Power analysis must begin from techniques of domination, not sovereignty

Evidence

In short, we have to abandon the model of Leviathan, that model of an artificial man who is at once an automaton, a fabricated man, but also a unitary man who contains all real individuals, whose body is made up of citizens but whose soul is sovereignty. We have to study power outside the model of Leviathan, outside the field delineated by juridical sovereignty and the institution of the State. We have to analyze it by beginning with the techniques and tactics of domination. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 52

Categorization

• DEFINE: The Leviathan model of power—unitary sovereign over a body of citizens—is the foil for all of Foucault’s analytics; essential groundwork for the field.
• XREF: This rejection of the state-as-sovereign model underlies how biopolitics/necropolitics scholars read exclusion as distributed technique rather than sovereign decree. — connects to: Authority is a constructed, analyzable mechanism rather than a natural given; Domination without leadership constitutes dictatorship without hegemony; Resistance to disciplinary power requires a new right, not a return to sovereignty. (+16 more)

Related

• Power analysis must shift from sovereignty to relations of domination. (similarity 0.86)
• Resistance to disciplinary power requires a new right, not a return to sovereignty. (similarity 0.84)
• Analyzing power requires abandoning the juridical-representation model entirely (similarity 0.84)
• Power should be studied at its effects, not its intentions (similarity 0.84)
• Power mechanisms must be analyzed from below, at their lowest concrete operators (similarity 0.83)
• Domination and relations of force replace juridical sovereignty as the lens on power (similarity 0.82)
• A new power mechanism, incompatible with sovereignty, was invented in the 17th-18th centuries (similarity 0.81)
• The juridical discourse of sovereignty has dominated Western analysis of power. (similarity 0.80)
• Domination is analyzed via its functioning instruments, not its legitimation (similarity 0.80)
• Western thought has no representation of power outside the legal model (similarity 0.79)
• Relations of domination are multiple, specific, and reversible rather than unified (similarity 0.79)
• Imperial domination cannot be applied mechanically to texts as their cause (similarity 0.79)
• Resistance is internal to power relations, which never totalize (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Power as damage threat cannot explain power’s order-creating function in complex societies. #expands (0.80)
• Dominant powers codified their own practical invulnerability as the overriding war norm #exemplifies (0.80)
• Power cannot self-realize but depends on societal-structural conditions for legitimacy #corroborates (0.80)
• Discipline is a type of power, not an institution or apparatus #expands (0.80) — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 338
• Imperialism made power an end in itself rather than a means to law #exemplifies (0.78)
• Alternatives failing to address structures of domination cannot achieve abolition #contradicts (0.75) — Davis, Angela Y, Are Prisons Obsolete, 286
• Power functions like a catalyst, not a cause, in social systems #expands (0.75)
• Power circulates through networks rather than being possessed by rulers #expands (0.75) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 47
• Power can be physically exercised without resorting to violence or ideology #expands (0.72) — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 73