Foucualt and Anderson: How We are Controlled by Norms - Aara

Foucault’s analysis of positive and negative power alongside Anderson’s description of the shifts that came with the Industrial Revolution can provide an insight into how the modern climate of being controlled by norms can explain people’s lack of pushback of domination in the workforce. 

Foucault coined the terms “negative” and “positive” power to explain the shift in the concentration of power over time. In the past, during times of monarchies and feudalism, power was concentrated in the hands of single individuals. These individuals used fear-based tactics, such as the threat of beheading, to maintain control over their subjects. This type of power is often seen as arbitrary and unjust. 

This is akin to Anderson’s description of a world pre-industrial revolution. Power was concentrated in feudal lords, Churches, and monarchs. Egalitarians advocated against domination and the lack of self-autonomy during this time period. They viewed this arbitrary power as an “...arrogant attempt to rule over anyone else without their consent” (13). They described feudalism as being dependent on “...the good will of another for one’s subsistence puts one at the mercy of another, and under his subjection” (19). Domination and subjection concentrate power on one, or a few people, rather than the masses. This is what Foucault describes as “negative power.” 

Figures such as Leveller individuals and Smith viewed the diffusion of economic power as essential in creating a more free and equal society. The Levellers “...rejected the principle arguments for social hierarchy of all kinds - the great chain of being, patriarchalism, original sin. Their critique of arbitrary and unaccountable state power was part and parcel of their critique of other forms of domination” (15-16) complemented “Smith’s economic vision of a free market society” (22). Personal independence and the absence of negative republican freedom relayed the egalitarian ideal workers were hoping to achieve. 

The industrial revolution and a free market economy led to a movement towards “positive” power, where power is more dispersed through the masses. However, “positive” power to Foucault does not mean a decrease in power, but now individuals are being controlled by norms, and thus each other, rather than just terrifying and dominating political heads. With this view, we no longer fear kings and feudal lords, but are controlled by our fear of the judgment of others. Individuals attempt not to deviate from societal customs. 

Although new thinkers “...preached independence, freedom, and autonomy in polity and market, they preached order, routine, and subordination in factory, school, poorhouse, and prison” (34-35). This sense of control individuals feel like they may have over their lives can be false; the people who are controlling our lives and behavior are now also all around us rather than just a central, arbitrary authoritative figurehead. 

Anderson then notes that the workplace can still be seen as an area of arbitrary domination. Individuals were quick to dismantle governments that took away people's republican freedom, but the culture now is to comply with a workplace, which she argues, does the same. Industrialist thinkers did not imagine the scale to which the economy would grow to, only thinking of a world of self-employed individuals. However, for efficiency purposes, negotiations between individual contractors were not effective, and workers-manager relationships were instituted in the workplace. Anderson argues that this is a continuous form of dominating and arbitrary control of a concentrated group of individuals over workers.

Perhaps we have a falsified view of having control over our lives since we have moved away from explicit political systems that prevented that. However, we comply when “Employers, instead of drinking with their workers, preached temperance, industry, punctuality, and discipline” (34). We may think we have control over our time in the workplace, but managers and bosses can control our lives during our time working, and out of it. Employers can fire individuals for arbitrary reasons, control workplace environments, how people can act, and even what lives they can lead outside of the workforce. The norms they preach prevail in people’s everyday lives and people can be conditioned by the workforce. Anderson argues that “Under employment-at-will baseline, workers, in effect, cede all of their rights to their employers, except those specifically guaranteed to them by law” (53). Just because the controlling is now done by people who are equal to one another legally does not mean that the workplace hierarchy creates a power imbalance. We are controlled by thinking that this is the norm and thus comply with it, thinking we have moved away from an era of domination. However, as Anderson points out, this gives us a false sense of control workers have in the workplace versus what the reality is.

(Foucault's account of power is discussed in his book Discipline and Punish, my understanding of his use of "positive" and "negative" power can be up to debate as well)