force / power (1997)

8/6/2019 Force / Power (1997)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/force-power-1997 1/5

The primary purpose of this document is to construct a set of concepts that are useful

for thinking about things. In particular, in thinking about things in the context of post-

modern, antifoundational, anti-essentialist critique. In the first section, I will develop an

ontology and a set of concepts. In the second section, I will launch upon an example of

how these concepts can be used in practice.

I. Force/Power

1. Force and Power

a. Force. A force is a concept defined as “a set of actions”. Take, for example, a horse.

What is a horse? A horse is what it can do: to run, to bite, to shit, to neigh, to be

ridden, to pull a plow, to fall, to die, etc. This set of actions, this list of “affects” that

defines what a horse can do, taken as a whole is a horse. As such, as a “set of

actions,” a horse is a force.

b. Power. Imagine now a horse and a rider. Each is a set of affects -- a force. A horse

and a rider enter into a relation. This relation gives rise to our second concept:

“power”. Power is a relation between forces.

The relation between horse and rider is a power. An apparently simple scenario, but it

becomes more complex and interesting as we add more forces to the relation. The

horse has a saddle, a stirrup - themselves powers, sets of affects. The rider has boots

and is standing in the mud. There is a strong wind, and a scent of wolves in the air.

The rider is late. Each of these forces contribute to the encounter between horse and

rider -- that is, each of these forces compose the “local field of power”. Indeed, all

forces that relate to the relation compose the local field of power (let us not forget the

force of gravity and the affects of which it is capable).

So, our horse encounters a rider. How did this encounter happen? Was it chance that

the horse happened upon the rider? Was the rider ordered to go to the horse (i.e., did

another force -- a boss -- effect this encounter)? How will this encounter resolve? It will

be the consequence of all of the relations between relevant forces in combination with

chance. Perhaps the stirrup will break under the rider’s weight (gravity again) and the

rider will fall in the mud. Power determines force, or, rather, power, in combination with

chance, determines force. That is, the actual affects of the force -- what it actually can

do -- are the consequence of local and partial integrations of power in combination withchance. To say it in another way, power (in combination with chance) determines

when, where, and how forces relate --- and what results from their relation.

c. Force/Power. Every force is composed of sub-forces in relation. That is, every force

is a power --- which is a relation between forces. What we have is an infinite regress:

power is a relation of relations determined by power; force is a relation determined by

8/6/2019 Force / Power (1997)


relations by forces. Its all a matter of perspective: force/power. Force, taken from the

direction of relating, power taken from the direction of relation. Force/power is

ontological and exhaustive. There is nothing outside of force/power. It encompasses

words and things, ideas and objects. Ideas, emotions and sensations are composed of

certain sets of affects and enter into complex relationships determined by local fields of

power. The relations into which love or money can enter are certainly different than therelations into which a horse can enter, but love and money are, just the same,

constructed imbued with certain affects and imbedded in certain local fields of power.

This point can not be overemphasized: gravity, heat, carbohydrates, algebra, the

Roman alphabet, neurotransmitters, apples, sunlight, time, MTV -- all of these are

forces and all relate according to the same rules in the space of force/power.

2. How forces relate

a. Genealogy. The relation between forces is determined by the local field of power, but

the field of power is composed by the integration of forces in relation. In any given fieldof power, the affects of some forces can play a more significant role in shaping the

contours of that field of power -- and therefore in determining the relation between

forces. We can call this role the “potency” of the force: the degree to which its affects

determine the character of the local field of power. Note that as circumstances change,

the role a particular force plays in a field of power might vary radically, it is therefore

critical to recognize that potency inheres not in the force, but in the relation.

The composition of a force is its “genealogy”. A genealogy is the infinite regress of

force-power that composes the particular set of actions of which a thing is capable and

the power with which that force manifests itself in the local field of power.

For example, a particular chair is a force constructed by a woodworker from wood. Both

woodworker and wood are forces, composed of particular affects imbedded in a local

field of power and constructed by a myriad of forces in relation: the bio-socio-cultural

forces involved in the conception and physical development of the woodworker, the bio-

techno-economic forces involved in the growing, harvesting and delivering of the wood

to the woodworker’s shop, the socio-economic forces involved in the training of the

woodworker, the historical and cultural forces involved in the selection of this piece of

wood to make into this style of chair, etc. This litany of relations is the genealogy of a

force.

b. Alliance. In any given encounter, a force becomes more potent than another through

a complex interplay of strategy, tactics, diplomacy, alliance, treachery and luck. The

relation between forces is complicated. To understand this complication we must

recognize two important points.

First, power is in no way monolithic. To the contrary, it is an infinitesimally fissured

8/6/2019 Force / Power (1997)


collective determined by the integrated affects of local forces brought together by

power-chance. As a consequence, force/power is a fractal collective -- every force has

a genealogy of infinite sub-forces determined in relation by infinite sub-powers

determined in turn by the integrated affects of forces brought together by power-chance.

As a consequence, power can change -- and it can change in unexpected ways.

Second, every force consist of particular affects that express a unique affinity for other

forces. This affinity is a consequence of the genealogy of the related forces and its

expression is determined within particular fields of power.

So, for example, imagine a piece of sodium in an airtight bottle. We know that among

the potential affects of sodium is a particular affective relation to water. Now, within the

bottle, that is, within this particular field of power, the sodium is capable of expressing

only a limited number of affects -- explosion is not among these. Within the local field of

power, the sodium cannot break the bottle.

However, a field of power can be changed. If water is introduced into the local field of

power, that is, if water is introduced into relation with the sodium (by chance, or by the

imposition of another force whose affects alter the local field of power -- the seal on the

bottle is broken), the current local set of relations will be displaced by an entirely new

set (and, accordingly, a new field of power). Within that set, the potency of sodium has

changed. It can (and likely will) explode -- it can now break the bottle.

We can say that with relation to the bottle, water functions as an “ally” of sodium. That

is, with relation to a particular field of power, the introduction of water enhances (or

activates) an affect of sodium. This alliance is a consequence of the affinity between

sodium and water constructed by their unique genealogies. Such an alliance could not,

for example, be formed between water and silicon.

Alliance is any relation between forces that enhances the potency of one or more of the

related forces in a given field of power. In the context of a field of battle, the stirrup is an

ally of the horse-rider assemblage. In the context of building a bridge, calculus is an ally

of the engineer. In a sense, alliance is a composition. Alliance is an encounter

between forces that results in the composition of a new force with a greater potency in a

particular field of power. It is important to note that there is nothing linear or simple

about alliance. Alliance does not simply make a force more potent. Alliance makes a

force more potent within a particular field of power. Water allies with sodium in thecontext of the relationship to the bottle. The same relationship between water and

sodium results also in a complete decomposition of the sodium.

We can now see how complicated the relations between forces can be. Every

encounter is an encounter between encounters, ad infinitum. Every force is a dynamic,

multifarious unity held together by constructed affinities, but ready to decompose at the

8/6/2019 Force / Power (1997)


introduction of a new force. Every power is a fractal collective of multifarious forces in

dynamic relation thrown together by law and chance.

c. Encounter. There is nothing obscure about this. It is simply another way of saying

that every encounter always takes place “in the middle of things”. Every given force has

the affects of which it is capable and it uses them in the context of the forces with whichit relates. The exact content of these affects is the consequence of the genealogy of the

force. The exact content of the context is the consequence of the infinitely complicated

combinations of chance and law that led each force to be where, when, how and what it

is: their particular genealogies. The specificity of the encounter itself is a genealogy of

genealogies --- in combination with chance.

So, take, for example, the encounter between Rome and Gaul. We can see how both

Gaul and Rome were forces. We can see how each had a certain genealogy of

monumental (fractal) complexity forged from both the inexorable coercion of particular

forces (e.g., geography, language, climate) and the inescapable dice-throw of chance(the alliance of Hannibal with the Transalpine Gauls, the birth of Caesar). Thus, each

was a complicated assemblage of forces capable of certain affects and expressed them

according to particular fields of force (the various expressions -- or lack thereof -- of the

legion and the druid). The encounter between Rome and Gaul takes place in the

middle of things. Any given event, the movement of a caravan across the Alps, the

wedding of a Celt and a Roman, a raid on a coastal town, etc., was enveloped by these

forces -- by this field of power. Every given event was determined by the possibilities

manifested in the constructed field of power in combination with the omnipresent role of

chance.

The fractal collectivity of force/power makes encounters treacherous. In every ‘hand to

hand’ combat of forces, there is often no clear favorite (an elephant can defeat a

mouse, but a bacterium can defeat an elephant), there is no clear ‘victor’ (who won in

the Roman conquest of Greece?), everything is subject to chance (for want of a nail, the

war was lost) and everything is subject to change. Moreover, encounters are not simply

‘encounters.’ Every encounter is creative. That is, every encounter gives rise to a new

relation of forces, that is, to a new power. So, for example, we can see how the

encounter between Rome and Gaul resulted in the composition of a new body

possessed of new affects and constituting (in relation with other local forces) a new

power. (One might equally well examine the meaning encounter between Rome and

Christianity).

Many encounters do leave some or all of their component forces unaltered or in

possession of most or all of their prior affects. The hand encountering the pen

unleashes the affect “to write” but upon the decomposition of the hand-pen assemblage,

the pen is (or could be) restored to more or less the same condition (with the same

affects) it had before the assemblage. On the other hand, however, many encounters

8/6/2019 Force / Power (1997)


are irrevocable, and more in keeping with one or more constituent force than others. An

encounter between digestive tract and food, for example, so decomposes the relations

of the latter to render it no longer a coherent force and (if the encounter is of a

“nutritious” character) does so to the enhancement of the relations of the former. An

encounter between the same digestive tract and poison will result in a rather different

distribution of forces.

force / power (1997)

Documents