City, University of London Institutional Repository
Citation: Susen, S. (2018). The Seductive Force of ‘Noumenal Power’: A New Path (or
Impasse) for Critical Theory?. Journal of Political Power, 11(1), pp. 4-45. doi:
10.1080/2158379X.2017.1362734
This is the accepted version of the paper.
This version of the publication may differ from the final published
version.
Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/18532/
Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2017.1362734
Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City,
University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral
Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from
City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.
Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study,
educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or
charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are
credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page
and the content is not changed in any way.
City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk
City Research Online
The Seductive Force of ‘Noumenal Power’:
A New Path (or Impasse) for Critical Theory?
Simon Susen
Introduction
Th
e
m
a
in
p
ur
p
os
e
o
f
t
hi
s
p
a
p
er
i
s
t
o
exa
min
e
R
a
in
er
F
o
r
s
t
’
s
acco
un
t
o
f
‘
n
o
um
en
a
l
p
o
w
er
’
1
.
F
o
r
s
t
’
s
p
r
o
p
osa
l
f
o
r
a
r
e
v
i
se
d
‘
cr
i
t
ic
a
l
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
p
o
w
er
’
2
i
s
fir
m
ly
emb
e
dde
d
in
hi
s
p
hi
lo
s
o
p
hic
a
l
un
der
s
t
a
n
din
g
o
f
‘
t
h
e
r
ig
h
t
t
o
j
u
s
t
ific
a
t
io
n
’
3
.
W
h
er
e
a
s
t
h
e
l
a
tt
er
h
a
s
b
e
en
ext
en
sively discussed in the
secondary literature, the former has
–
with the exception of various exchanges
that have taken place between Forst and his critics at academic conferences
–
received little attention. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap in the
literature. Given the
in
cr
e
a
sin
g
infl
uen
ce
o
f
F
o
r
s
t
’
s sc
h
o
l
a
r
ly
w
r
i
t
in
gs
o
n
p
a
radig
m
a
t
ic
de
v
e
lo
pm
en
ts
in
co
n
temporary critical theory, it is imperative to
scrutinize the key assumptions underlying
hi
s
co
n
cep
t
io
n
o
f
‘
n
o
um
en
a
l
p
o
w
er
’
a
n
d
t
o
a
ssess
i
ts
u
s
ef
u
ln
ess
f
o
r
o
v
er
co
min
g
t
h
e s
h
o
r
t
comings of alternative
explanatory frameworks. In order to accomplish this, the analysis is divided into
four parts. The first part provides some introductory definitional reflections on the
concept of power. The second part focuses on several dichotomous meanings
attached
t
o
t
h
e
co
n
cep
t
o
f
p
o
w
er
–
n
o
t
a
b
ly
,
‘
s
o
ft
p
o
w
er
’
vs.
‘h
a
r
d
p
o
w
er
’
,
‘
p
o
w
er
t
o
’
vs.
‘
p
o
w
er
o
v
er
’
,
a
n
d
‘
p
o
w
er
f
o
r
’
vs.
‘
p
o
w
er
a
ga
in
s
t
’
.
Th
e
t
hird
p
a
r
t
e
l
ucid
a
t
es
t
h
e
p
r
in
ci
p
a
l
f
e
a
t
ur
es
o
f
F
o
r
s
t
’
s
in
t
er
p
r
et
a
t
io
n
o
f
‘
no
u
mena
l
p
o
w
er
’
,
in
addi
t
io
n
t
o
dra
w
in
g
a
tt
en
t
io
n
t
o
hi
s
t
yp
o
log
ic
a
l
di
s
t
in
c
t
io
n
bet
w
e
en
‘
p
o
w
er
’
,
‘
r
u
le
’
,
‘
do
min
a
t
io
n
’
,
a
n
d
‘
v
io
len
ce
’
.
The
fin
a
l
p
a
r
t
o
ff
er
s
a
n
a
ss
e
ssm
e
n
t
o
f
F
o
r
s
t
’
s
acco
un
t
o
f
‘
n
o
um
en
a
l
p
o
w
er
’
,
a
r
guin
g
t
h
a
t,
a
l
t
h
o
ug
h
i
t
s
ucce
e
d
s
in
a
v
o
idin
g
t
h
e
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.
I.
The concept of power
‘
P
o
w
er
’
i
s
a
hig
h
ly
co
nt
r
o
v
er
si
a
l
co
n
cep
t,
w
hic
h
h
a
s
b
e
en,
a
n
d
co
nt
in
ues
t
o
b
e
,
g
i
v
en
n
um
er
ous different meanings in both academic and non-academic
discourses. Notwithstanding
t
h
e
q
ues
t
io
n
o
f
w
h
et
h
er
o
r
n
o
t
o
n
e s
h
a
r
es F
o
r
s
t
’
s
v
ie
w
t
h
a
t
‘
t
h
e
m
e
a
nin
g
o
f
t
hi
s
im
p
o
r
t
a
nt
co
n
cep
t
i
s
ra
r
e
ly
m
ade
exp
lici
t,
es
p
eci
a
lly
in
t
h
e
co
nt
ext
o
f
n
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
di
sc
u
s
sio
n
s
’
4
,
a
c
ur
s
o
r
y
s
ur
v
e
y
o
f
t
h
e
r
eleva
nt
li
t
era
t
ur
e s
uffices
t
o
i
ll
u
s
t
ra
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
t
er
m
‘
p
o
w
er
’
r
em
a
in
s
a
n
‘
ess
en
t
i
a
lly
co
nt
es
t
e
d
’
5
c
a
t
eg
o
r
y
in
s
o
ci
a
l
a
n
d
p
o
li
t
ic
a
l
t
h
o
ug
h
t.
I
n
a
g
en
era
l
s
en
se
,
i
t
r
ef
er
s
t
o
a
n
ac
t
o
r
’
s
a
b
i
li
t
y
t
o
do
s
o
m
et
hin
g
in
o
n
e
wa
y
o
r
a
n
o
t
h
er
.
I
n
G
er
m
a
n,
t
h
e
n
o
un
Ma
c
h
t
(‘
p
o
w
er
’),
w
hic
h
i
s s
em
a
nt
ic
a
lly
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
v
erb
mache
n
(‘
t
o
m
ak
e
’
o
r
‘
t
o
do
’),
exp
r
esses this basic meaning of the concept of power.
In Latin languages, the emphasis is placed on
‘
c
a
p
aci
t
y’
t
o
des
cr
i
b
e
‘
p
o
w
er
’:
in
F
r
en
c
h,
p
ou
v
oi
r
;
in
I
t
a
li
a
n,
p
o
t
e
re
;
in
S
p
a
ni
s
h,
pode
r
.
Th
ese
t
er
m
s s
ug
g
es
t
t
h
a
t
acces
s
t
o
‘
p
o
w
er
’
r
e
q
uir
es
t
h
e c
a
p
aci
t
y
t
o
do
s
o
m
et
hin
g
a
n
d/o
r
t
o
ac
t
upon
the world in a particular way.
6
T
o
b
e
s
ur
e
,
i
t
w
o
u
ld
b
e
er
r
o
n
e
o
u
s
t
o
a
ss
um
e
t
h
a
t
‘
a
p
o
w
er
r
e
l
a
t
io
n
i
s
n
eces
s
a
r
i
ly
a
r
e
l
a
t
io
n
o
f
s
u
bo
r
din
a
t
io
n
a
n
d
do
min
a
t
io
n
’
7
,
sin
ce
s
uc
h
a
fa
t
a
lis
t
ic
p
er
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
w
o
u
ld
m
a
k
e i
t
diffic
u
l
t,
if
n
o
t
im
p
os
si
b
le
,
t
o
di
s
t
in
gui
s
h
bet
we
en
leg
i
t
im
a
t
e
a
n
d
i
l
leg
i
t
im
a
t
e
‘
f
o
r
m
s
o
f
t
h
e ex
er
ci
s
e
o
f
p
ow
e
r
’
8
.
N
o
t
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
n
din
g
t
h
e
q
ues
t
io
n
o
f
w
h
et
h
er
o
n
e w
i
s
h
es
t
o
m
ak
e
a
c
a
se
f
o
r
t
h
e
‘
ess
enti
all
y
no
u
mena
l
n
a
t
u
r
e’
9
o
f
p
o
w
er
o
r
see
ks
t
o
c
h
a
rac
t
er
ize
t
h
e
f
un
d
a
m
en
t
a
l
co
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
io
n
o
f
power in an alternative way, it is crucial not to reduce
all
modes of exercising
power to their negative, repressive, or oppressive variants. For such a one-
sided approach draws attention away from those kinds of power that lead to,
or presuppose, both genuine and legitimate processes of human
empowerment. The objective of the next sections is to contribute to a
sociologically insightful, comprehensive, and non-reductive understanding of
power.
II.
Dichotomies of power
It is striking that, within both classical and contemporary currents of social
and political thought, it is common to attach numerous
dichotomous
meanings to the concept of power. This tendency appears to suggest that it
is possible to distinguish fundamental types of power in binary terms. In this
respect, the following conceptual oppositions are especially
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t:
(1)
‘
s
o
ft
p
o
w
er
’
vs.
‘h
a
r
d
p
o
w
er
’
,
(2)
‘
p
o
w
er
t
o
’
vs.
‘
p
o
w
er
o
v
er
’
,
a
n
d
(3)
‘
p
o
w
er
f
o
r
’
vs.
‘
p
o
w
er
a
ga
in
s
t
’
.
(1) Th
er
e
i
s
t
h
e
di
s
t
in
c
t
io
n
bet
we
en
‘
s
o
ft
p
o
w
er
’
a
n
d
‘
h
a
r
d
p
o
w
er
’
.
Th
e
f
o
r
m
er
i
s
‘
s
o
ft
’
in
the sense that it refers to
symbolic
forms of power. These may be
articulated conceptually,
lin
gui
s
t
ic
a
lly
,
di
sc
ur
si
v
e
ly
,
a
n
d/o
r
ide
o
log
ic
a
lly
.
Th
e
l
a
tt
er
i
s
‘h
a
r
d
’
in
t
h
e s
en
se
t
h
a
t
i
t
co
n
cerns
material
forms of power. These may
be observed and measured empirically, insofar a
s
t
h
e
y
co
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
t
a
n
g
i
b
le
co
mp
o
n
en
ts
o
f
s
o
ci
a
l
r
e
a
li
t
y
.
S
o
ft
p
o
w
er
,
a
s
a
‘
co
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
v
i
s
t
’
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
h
a
r
d
p
o
w
er
,
a
“
r
e
a
li
s
t
”
mig
h
t
s
a
y
,
i
s
a
bo
u
t
t
h
e
em
pir
ic
a
l
w
o
r
ld
,
i
t
i
s
m
ade
o
f
m
a
t
er
i
a
l
s
t
uff
,
li
k
e
p
o
li
t
ic
a
l
p
osi
t
io
n
s,
m
o
n
et
a
r
y
m
e
a
n
s
o
r
,
u
l
t
im
a
t
e
ly
,
mi
li
t
a
r
y
in
s
t
r
um
en
ts
o
f
f
o
r
ce
’
10
.
I
n
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
a
n
en
t
i
t
y’
s c
a
p
aci
t
y
t
o
do
s
o
m
et
hin
g
a
n
d/o
r
t
o
ac
t
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
w
o
r
ld
in
a
p
a
r
t
ic
u
l
a
r
wa
y
.
I
n t
hi
s s
en
se
,
i
t
m
a
y
b
e
des
cr
i
b
e
d
a
s
a
p
r
od
uc
t
i
ve
f
o
r
m
o
f
p
o
w
er
.
Th
e
l
a
tt
er
c
a
p
t
ur
es
a
n
en
t
i
t
y’
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.
‘
Po
w
er
t
o
’
i
s ess
en
t
i
a
l
t
o
s
o
ci
a
l
o
r
der
,
a
n
d
in
de
e
d
t
o
h
um
a
n
lif
e
,
in
s
o
fa
r
a
s s
u
b
j
ec
ts
n
ee
d
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
b
e
u
seless w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
eir
c
a
p
aci
t
y
t
o
ex
er
cise
a
t
le
a
s
t
a
minim
a
l
a
m
o
un
t
o
f
‘
p
o
w
er
t
o
’
w
h
en
relating
to, attaching meaning to, and acting upon the world.
'
Po
w
er
o
v
er
’
i
s
cr
uci
a
l
t
o
t
h
e s
t
ra
t
ific
a
t
io
n
o
f
b
e
h
a
v
io
ura
l
,
ide
o
log
ic
a
l
,
a
n
d
in
s
t
i
t
u
t
io
n
a
l
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
e
ac
h
o
t
h
er
’
s
in
t
er
es
ts,
n
ee
d
s,
desir
es,
b
e
liefs,
a
n
d/o
r
co
n
v
ic
t
io
n
s.
Ac
t
o
r
s c
a
nn
o
t
co
n
s
t
r
uc
t
the symbolic and the
material elements of their reality unless they exercise a certain degree
o
f
p
o
w
er
ov
e
r
o
n
e
a
n
o
t
h
er
.
P
e
o
p
le
’
s
a
b
i
li
t
y
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
n
im
p
ac
t
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
ob
j
ec
t
i
v
e
,
n
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
,
and subjective dimensions of their existence is inconceivable
without their capacity to
ex
er
cise
a
t
le
a
s
t
a
minim
a
l
a
m
o
un
t
o
f
‘
p
o
w
er
o
v
er
’
t
h
e
p
h
ysic
a
l
,
s
o
ci
a
l
,
a
n
d
p
er
s
o
n
a
l
facets
of their lifeworlds.
•
‘
Po
w
er
t
o
’
c
a
n
b
e
defin
e
d
a
s
t
he
c
a
p
a
ci
ty
o
f
A
t
o
t
h
i
n
k
o
r
t
o
d
o
s
o
me
t
h
i
n
g
i
n
a
cc
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
with A’s
–
consciously or unconsciously pursued
–
interests, needs, desires,
beliefs, and/ or convictions
.
•
‘
Po
w
er
o
v
er
’
c
a
n
b
e
defin
e
d
a
s
‘
t
he
c
a
p
a
ci
ty
o
f
A
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
a
t
e
B
t
o
t
h
i
n
k
o
r
d
o
s
o
me
t
h
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
B
w
o
u
l
d
o
t
h
er
w
i
s
e
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
t
h
o
u
ght
o
r
d
o
n
e
’
11
.
In relation to both the former and the latter, it is important to recognize that
something
m
a
y
b
e
t
h
o
ug
h
t
o
r
‘
do
n
e
f
o
r
(a
n
d
b
y
u
s
i
n
g)
go
o
d
o
r
b
a
d
r
e
as
o
ns
’
12
–
t
h
a
t
i
s,
t
h
e
v
a
li
di
t
y
of
the grounds on which something is conceptually or empirically
performed is, at least in principle, contestable. With respect to both the former and
the latter, it is, furthermore, vital to acknowledge that both A and B may end up
thinking or doing something ‘for the sake of or contrary to’
13
A’s and/or B’s interests.
In brief, both the cogency of the reasons behind
and the role of the
interests
underlying human thoughts and actions are not necessarily
straightforward, let alone transparent.
(3) There is the distinction between
‘power for’ and ‘power against’
. The
former stands for power as the
assertion
of something or somebody. The latter
refers to power as the
rejec
t
i
on
o
f
s
o
m
et
hin
g
o
r
s
o
m
e
bo
d
y
.
Th
e
di
a
lec
t
ics
o
f
‘
p
o
w
er
f
o
r
’
a
n
d
‘
p
o
w
er
a
ga
in
s
t
’
–
w
hic
h
m
a
y
b
e
co
n
cei
v
e
d
o
f
in
t
er
m
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
l
a
t
io
n
s
hi
p
bet
we
en
‘
p
o
w
er
’
a
n
d
‘
co
un
t
er
-p
o
w
er
’
14
o
r
,
if
o
n
e
p
r
ef
er
s,
‘
p
o
w
er
’
a
n
d
‘
a
nt
i-p
o
w
er
’
15
–
lies
a
t
t
h
e
h
e
a
r
t
o
f
b
e
h
a
v
io
ura
l
,
ide
o
log
ic
a
l
,
and
institutional struggles between asymmetrically positioned actors in stratified
societies. Indeed, the conflict between experiences of empowerment and
experiences of disempowerment is embedded in the friction between
mechanisms of domination and processes of emancipation, which appears to
permeate all stratified small-scale and large-scale societal formations.
16
I
t
w
o
u
ld
b
e
mi
s
t
ak
en,
h
o
we
v
er
,
t
o
es
t
a
b
li
s
h
a
n
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
hiera
r
c
h
y
bet
we
en
‘
p
o
w
er
f
o
r
’
a
n
d
‘
p
o
w
er
a
ga
in
s
t
’
.
J
u
s
t
a
s
bo
t
h
o
f
t
h
em
c
a
n
in
v
o
l
v
e
exp
erien
ces
o
f
em
p
o
w
er
m
en
t
a
n
d
processes of emancipation, both of them can entail
experiences of disempowerment and
m
ec
h
a
ni
sm
s
o
f
do
min
a
t
io
n.
S
t
i
ll
,
t
h
e
di
a
lec
t
ics
o
f
‘
p
o
w
er
f
o
r
’
a
n
d
‘
p
o
w
er
a
ga
in
s
t
’
in
dic
a
t
es
that the deep
ambivalence
of the human condition is an object of permanent struggle
for
and
against
specific constellations of power. One of the most obvious, and historically most
tangible, examples of this ambivalence is the tension-laden constitution of
modernity.
17
On the one hand, there is a
dark
modernity: its
repressive
facets
cannot be dissociated from the socio-historical preponderance of
instrumental
reason. On the other hand, there is a
bright
modernity: its
emancipatory
aspects
have been brought about, as well as grasped, by the
di
sc
ur
si
v
e
f
o
r
ce
o
f
crit
i
c
a
l
re
a
s
o
n
.
18
Th
e
f
o
r
m
er
‘
a
r
e
in
t
im
a
t
e
ly
a
ss
o
ci
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
va
r
i
a
t
io
n
s
of control
–
such
as power, authority, order, discipline, obedience, enclosure, and heteronomy
–