Conceptual framework – a Foucauldian lens
3.5 Pastoral power
Torok (2010) emphasised that the technologies of the self are “designed to achieve voluntary self-control with minimal force or domination” (p. 48). Choice is thus central in this process of self-subjectification, and Dean (2010) pointed out that these practices can be used to resist forms of government or engage in counter-conduct. Governmentality thus involves a complex interplay of truth games, technologies of government, and technologies of the self. It is in the context of governmentality that Foucault introduced the concept of pastoral power.
may have happened between them, and everything good and evil they may have done at any time” (Foucault, 2007, p. 227). Secondly, the principle of “exhaustive and instantaneous transfer” means that every act of every sheep is the pastor’s responsibility, and if the shepherd fails, the sheep are harmed. Foucault (2007) explained:
When anything good happens to a sheep, the pastor will have to experience it as his own good. The pastor will also have to consider an evil that happens to a sheep, or which occurs through or because of a sheep, as an evil that is happening to him or that he has done himself. He must take delight in the good of the sheep with a particular and personal joy, and grieve or repent for the evil due to his sheep. (p. 227)
The third principle is of sacrificial reversal, whereby the shepherd must be willing to sacrifice himself to save his sheep. Lastly, in terms of the principle of alternate correspondence the shepherd earns his merit by struggling with a disobedient flock, and whilst the shepherd must as far as possible be a good example to his flock, he should not be completely virtuous lest he is not able to teach the flock through his mistakes. For Foucault:
It is good, then, for the pastor to have imperfections, to know them, and not to hide them hypocritically from his faithful. It is good that he repents of them explicitly and is humbled by them, so as to maintain himself in a self- abasement that will edify the faithful, just as carefully hiding his own frailties would produce a scandal. (Foucault, 2007, p. 229)
Foucault (1982) explained that in the context of the Christian church, pastoral power:
1. [I]s a form of power whose ultimate aim is to assure individual salvation in the next world.
2. Pastoral power is not merely a form of power which commands; it must also be prepared to sacrifice itself for the life and salvation of the flock. Therefore, it is different from royal power, which demands a sacrifice from its subjects to save the throne.
3. It is a form of power which does not look after just the whole community but each individual in particular, during his entire life.
4. Finally, this form of power cannot be exercised without knowing the inside of people's minds, without exploring their souls, without making them reveal their innermost secrets. It implies a knowledge of the conscience and an ability to direct it.
(p. 783)
As pastoral power spread from religious contexts to the wider social body, these
characteristics were transformed. There were now a number of officials of pastoral power (e.g. state officials, police, welfare workers, teachers, doctors, psychologists), not just religious leaders who guide individuals towards salvation in this world, but others who were concerned with “health, well-being (that is, sufficient wealth, standard of living), security, protection against accidents” (Foucault, 1982, p. 784). The spread of the agents and aims of pastoral power enabled the development of knowledge of both the individual (and the process of individualisation) and the global (concerning the population).
Pastoral power is analogous to the complex reciprocal relationship of the shepherd and the flock and revolves around salvation, obedience and truth. The shepherd is responsible for his flock and accountable, not only for their actions but also for their thoughts and attitudes.
The duty of the shepherd is the salvation of the flock – even to the point of self-sacrifice.
The shepherd therefore guides and protects his flock in order to ensure their well-being. He maintains a vigilant surveillance over each individual and the whole flock, as he will have to account for them. The flock in turn is required to submit to the guidance of the shepherd, to whom they owe total obedience. This individualised submission to the shepherd is
necessary to arrive at a state of obedience. In terms of the problem of truth, the shepherd needs to teach the flock, through the examination of their conscience (spiritual direction), the truth about themselves. Thus, Foucault argued:
[The pastorate is] a prelude to governmentality through ... through the constitution of a specific subject, of a subject whose merits are analytically identified, who is subjected ... in continuous networks of obedience, and who is subjectified through the compulsory extraction of truth. (Foucault, 2007, pp. 239-240)
Foucault (2007) expanded on the importance of ‘pure obedience’ and explained that this relationship of subordination has three implications: Firstly, it is a relationship of submission of one individual to another. Secondly, the goal of this relationship is the “mortification of one’s will” (p. 234), that is, there is no goal other than obedience. Thirdly, in terms of the problem of truth, the pastor must teach the flock the truth, both through leading by example and through direction. This direction takes two different forms: Firstly, the
direction of daily conduct, where “[t]he pastor must really take charge of and observe daily
life in order to form a never-ending knowledge of the behaviour and conduct of the
members of the flock he supervises” (p. 236); and secondly, spiritual direction, in that “[t]he pastor must not simply teach the truth. He must direct the conscience” (p. 237). This
direction of the conscience is not to ensure self-mastery, but is a means of fixing the relationship of subordination to the pastor and for the person to be subjected to the truth about him- or herself. The effect of this is the intensification of the individualisation process (Savioa, 2012).
In the process of individualisation, the human being becomes more aware of him/herself through examination of conscience, attitude and soul, comparing him/herself to the norms of truth to which s/he has been exposed and the truth about the self which becomes apparent in this process. In this, way the obedient subject is constituted.
Through pastoral power, Foucault therefore described a model of power that is “well suited for shaping the self-conduct of individuals” (Caughlan, 2005, p. 15). The pastor exercises jurisdiction over the actions and consciences of the flock to guide them towards salvation.
The flock in turn owe the pastor “a kind of exhaustive, total, and permanent relationship of individual obedience” (Foucault, 2007, pp. 238 - 239).
As explained above, power exists in a continuous relationship with resistance, and so pastoral power needs to be considered in the context of practices of resistance. Foucault explained resistance as counter-conduct, human subjects wanting to escape direction by others and choose their own mode of conduct. He asked: “By whom do we consent to be directed or conducted? How do we want to be conducted? Towards what do we want to be led?” (Foucault, 2007, p. 264). In the context of pastoral power, the forms of resistance
“tend to redistribute, reverse, nullify, and partially or totally discredit pastoral power in the systems of salvation, obedience, and truth” (Foucault, 2007, p. 271). Historically, these forms of resistance to the pastorate were: (a) asceticism; (b) formation of communities; (c) mysticism; (d) return to Scripture; and (e) eschatological beliefs (Foucault, 2007).
Importantly, resistance was from within the pastorate and attempted to disrupt the governance of the pastorate.
An analysis of power relations therefore should involve a study of resistance. Foucault (1982) explained that forms of resistance have the following in common:
1. They are not confined to one country or form of government.
2. They target the effects of power on people’s lives.
3. They are immediate in that they focus on the instances of power closest to them, local exercises of power, and the power effects in their present experience, not at some future date.
4. They struggle against the process of individualisation and the construction of an identity imposed through government.
5. They are “struggles against the privileges of knowledge” (p. 781) which are linked with power, competence and qualification
6. They are a struggle around the question of “Who are we?”(p. 781), refusing to be defined by abstractions or other apparatus.