In his essay, Michel Foucault says, “power exists only when it is put
into action, even if, of course, it is integrated into a disparate field of
possibilities brought to bear upon permanent structures.” Foucault claims that
power is not something that a person knowingly creates. It cannot be created
but instead is dependent upon peoples’ actions. When people act a certain way,
Foucault says power comes into existence. This definition is a bit mind-blowing
when you think about it. A person could make one move and unknowingly exert
power over someone else. Something that immediately comes to mind when I think
of this is the way I used to act when my two younger brothers and I were
little. I always used to want to ride in the front seat of the car with our Mom
and used the fact that I was the oldest to get my way. When coming out of a
store, I would speed up ahead of my brothers, open the car door, and hop in the
front seat. While this is a very normal action for a child to perform, Foucault
would explain this as an exertion of power. Power over my younger brothers
existed when I performed the action of opening the car door.
The 2005 movie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, is
very dependent on the characters’ actions when it comes to power. Foucault
says, “what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action
which does not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts upon their
actions: an action upon an action, on existing actions or on those which may
arise in the present or the future.” Willy Wonka is the main holder of power in
the movie because his actions spark actions from the children, which make him
the holder of power in the relationships. For example, Wonka displays the piece
of everlasting bubblegum to Violet, knowing she craves competition, which then
causes her to take the gum and chew it, which results in her turning into a
blueberry. Wonka’s initial action is supported by Violet’s action and their
combined actions create power. Wonka holds the power in the relationship
between them because his initial action started the trend, and Violet ended up
having to listen to Wonka to be cured from her blueberry situation.
Throughout the movie,
Wonka performs actions that the children respond to. Everything Wonka does,
from the placing of the golden tickets in the chocolate bars to giving the
children a tour of the factory to announcing Charlie the winner, displays his
power over the children and their parents. However, the very last scene of the
movie displays Charlie’s power over Wonka, as his choice to track down Wonka’s
father eventually leads to Wonka’s allowance of Charlie’s family to stay with
him at the chocolate factory. I think Charlie’s display of power over Wonka at
the end presents him as the true holder of power in the movie, as Charlie
causes the ultimate holder of power to go back on his word and give him what he
wants.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is completely dependent on the
actions of the characters- on their choices. Whether the power lies in the hands
of Charlie or Wonka, the characters’ actions, followed by the string of actions
of people they interact with, create the power in the movie, just as Foucault
describes. It is crazy to think that a single action can create power over
another person. When thinking of power, it seems to always have a negative
connotation. However, if actions create power, it seems as if it can sometimes
be created without a person even realizing it. Just as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory displays, we should truly think
twice about what we are really doing before acting, as it could lead to
something you did not originally intend.
It is interesting to think that simple actions can make a huge difference in terms of power and how easy it can be to manipulate a situation if you are aware of these power plays. You mention how we have to be careful of our actions, which is true but I think many people use their actions to purposely remain in the position of power. And this can range from a group of friends to dictators of countries.
ReplyDeleteI think this could also be applied to the Hunger Games. Katniss didn't mean to originally show power of President Snow, but when she defied the rules of the Games and told Peeta to eat the berry with her, she did. If she and Peeta had both died, it would have been very bad for the Capital. And as a result, Katniss got her way over someone who was much more powerful than she.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing we can bring up when it comes to the children's actions is how they were raised. From what we can tell, Charlie and his family aren't exactly the most wealthy, especially compared to the other children that get to visit Wonka's factory. The way the children were raised made them think they could have whatever they wanted because they were "privileged." They were well off, which I suppose you could compare to you acting the way you did when you and your brothers were young, because you were "well off" in your age you had more power over them.
ReplyDeleteI think a great example of Foucalt's definition of power in the real world today is the capitalist market economy. The initial action is consumer's consumption of the product and the resulting action is the fluctuation of prices. I have never viewed power as action versus action but rather solely on person versus person, and my viewpoint on the topic of power has changed completely now.
ReplyDelete