Advertisement

Interpreting the Relations of Domination: The Plasticity of the Authoritarian Exercise of Power

  • Béatrice Hibou
Chapter
Part of the The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy book series (SPIRP)

Abstract

The problematic of intentionality is all-pervasive in analyses that seek to define the rational interpretation, the meaning or the cause of a situation of domination. Following Max Weber and the importance he puts in the transformation of meanings to understand social relations, this chapter rather emphasizes the importance of taking into account the multiplicity of meanings, which requires not that we seek the reason for the rule, but try to understand how it operates, through what practices, what dispositifs, under what circumstances and by means of what imaginaires. The fact that the same decision, the same situation, the same behavior or the same event is never perceived, experienced or interpreted in the same way is fundamental if we are to understand the mechanisms by which power is exercised, and room for maneuver invented.

Keywords

Nazi Regime German Work Rock Music Improve Working Condition Rational Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hervouet, R. 2007. Datcha Blues. Existences ordinaires et dictature en Biélorussie. Montreuil-sous-Bois: Aux lieux d’être.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lüdtke, A. 2016. Everyday Life in Mass Dictatorship. Collusion, Evasion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hibou, B. 1999. Tunisie. Le coût d’un miracle. Critique internationale 4: 48–56.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mengin, F. 2015. Fragments of an Unfinished War. London/New York: Hurst/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ———. 2008. Taiwan as the Westphalian Society’s Foucaldian heterotopia. Sociétés Politiques Comparées, 7 September. Accessible on the FASOPO website. http://www.fasopo.org/reasopo/n7/societes politiquescomparees7_article.pdf
  6. 6.
    Leys, S. 2006. Orwell, ou l’horreur de la politique. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kornai. 1980. Economics of Shortage and ‘“Hard” and “Soft” Budget Constraint. Acta Œconomica 25(3–4): 231–246.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerschenkron, A. 1962. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. A Book of Essays. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lampland, M. 1995. The Object of Labor. Commodification in Socialist Hungary. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewin, M. 1975. Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates. From Bukharin to the Modern Reformers. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sapir, J. 1990. L’Économie mobilisée. Essai sur les économies de type soviétique. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lagroye, J., ed. 2003. La Politisation. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ragaru, N. 2003. La corruption en Bulgarie. Construction et usage d’un problème social. In Criminalité, Police et Gouvernement. Trajectoires postcommunistes, ed. G. Favarel-Garrigues, 41–82. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Béatrice Hibou
    • 1
  1. 1.CERI-SciencesPoParisFrance

Personalised recommendations