Commentary on Power

One of the cornerstones of post-colonialist historical critique has been the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault.  Foucault’s philosophical ideas are some of the cornerstones of a wide range of post-colonialist scholars including Edward Said and more relevantly to this class Timothy Mitchell.  In fact, Mitchell makes it quite clear in Colonizing Egypt that he is borrowing quite heavily from Foucault and post-structuralism.  At the heart of Mitchell’s argument about the colonization of Egypt is his discussion of how influenced by western ideals, Egyptian authorities attempted to exert greater control on the countryside.  Mitchell refers to this process as enframing where upon Egyptian authorities tried to create new “spaces” for people and things especially in the countryside.  As illustrated by the new model villages planned/adopted by the government with western assistance, the Egyptian government hoped to divide and conquer the countryside.  With a greater (and defined by Mitchell as “modern”) hold on the countryside, the new villages could allow a maximization for resource extraction by increasing productivity and efficiency.  Control is linked towards resource extraction.  Model villages theoretically allowed the government greater ability to extract more resources (for exportation to Europe) for two reasons.  First off, the new model village allowed for the breaking of older barriers and greater access to information (about persons in a household, property, etc. etc.).  The axiom that knowledge is power is particularly apt for the model village scenario.  Second, a standardization of the village leads to the creation of visible hierarchies which could further enforce power relationships.  Through these new, “modern” reforms, Egyptian powerbrokers were given the opportunity to increase their hold on the people for means of increased production. The implication is that these examples of disciplinary mechanisms are a modern practice in all senses of the term (using the example of the panopticon originally a symbol of colonialism). 

The important distinction is not when these processes of control were first manifested within society (colonial or otherwise) but when did their implementation become practical.  Desire for control by authority is as old as organized government itself.  However, the important distinction that needs to be made is that the revolutionary process was not the process itself but the new ease of implementation brought about by technology.  On a smaller scale, control can be easily exerted and maintained.  It is not particularly hard to think of examples within a personal sphere of relationships between friends, loved ones, or family as having rudimentary facets of disciplinary mechanisms.  However, the reason that control is often exerted easily on smaller scales is because of close contact.  It is difficult to control persons when they do not perceive you as being a part of their everyday lives.  Modern technology simplifies the ability for large bodies (usually but not always the state) to exert greater control on everyday life.  Perhaps the best illustration of the importance of technology within is in Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Daily life is supervised and controlled by “telescreens” which control society through their ever-present state.  The colonial Egyptian equivalents of the telescreens were the new army barracked around the country.    In business terms, technology allowed the state to cut out the middle man in power relationships.  Previously, the state would have to rely on an ever-increasing series of agents (either direct or indirect) to implement its policy.  Using the Egyptian model, the attempt for centralized control was exerted by levies or obligations.  The responsibility for the implementation of these levies was left in the hands of the less powerful who turn were to rely on the even less powerful (and so on).  It is not surprising given the many leveled vertical structure that implementation was inconsistent at best.  One can take the Egyptian example and apply the principles it reveals throughout world history.  The desire to control existed has always existed. However, the important fact is that modern control processes were in origin not modern, but rather were typical desires whose implementation was eased by technology.  

BDF