Political Thinking As Power

Language and Power

To explore thinking from the perspective of political theory is to focus on the texts (and to a lesser extent on the verbal utterances) that people produce; in particular—though not exclusively—on texts produced for collective consumption. A central task of the political theorist is to map and analyze patterns of thinking about power. That has three aspects: We can think and converse about power, we can affect human conduct and social processes through language, and we can also express power in our written and oral discourses. The study of thinking politically focuses on the last aspect: the forms of power embedded in texts and speech that result from the manner in which they are produced, organized, and focused. Examining the manner in which text or oral discourses are produced, organized, and focused is distinct from examining discourse or behavior. Such analysis is also distinct from exploring the impact of text upon the behavior of people. Such analysis does not consider the power relationships and reactions that follow from the enunciation of messages and their actual consumption, nor does such analysis consider the concrete physical acts associated with power. Such analysis is also detached from standard discourse analysis, which aspires to identify the role of political language in domination and oppression. Rather, the analysis refrains from attributing either blame or praise to the ubiquity of power. Finally, such analysis focuses not on the production process of power in speech and writing but on the textual product of thinking itself, a product permeated with power elements. All texts are expressions of power and in that sense political, to the extent that they endeavor to influence their consumers and may change, or reinforce, the views, arguments, and ideological configurations of their potential consumers. Specific texts that deal with the organization of government and collectivities are merely the most pronounced and dedicated political texts.

The success or failure of power devices is highly significant for political scientists, sociologists, and students of ideology. But we can also capture the attempted power properties of texts and utterances, properties they possess well before they are read or listened to by others. Utterances and writing are fashioned to become inevitable transmitters of power from the moment they are produced. Without the power devices that expressed thought contains, it would be unable actually to exercise power when confronted with a contested position it sought to alter or protect.

Speech and texts are interventions in the world through which power is directly superimposed on the discourse itself, and indirectly superimposed on the consumers of the discourse. As a practice capable of transmitting power, political thinking possesses two main attributes: its performative features and its intensity. The idea of the performativity of a text borrows from J. L. Austin, and refers to the force of the author's intentions when performing an act of speaking. Austin emphasizes illocutionary force (what one does in performing an utterance) and perlocutionary force (what effects are produced on an audience as a consequence of saying it). For analysts of political thinking, illocutionary force is the more pertinent to understanding the power attributes of thought, because power is located in the discourse itself prior to its perception and reception by listeners and readers. The reception of speech and text is crucial to other aspects of power discourse. But in studying a text as an instance of thinking politically we single out two attributes as central to understanding its power components: the anticipation of its reception by the speaker or writer, and its intended targeting. That said, textual analysis is also sensitive to unintentional and concealed power signals incorporated in a text or utterance. For instance, the sequence in which a text is constructed may not be entirely deliberate, and the use of argumentative conventions—stating the problem, or enticing the reader through a striking opening metaphor—may simply reflect the author's socialization into common patterns of discourse.

...