Intellectual Power, All Too Power, Part 6

Hamid Rayhan

For Abu Raihan, Poet & Journalist

Power invalidate? Or powerize everything? Power just breeds conflicts to create scopes powerization, and it places its concern on the issue of oppression of powerized subjects in a broader perspective on the peculiarity of modern power, a power that does much more than oppress.

To give a more concrete incarnation to powerism, power proceeds to describe the strategy of practicing as a specific intellectual within the institution where and how it works, starting by asking how it can resist and survive. The approach to power is apparently difficult to understand, as indicated by powerization at the point, stating that the ideological aspects of domination focus on examining power as it operates through the restructuring of consciousness, suggesting that the development of strategies that can be signaled in multiple ways from multiple surveillance positions could be a start. It seems that the type of record of qualifications or qualifications prioritized by the system hides several practices of the part that is not promoted, for example, that the exercises performed by the students are carried out in a collaborative way, instead of individually what the system entails. Nor do the administrative records required by the university show the kind of questions it asks students, which question their expectations, thus causing some discomfort, no doubt, healthy. Beating the system at their own game changes the game, and students who take these critical questions seriously begin to reshape their world and their panoptic position, which has been pointed out. The objective is to practise a type of pedagogy that allows students to see things from a different perspective than the one dictated by the educational system, being able to finally identify the system itself and, in the process, interrupt the circulation of power and consider and other possible intellectuals who have to continue the resistance in the productive margins in teaching and research, because if the resistant criticism is going to make changes in the power operations of the network that inhabit the individuals of society, each of us must find ways to continue working despite monitoring, measurement and subtle power relations that limit serious rethinking of what teaching or learning means.

The academic discourse represents the slavery environment whose knowledge serves the master and rests on the acquisition of knowledge, but supposedly of the knowledge of a specific type, i.e. a systematic, factual or encyclopedic knowledge considered, in principle, as true and complete. As such, supported the speech of the teacher to the extent claims an indisputable power. Lacan recognizes, in the opinion of Foucault, that the university as an institution often serves the powers dominant of time. The hysterical speech illustrates the epistemic position from which the teacher’s discourse is discussed or, implicitly, that of the university is constantly challenged as to the justification of its claims. Curiously, Lacan associates with this the speech of the hysteric, and not, as one would expect, that of the university, with the authentic science, because the questioning of the speech of the teacher by the hysteric represents a structural uncertainty or indeterminacy in the heart of science, as illustrated by Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics. Needless to say, this idea dispels the illusory claims and aspirations of teacher and university discourse by discovering a logic that limits and, therefore, overturns all claims of the justification of unconditional power and presumes the totality of Knowledge. This explains why Lacan has increasingly identified the discourse of hysteria and the discourse of science. The discourse analysis indicates this discursive position from which the subject’s certainties, and their significant masters are decoded symptomatically as indicating their desire, in other words, the discourse of the analyst, which represents the fact that traumatic impact requires the reconfiguration of a symbolic horizon, between the explicit affirmations of the subject if they belong to the discourse of the university or the hysteric and their repressed or hidden desire, in the process of discovery of significant teachers who lead the subject and subjecting them to a relativistic dialectic of Bracher recalls that, for Lacan, the discourse of the analyst does not allow to break the professor’s discourse once and for all, the decisive difference is that, instead of being subordinate to important teachers imposed from outside, the subject learns to produce itself, and therefore the analyst’s discourse dually to free the subject from the implicit statements of authority and integrity of the discourses of the teacher and the university, while recognizing the inevitable need, on the part of the subject, to be temporarily authorized to act. The discourse of the analyst thus allows the subject to resist the illusion of decisive power on the part of the important professors and the final illumination of his servant, the academic discourse, where he is encouraged to comply, which is open and revisable knowledge, and   whereas a shadow textual intellectual powerizes individuals and societies in a tread.

Scroll to top