Response to the letter to the editor by P. Unger (see previous letter)

Forstén, Jarl

doi:10.1007/s00769-004-0777-2

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Striking in this context is Forst' s distinction between Herrschaft and Beherrschung, which, although it is relegated to a footnote 137 , illustrates the limited use value of semantic hair-splitting. Surely, the concept of Herrschaft (domination) remains central to understanding social power dynamics, which -in all human life formsare shaped by the interplay between (1) ' soft power' and 'hard power' , (2) ' power to' and ' power over' , as well as ( 3) ' power for' and ' power against' .…”

Section: B Dichotomies Of Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

The seductive force of ‘noumenal power’: a new path (or impasse) for critical theory?

Susen

2020

Theorising Noumenal Power

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

domination' , and ' violence' . The final part offers an assessment of Forst' s account of ' noumenal power' , arguing that, although it succeeds in avoiding the drawbacks of rival approaches, it suffers from significant limitations. The paper concludes by giving a synopsis of the vital insights that can be obtained from the preceding inquiry.' power for' vs. ' power against' .(1) There is the distinction between 'soft power' and 'hard power'. The former is ' soft' in the sense that it refers to symbolic forms of power. These may be articulated conceptually, linguistically, discursively, and/or ideologically. The latter is 'hard' in the sense that it concerns material forms of power. These may be observed and measured empirically, insofar as they constitute tangible components of social reality. Soft power, as a ' constructivist' may suggest, is about the representational world; it is made of symbolic forms -such as conceptual, linguistic, discursive, and/or ideological imaginaries. By contrast, '[r]eal and hard power, a "realist" might say, is about the empirical world, it is made of material stuff, like political positions, monetary means or, ultimately, military instruments of force' 10 . In short, the former is aimed at persuasion, whereas the latter asserts its influence by virtue of coercion.(2) There is the distinction between 'power to' and 'power over'. The former designates an entity' s capacity to do something and/or to act upon the world in a particular way. In this sense, it may be described as a productive form of power. The latter captures an entity' s capacity to exercise influence, or even control, over something or somebody in a particular way and to a specific extent. In this sense, it may be interpreted as a coercive form of power. ' Power to' is essential to social order, and indeed to human life, insofar as subjects need to be able to act upon the world, in order to shape it according to their individual and collective interests, needs, desires, beliefs, and/or convictions.Actors cannot construct the symbolic and the material elements of their reality unless they possess a certain degree of power to do so. The purposive, cooperative, and creative potential of human entities would be useless without their capacity to exercise at least a minimal amount of ' power to' when relating to, attaching meaning to, and acting upon the world.' Power over' is crucial to the stratification of behavioural, ideological, and institutional patterns of existence that emerge within social order in particular and within human life in general, illustrating that subjects have to be able to influence one another, in order to shape each other' s interests, needs, desires, beliefs, and/or convictions. Actors cannot construct the symbolic and the material elements of their reality unless they exercise a certain degree of power over one another. People' s ability to have an impact upon the objective, normative, and subjective dimensions of their existence is inconceivable without their capacity to exercise at least a m...

show abstract

Section: B Dichotomies Of Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

The seductive force of ‘noumenal power’: a new path (or impasse) for critical theory?

Susen

2020

Theorising Noumenal Power

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generality ultimately means that all of those affected must be able in principle to share reasons for regulations governing the realm of toleration and freedom that can be legitimized in general terms. 5 According to Forst, fulfilling these criteria is what is involved in a reason's being "shareable." And yet, while this does tell us something, it does not tell us a whole lot.…”

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

On Shareable Reasons: A Comment on Forst

Etinson

2014

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response to the letter to the editor by P. Unger (see previous letter)

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

The seductive force of ‘noumenal power’: a new path (or impasse) for critical theory?

The seductive force of ‘noumenal power’: a new path (or impasse) for critical theory?

On Shareable Reasons: A Comment on Forst

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About