See, this is where Foucault gets it wrong. It asserts the belief that your parent’s are asserting power on you by having preferences of what you should or shouldn’t wear. The fact that they have a preference is not a concentration of power or a desire to have power over your choices.
I also view the belief of “non-subjective” rather faulty. The example of you can’t control what people think is cool doesn’t make sense. What someone thinks is cool is subjective. If you go to a concert and they’re playing what music you like, then of course you have people who are more likely to enjoy the music you like. But people who don’t like that music aren’t “non-subjective”. The opposite of non-subjective is objective.
I think you are reading power as a hierarchical dominating force but it is this that Foucault is getting away from. Power as Foucault is talking about it is a neutral force. Your parents have influence over your decision. In some countries and ages this might be the hierarchical dominating force of classical power but even in a progressive modern family their opinions even if unvoiced still have a tug — they are still experienced in the psyche of the child. This more subtle set of force relations is what Foucault is pointing to. Their preference for Foucault is a force relations but that doesn't have to be read as equating them with tyrants or as wishing to control you. Their preferences tug at you even if they don't want them to.
As for the non-subjective, cool is subjective but it also isn't. While it's not reducible to a single homogenous society-wide definition of what is in fashion vs what isn't, it is also not so subjective that every person has their own version of cool. Cool is not homogenous and singular but it's also not something unique to every person. We could say that readers of GQ are going to think of one thing as cool and those who read Punk or Kerrang will have a different idea. To my mind it makes perfect sense to call this shared idea of the cool among these groups as non-subjective but I'd be curious to hear your feedback.
I think the distinction with objective vs non-subjective is that of course the idea of cool is not going to be objective. Cool wouldn't exist without human culture; it's not something you find out there in the world and it's something that is based on feeling. But it is also not subjective insofar as its not simply limited to each subjective individual's taste.
But see, his conception of power contradicts the claim of it not being hierarchical. He is asserting that other people have an effect on you, and you as an individual are going to create a hierarchical view of what you value in terms of the power people have.
You’re going to care what your parents or family think more than some random person on the street. You’re going to care about what your friends think more than what the teacher at school thinks. You’re going to care what your teacher thinks only in so far as it affects what your teacher impacts the way your parents think. These are all hierarchies of power. His idea that you can create a non-hierarchical view is incoherent and just factually wrong. Power is not a neutral force. It by definition can’t be.
My issue is more with the claim that your parents are imposing their views on you. They’re not. We see this rather obviously in the fact that children often defy their parents. It’s not power that is motivating people, neutral or otherwise.
As to the claim that GQ readers might think that something is cool versus readers of Punk thinks something different, it is also ridiculous. People are not sheep who can’t think for themselves. Readers of GQ are not going to agree on what’s cool simply because they read the same magazine. Thus the opinions of GQ magazine are not “non-subjective”. They’re entirely different within each reader. Some readers will prefer certain articles over others. Some will prefer some photoshoots over others. Some will prefer articles over photoshoots and vice versa. As is the subjective nature of Punk readers or anyone else. The idea that the concept of cool can just be “non-subjective” really doesn’t hold up to any basic examination.
See, this is where Foucault gets it wrong. It asserts the belief that your parent’s are asserting power on you by having preferences of what you should or shouldn’t wear. The fact that they have a preference is not a concentration of power or a desire to have power over your choices.
I also view the belief of “non-subjective” rather faulty. The example of you can’t control what people think is cool doesn’t make sense. What someone thinks is cool is subjective. If you go to a concert and they’re playing what music you like, then of course you have people who are more likely to enjoy the music you like. But people who don’t like that music aren’t “non-subjective”. The opposite of non-subjective is objective.
I think you are reading power as a hierarchical dominating force but it is this that Foucault is getting away from. Power as Foucault is talking about it is a neutral force. Your parents have influence over your decision. In some countries and ages this might be the hierarchical dominating force of classical power but even in a progressive modern family their opinions even if unvoiced still have a tug — they are still experienced in the psyche of the child. This more subtle set of force relations is what Foucault is pointing to. Their preference for Foucault is a force relations but that doesn't have to be read as equating them with tyrants or as wishing to control you. Their preferences tug at you even if they don't want them to.
As for the non-subjective, cool is subjective but it also isn't. While it's not reducible to a single homogenous society-wide definition of what is in fashion vs what isn't, it is also not so subjective that every person has their own version of cool. Cool is not homogenous and singular but it's also not something unique to every person. We could say that readers of GQ are going to think of one thing as cool and those who read Punk or Kerrang will have a different idea. To my mind it makes perfect sense to call this shared idea of the cool among these groups as non-subjective but I'd be curious to hear your feedback.
I think the distinction with objective vs non-subjective is that of course the idea of cool is not going to be objective. Cool wouldn't exist without human culture; it's not something you find out there in the world and it's something that is based on feeling. But it is also not subjective insofar as its not simply limited to each subjective individual's taste.
But see, his conception of power contradicts the claim of it not being hierarchical. He is asserting that other people have an effect on you, and you as an individual are going to create a hierarchical view of what you value in terms of the power people have.
You’re going to care what your parents or family think more than some random person on the street. You’re going to care about what your friends think more than what the teacher at school thinks. You’re going to care what your teacher thinks only in so far as it affects what your teacher impacts the way your parents think. These are all hierarchies of power. His idea that you can create a non-hierarchical view is incoherent and just factually wrong. Power is not a neutral force. It by definition can’t be.
My issue is more with the claim that your parents are imposing their views on you. They’re not. We see this rather obviously in the fact that children often defy their parents. It’s not power that is motivating people, neutral or otherwise.
As to the claim that GQ readers might think that something is cool versus readers of Punk thinks something different, it is also ridiculous. People are not sheep who can’t think for themselves. Readers of GQ are not going to agree on what’s cool simply because they read the same magazine. Thus the opinions of GQ magazine are not “non-subjective”. They’re entirely different within each reader. Some readers will prefer certain articles over others. Some will prefer some photoshoots over others. Some will prefer articles over photoshoots and vice versa. As is the subjective nature of Punk readers or anyone else. The idea that the concept of cool can just be “non-subjective” really doesn’t hold up to any basic examination.