to withdraw from contending forces (cf. Nietzsche 1964:433, n°. 641). In this constant contest of powers transient dominant powers¹⁰ arise. These dominant forces manage to lead and direct the weaker ones. The rigidity of their dominance depends on their amount of power.¹¹ Usually living organisms tend to specialize in one form of the will to power. One of these forms is the will to lead others politically.

[...]

1 Greenblatt on improvisation: “Was etabliert wird unter höchst unterschiedlichen Umständen und mit radikal divergierenden Folgen, ist eine Stru ktur, über die sich improvisieren lässt, eine Reihe von Mustern, die genügend Elastizität und genügend Raum für Variationen aufweisen, um die meisten Teilnehmer einer Kultur aufzunehmen.“ (Baßler 2001:54)

2 For reasons of time and space we will limit our considerations of new historicism’s concept of power in this paper to some of the writings of three of new historicism’s major representatives: Stephen Greenblatt, Catherine Gallagher, and Louis Montrose, Greenblatt, as the “progenitor or the new historicism” (Stephens 1992, there are no page numbers given in this script), serving as the prototypical new historicist in this case. This does not imply, however, that I consider dissenting opinions of other new historicists to be non-new historicist.

3 Greenblatt recounts that first encounter as follows: „A friend of mine said there was this guy visiting from France and that I ought to go to his seminars […] I couldn’t believe it! Each sentence was more magical and beautiful that the last. I kept rushing out and saying to friends: “This guy is amazing.” And they’s ask: “What’s he saying?” And I’d try to explain, but it would sound like I was completely out of my mind.” (Stephens 1992, there are no page numbers given in this text )

4 Cf.eg.: Nünning 1998: 215, 402; Childers 1995: 207; Baßler 2001: 236, 255. Crew, chairman of the graduate program in English at Berkeley, suggests that Foucault is “the silent partner in Greenblatt’s work”. (cf. Stephens 1992)

5 „Diese Welt […] als Kraft überall, als Spiel von Kräften und Kraftwellen zugleich.“ (Nietzsche 1964:697).

6 „Eine Vielheit von Kräften […] heißen wir Leben.“ (Nietzsche 1964: 641).

7 „Die organischen Funktionen zurückübersetzt in den Grundwillen, den Willen zur Macht.“ (Nietzsche 1964: 658).

8 „Jener Wille zur Macht, in dem ich den letzten Grund und Charakter aller Veränderung wieder erkenne …“ (Nietzsche 1964: 462). This change may be micro-organic such as the chemical processes inside the cell, or macro-organic and social, as is the case revolutions.

9 „Helvétius entwickelt uns, dass man nach Macht strebt, um Genüsse zu haben, welche dem Mächtigen zu Gebote stehn: - er versteht dieses Streben nach Macht als Willen zum Genuß! als Hedonismus!“ (Nietzsche 1964:504). Perfect pleasure, according to Nietzsche, consists “ in der Hervorbringung der mächtigsten Individuen, zu deren Werkzeug die größte Menge gemacht wird.” (Nietzsche 1964: 442)

10 Nietzsche’s „die Stärkeren“.

11 „Je größer der Drang ist zur Einheit, um so mehr darf man auf Schwäche schließen; je mehr der Drang nach Varietät, Differenz, innerlichem Zerfall, um so mehr Kraft is t da.“ (Nietzsche 1964: 438).