Abstract
Is it possible to define power? What is document bureaucracy, and how is it different from Weber’s bureaucracy? Based on what discussed in the previous chapters, this chapter analyses the notion of power—which is the foundation of the transgenerational actions performed by states and meta-states—and the concept of document bureaucracy. These two elements, for Andina, characterize society in an age of globalization. However, she claims, they are not sufficient conditions to create a state that corresponds to some sort of social identity: artistic documentality and memory are equally necessary conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
andina t. (2012), Filosofie dell’arte. Da Hegel a Danto, Carocci, Roma (Eng1. Trans., The Philosophy of Art. The Question of Definition from Hegel to Post-Dantian Theories, Bloomsbury, London - New York, 2013).
arendt h. (1970), On Violence, Penguin, London.
clanchy m. (1993), From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307, Blackwell, Oxford (2a ed.).
colley l. (1992), Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837, Yale University Press, New Haven.
dahl r. a. (1957), The Concept of Power, in “Behavioral Science”, 23, 2, pp. 201–15.
darwin c. (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray, London.
dean M. (2010), Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society, Sage, London.
eco u. (1962), Opera aperta: forma e indeterminazione nelle poetiche contemporanee, Bompiani, Milano, 1967 (3a ed.).
ferraris m. (2009), Documentality or Europe, in “The Monist”, 92, 2, pp. 286–315.
ferraris m. (2015), Mobilitazione totale, Laterza, Roma-Bari.
findlen p. (2001), Il museo: la sua etimologia e genealogia rinascimentale, in “Rivista di Estetica”, 16 (n.s. 1/2001), pp. 4–31.
foucault m. (1982), The Subject and Power, in “Critical Inquiry”, 8, 4, pp. 777–95.
freud s. (1923), Das Ich und das Es, in “Internationaler psychoanalytische Verlag”.
gephart w. (2015), Law, Culture, and Society: Max Weber’s Comparative Cultural Sociology of Law, Klostermann, Frankfurt a. M.
goodrich p. (2014), Legal Emblems and the Art of Law: Obiter Depicta as the Vision of Governance, Cambridge University Press, New York.
locke j. (1690), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
lukes s. (2005), Power. A Radical View, Palgrave Macmillan, London – New York.
morriss p. (2002), Power: A Philosophical Analysis, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
roux w. (1881), Der Kampf der Teile im Organismus. Ein Beitrag zur Vervollständigung der mechanischen Zweckmäßigkeitslehre, Engelmann, Leipzig.
searle j. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, The Free Press, New.
searle j. (2010), Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford - New York.
smith b. (2014), Document Acts, in A. Konzelmann Ziv, H. B. Schmid (eds.), Institutions, Emotions and Group Agents, Springer, Dordrecht, 2014, pp. 19–31.
spinoza b. (1675–1676), Tractatus Politicus, in Id., Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. by C. H. Bruder, Tauchnitz, Leipzig.
weber m. (1922), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Krone, Tübingen.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Andina, T. (2016). A Cross-Section of Power. In: An Ontology for Social Reality. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47244-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47244-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-47246-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-47244-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)