Following Follett’s (Citation2003) terminology, this call for papers seeks to explore how we might generate and expand power-with in a power-over world. The “power-over world” comprises what Foucault (Citation1994) calls disciplinary societies and what Deleuze (Citation1992) calls societies of control. This world has evolved under liberal pluralist politics and its capitalist economy, increasingly controlled in contemporary times by an “evangelical-neoliberal resonance machine” (Connolly, Citation2013, p. 94) that brings together market, religion, civil society, and state to “tighten the decisional, disciplinary, and channeling modes of state sovereignty” (Connolly, Citation2011, p. 134). Within this system, individuals and groups struggle to create political identities that are recognized, accepted, and given rights, under both formal laws and informal social contracts. Absent these powers, violence, domination, marginalization, and powerlessness persist through ongoing processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization (Deleuze & Guattari, Citation1987).
Rather than limiting ourselves to Foucauldian, Deleuzian, feminist, antiracist, and other critiques of systems of control and domination (Austin & Callen, Citation2016; Catlaw & Sandberg, Citation2012; Eagan, Citation2014; Gaynor, Citation2018; Manwell, Citation2010), we also seek affirmations of alternative understandings of power-with and how the power-over system might be displaced or transformed. Therefore, while papers can and should address the manner in which power operates in the contemporary political economy, they should also explore alternative power dynamics and how they potentially inform this (r)evolutionary process.
For example, John Gaventa’s (Citation1982) early work explains how three dimensions of power operate in the pluralist, power-over system, but then in later works he goes into how power-within, power-to, and power-with function, particularly in the context of community practice and social change (Gaventa, Citation2006). Those engaged in this work acknowledge that due to histories of oppression and the ongoing trauma they inflict (Falkenburger, Arena, & Wolin, Citation2018), it is very difficult to build sufficient power-within (self-efficacy) to demand power-to (agency) within a system of power-over (dominance) in order to build power-with (solidarity) (Ledwith, Citation2011). Similarly, Mary Follett (Citation1918, Citation2003) provides a robust explanation of power-with and its transformational capacity toward a new state—one that looks quite similar structurally but is wholly different in terms of relational functions and operations. Recently, Václav Havel (Citation1991, Citation1997) pursued such ends by relating power to a shared moral order of truth, thus creating a normative imperative for power-with.
We believe these affirmational visions are necessary for transformational change because so long as we remain within the rules of the game as established, we can easily be drawn back into the power-over dynamics of pluralistic competition. Even groups employing the prefigurative politics of power-with within their own domains must employ power-over tactics to be awarded recognition, acceptance, rights, and equity by the power-holders (Love & Stout, Citation2019).
Questions to explore in contributing papers might include:
What are the manifestations and effects of power-over versus power-with dynamics at individual, interpersonal, community, and system levels of analysis?
How is the state complicit with or even responsible for manifestations of power-over? Should the state be responsible for generating power-with?
How do we escape the power-over dynamic and foster a power-with dynamic? How do power-within, power-to, and power-with transform power-over dynamics?
Is it possible to transform systems of control into systems that generate power-with or must they be displaced?
How do we demand system transformation rather than one-off policy changes for particular groups?
What are the implications of these different forms of power for the ability to address wicked problems?
How would transforming power dynamics impact the policy process? What does this mean for the role of public administration?
This special issue of Administrative Theory & Praxis is coordinated by Margaret Stout ([email protected]) and Jeannine M. Love ([email protected]). Proposals for papers should be submitted to the guest editors via email by August 1, 2019. Decisions for invitations to submit full papers will be given by September 1, 2019. Authors will be encouraged to propose and present their papers at the PA Theory Network Conference in May 2020 in Malmö, Sweden, for peer feedback. Final manuscripts are to be submitted through the ATP online system by August 1, 2020. Completed manuscripts must follow journal guidelines for preparation and submission. An invitation to contribute does not guarantee publication.
References
- Austin, E. K., & Callen, J. C. (2016). Deterritorializing utopia: The possibility of techno-utopias in societies of control. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 38(1), 19–36. doi:10.1080/10841806.2015.1128220
- Catlaw, T. J., & Sandberg, B. (2012). Dangerous government: Info-liberalism, active citizenship, and the open government directive. Administration and Society, 46(3), 223–254. doi:10.1177/0095399712461912
- Connolly, W. E. (2011). A world of becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- Connolly, W. E. (2013). The fragility of things: Self-organizing processes, neoliberal fantasies, and democratic activism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
- Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on societies of control. October 59(Winter): 3–7.
- Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. New York, NY: Continuum.
- Eagan, J. (2014). Withholding the red ink: Occupy, Foucault, and the administration of bodies. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 36(2), 240–258. doi:10.2753/ATP1084-1806360205
- Falkenburger, E., Arena, O., & Wolin, J. (2018). Trauma-informed community-building and engagement. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
- Follett, M. P. (1918). The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government. New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Co.
- Follett, M. P. (2003). Power. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick, (Ed.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Routledge. Original edition, 1942.
- Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things. New York, NY: Vintage.
- Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and powerlessness: Quiessence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Springfield, MA: University of Illinois Press.
- Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x
- Gaynor, T. S. (2018). Social construction and the criminalization of identity: State-sanctioned oppression and an unethical administration. Public Integrity, 20(4), 358–369. doi:10.1080/10999922.2017.1416881
- Havel, V. (1991). Open letters: Selected writings 1965–1990. New York, NY: Alfred E. Knopf. doi:10.1086/ahr/70.2.419
- Havel, V. (1997). The art of the impossible. Politics as morality in practice. Speeches and writings, 1990–1996. New York, NY: Alfred E. Knopf.
- Ledwith, M. (2011). Community development: A critical approach. 2nd ed. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
- Love, J. M., & Stout, M. (2019). Are new social movements prefiguring Integrative Governance? In M. Stout (Ed.), From austerity to abundance? Creative approaches to coordinating the common good (pp. 7–34). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
- Manwell, L. A. (2010). In denial of democracy: social psychological implications for public discourse on state crimes against democracy post-9/11. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(6), 848–884. doi:10.1177/0002764209353279