The science of politics along with anthropology, sociology and other social sciences presents us with the phenomenon of power as the omnipresent, the most profound, the most powerful medium that exists in all spheres of social life or at least strives to be and is recognized and realized everywhere. The most famous advocate of this approach is perhaps his French friend Michel Foucault, with the introduction of his famous term “biopolitics”. You can also mention Nicolas Luman in his Theory of Systems and Carl Schmidt in his “Dictatorship” and his “Concept of Politics”. They are all representatives of the School of Social Structuralism, and their work and ideas provide complementary tools to understand the situation and the possibilities for its transformation.
1. engrossing power
of M. Foucault, in his work describing the development of the system of capitalism in Western Europe, demonstrates the steady growth of its almighty power over human life up to the limits of private intimacy. A power that by its nature seeks to subdue all aspects of life and “devour” the individual. This is where the term “biopolitics” comes from, which emphasizes the power of the power to control and transcend the biological boundaries of man. According to the proponents of this approach, the government always defines possible solutions; it is not the realization of a simple cause-effect chain (use of force, coercion) in the public domain, but operates in the domain of possible random solutions (conviction, ideology, education or through other institutions of symbolic power).
Why possible-accidental, not causal? Because power cannot be absolute both theoretically at the level of discourse and practically applied. Why can’t it be absolute? For from the point of view of dialectics, power is a continuous process, and any process is constantly changing, and therefore, in the field of numerous and varied possible changes. From this point of view, it is in the domain of unpredictable solutions and decisions. It is not static in its nature and, therefore, it is constantly changing whether you want it, in the field of struggle, the realization and imposition of the will of the various parties involved. In English literature, not without the mediation of a German school, there is a term describing this phenomenon ” “contingency”, which in Armenian is translated as “chance, surprise, forgiveness, touch. ” In the sense that politics is the art of the possible, the seeds of this perception of politics and power are also evident.
After this long introduction, we can move on to recent domestic events and examine them from the perspective of several theorists of power and politics and their theories. Special attention will be paid to the work of associates Nicholas Luman and Michel Foucault and to lawyer Carl Schmidt and the usefulness of the tools provided by them to understand the processes that have taken place and will still take place in domestic political and social life.
2. Friend-Enemy
When the movement against Serzh Sargsyan’s premiership began, and possibly its eternity, Nikol Pashinyan, the “Deny Serge” initiative and the active part of the opposition part of the public realized the famous terminology of Carl Schmidt. They re-started to proclaim the political process only and only one key point ” the binary opposition of friend-enemy. At the same time, saying “friend” meant the participants of the movement who were against Serzh Sargsyan without any preconditions, and “enemy” in the person of Serzh Sargsyan who was to leave. Schmidt pointed out that only in this binary opposition is the “political” possible. for relations where no compromise is possible between the two opposing parties and no compromise is possible, as a solution one or the other party must impose its will on the other. In the recent years in Armenia, this inevitable situation, whether you like this demarcation of “us-them”, has given the political character of the movement one of the most important fights for his victory.
Another indication of the “friend-enemy” opposition is first the symbolic resistance (according to P. Bourdio) and the portrayal of a symbolic enemy in the face of the use of death ritual attributes on the streets of Yerevan, the Republican MPs’ flags, which symbolize their inhumanity. to the idea of an enemy image, in which the latter is perceived as an inhuman being, who in our case is driven out of society, stays on the other side of the enemy-friend border. Of course, on the other hand, it is gratifying that the society has chosen the very symbolical struggle that speaks both of its qualitative characteristics and of our society’s special love for symbols. Not less important is the psychology of the people living in the genocide and the existence of war.
3․ Այլընտրանքի բացակայություն
In his work “Confidence and Power”, Nicolas Luman, speaking about the functional features of the system of power, notes that the number of choices made by the power is directly proportional to its power. So power is the power that enables the other to choose one of the possible solutions and options, thus giving the other the “choice” of the possible options. And the main drawback is that these possible options are also created by the government, thereby creating a “double contingency” model. In this situation we are discussing, Serzh Sargsyan has left no choice to the public, in the face of its active opposition, confronting the fact and simply forcing him to choose only one option ” to put up with his presidency. Thus, from the moment when Serzh Sargsyan became Prime Minister, he was deprived of the benefits of the model of power he had created. He justified his authority and thereby simply destroyed it. This is evidenced by the fact that when he has already resigned, today it is considered, without any grounds, that he still holds some power over the RPA at least. And it is not surprising that this very Republican Party, as a part of the system of power created by Sargsyan, was pushed out of the real, informal sphere of influence on society. There was a situation, when the formal government was no longer in control of the situation in the country, and in Armenia for some time there was just anarchy, and as a result, a power vacuum emerged; The vacuum of power, which was fraught with the collapse of the state, the state apparatus, because the state is first and foremost a political system, and the state cannot exercise its power unless it is recognized and recognized by the public. Since the days of modernity, states are considered to be strong and prosperous, where the institutions of formal power coincide with the characteristics of legitimate power, when formal power is accepted and exercised by society, man considers himself an integral part of the state system. as a result, a power vacuum had arisen; The vacuum of power, which was fraught with the collapse of the state, the state apparatus, because the state is first and foremost a political system, and the state cannot exercise its power unless it is recognized and recognized by the public. Since the days of modernity, states are considered to be strong and prosperous, where the institutions of formal power coincide with the characteristics of legitimate power, when formal power is accepted and exercised by society, man considers himself an integral part of the state system. as a result, a power vacuum had arisen; The vacuum of power, which was fraught with the collapse of the state, the state apparatus, because the state is first and foremost a political system, and the state cannot exercise its power unless it is recognized and recognized by the public. Since the days of modernity, states are considered to be strong and prosperous, where the institutions of formal power coincide with the characteristics of legitimate power, when formal power is accepted and exercised by society, man considers himself an integral part of the state system. if it is not accepted and recognized by the public. Since the days of modernity, states are considered to be strong and prosperous, where the institutions of formal power coincide with the characteristics of legitimate power, when formal power is accepted and exercised by society, man considers himself an integral part of the state system. if it is not accepted and recognized by the public. Since the days of modernity, states are considered to be strong and prosperous, where the institutions of formal power coincide with the characteristics of legitimate power, when formal power is accepted and exercised by society, man considers himself an integral part of the state system.
Now, coming to possible developments and redefinitions, let’s turn to the above toolkit again. At least in the parliamentary life we are expected to revive the political life in the literal sense of the word, and the coming months are not likely to yield to their appeal in 1990-91; At the sessions of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia. It is no coincidence that some Facebook users mentioned that they had been following parliament sessions in 1990-91.
Այսպիսով՝ հստակ ցուցիչ է այն, որ մարդիկ, զգալով, հասկանալով ու գիտակցելով քաղաքականը ու իրենց հետաքրքրությունը և շահերը գտնելով դրա մեջ, նորովի են սկսում մոտենալ հարցին, որը եւս մի ապացույց է, որ իրավիճակը հստակապես փոխվել է, գոնե ներկա իրավիճակի պայմաններում։ Նոր կառավարությունը եւ վարչապետի հանրահռչակած համաձայնության կառավարությունը որոշակի հետ քայլ են սահմանային ընդդիմակայության առումով, բայց հիանալի ժամանակահատված հենց ստրատեգիական առումով, որպեսզի համախմբելով ուժերը՝ պատրաստվեն քաղաքական պայքարի եւ իրական քաղաքականության երկրորդ եւ ամենակարեւոր գալստյանը՝ սպասվելիք խորհրդարանական ընտրություններին։
Գրականություն
1. Luhmann Niklas. Trust and Power, New York, 1979.
2. Bourdieu Pierre. In Other Words (Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology), Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1990.
3. Foucault Michel. Power/Knowledge, Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-77, Harvester Press, 1980.
4. Foucault Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978-1979. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
5. Vanderstraeten Raf. Parsons, Luhmann and the Theorem of Double Contingency, Journal of Classical Sociology, Vol 2, Issue 1, pp. 77 – 92.
6. Луман Н․, Власть, М․, Праксис, 2001.
7. Бурдье Пьер. Социология социального пространства. М.: Ин-т экспериментальной социологии; СПб.: Алетейя, 2007.
8. Schmitt Carl. Dictatorship, St. Petersburg, 2005.
9. Schmitt Karl. The concept of political, Questions of sociology, 1992, N.1.
[/ toggle] [/ toggles]
Also Visit: www.zoomproperty.com
By Gor Madoyan © All rights reserved.