46
4 Theoretical Framework
Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004), Shrestha (1995) and Andreotti’s (2011; see
also Andreotti & Dowling, 2004) critical understandings allow me to consider how
economic power circulates among social investment experts, government experts and
communities in ways that entrench and disrupt relations of domination and oppression. They also inform my consideration of investment as a means for enacting
neo-colonial ideals, for example the development of ‘others’, and capital accumulation (Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham, 2003). They also allow me to critically consider
the possible impact of this social investment in host communities. Later in this book,
I consider how power might be exercised differently through social investment practices, or whether it is possible to engage in social investment in ways that are not
dominating or coercive. In this regard, I also draw on Foucault’s work.
4.1.3 Power in the Work of Foucault
To Foucault (1980), power is a fluid and productive network which runs through
all forms of social relations. In Foucault’s work, the exercise of power does not
necessarily involve “coercion, prohibition, or domination over others by an individual
or group…” (Walshaw, 2007, p. 20). Power is exercised and practised, rather than
possessed (Foucault, 1970, 1980, 1982; Hall, 2001; Walshaw, 2007). Individuals
are the vehicles of power and human relations enable power to circulate (Foucault,
1980, 1982; Hall, 2001; Walshaw, 2007). For Foucault, challenging patterns of power
involves investigating how power has been “invested, colonised, utilised, involuted,
transformed, displaced, extended” in society (Foucault, 1980, p. 99).
A Foucauldian approach is based on the assumption that asymmetric and contradictory power relations establish subjects’ relationships, which reflect an unbalanced distribution of rights and duties (Cameron, 2001; Foucault, 1970, 1980, 1982).
Foucault’s work provides me with the tools to question and interrogate social investment experts’ dual positioning as they work within/against constraints (Lather, 2006).
In this book, I consider the role of social investment experts as subjects who may
act for communities, but who are also subjected to broader economic realities, for
example, who are compromised, bounded and constrained by neo-colonial and/or
capitalist institutional expectations. In doing so, this research aims to highlight the
contradictory power relations inherent in O&G social investment. In the following
section, I use Foucault to explore understandings of discourse as offering theoretical
tools for recognising how contradictory relations of power emerge through language.
4 Theoretical Framework
Escobar (1992, 1995, 2002, 2004), Shrestha (1995) and Andreotti’s (2011; see
also Andreotti & Dowling, 2004) critical understandings allow me to consider how
economic power circulates among social investment experts, government experts and
communities in ways that entrench and disrupt relations of domination and oppression. They also inform my consideration of investment as a means for enacting
neo-colonial ideals, for example the development of ‘others’, and capital accumulation (Crush, 1995; Gibson-Graham, 2003). They also allow me to critically consider
the possible impact of this social investment in host communities. Later in this book,
I consider how power might be exercised differently through social investment practices, or whether it is possible to engage in social investment in ways that are not
dominating or coercive. In this regard, I also draw on Foucault’s work.
4.1.3 Power in the Work of Foucault
To Foucault (1980), power is a fluid and productive network which runs through
all forms of social relations. In Foucault’s work, the exercise of power does not
necessarily involve “coercion, prohibition, or domination over others by an individual
or group…” (Walshaw, 2007, p. 20). Power is exercised and practised, rather than
possessed (Foucault, 1970, 1980, 1982; Hall, 2001; Walshaw, 2007). Individuals
are the vehicles of power and human relations enable power to circulate (Foucault,
1980, 1982; Hall, 2001; Walshaw, 2007). For Foucault, challenging patterns of power
involves investigating how power has been “invested, colonised, utilised, involuted,
transformed, displaced, extended” in society (Foucault, 1980, p. 99).
A Foucauldian approach is based on the assumption that asymmetric and contradictory power relations establish subjects’ relationships, which reflect an unbalanced distribution of rights and duties (Cameron, 2001; Foucault, 1970, 1980, 1982).
Foucault’s work provides me with the tools to question and interrogate social investment experts’ dual positioning as they work within/against constraints (Lather, 2006).
In this book, I consider the role of social investment experts as subjects who may
act for communities, but who are also subjected to broader economic realities, for
example, who are compromised, bounded and constrained by neo-colonial and/or
capitalist institutional expectations. In doing so, this research aims to highlight the
contradictory power relations inherent in O&G social investment. In the following
section, I use Foucault to explore understandings of discourse as offering theoretical
tools for recognising how contradictory relations of power emerge through language.