The Blogtastic Blogfest That Is Getmeoutofthis.net!

Upon attempting to do my reading for one of my classes and do the homework assignment, I instead ended up writing a short description about how some theorists tended to explain my personal concepts of interpersonal relations without resorting to metaphors of D/s sex and BDSM situations, which is what I always tend to fall to. As such, I thought I’d put it here, since it honestly seemed more appropriate for a blog than for an assignment. (I’m totally turning it in as the assignment, though.)

Foucault is a cool dude who not afraid of anyone. He’s got some great ideas that really tie into my personal philosophy. Combining some of these thoughts with those of Lyotard from earlier really kind of encapsulates my own personal theories of interpersonal interaction, which I will share with you now because I’m the one behind the keyboard and I can.

Foucault talks about the idea of power being the key element of interaction between people. This is so completely true, from my experience. It’s the interaction between power levels, whether that be power based in knowledge, experience, position, or any other such form, which really sets the stage and the rules for interaction between people. It creates the notion of what is acceptable and what isn’t. For example, the power that exists between me as employee and someone as my supervisor sets serious guidelines on the ways that I can interact in an attempt to achieve my goals. Simple, obvious situation. But even between friends, family, and other such interactions that are less clear-cut, this power struggle exists and defines the rules. Again, I go back to my constant D/s metaphor. All relationships, in my view, are in some way D/s relationships, and in order to succeed in said relationship, you have to determine, through playing the game, who is the dominant one and who is the submissive one.

Even in establishing power, you are working at playing Lyotard’s language games. Your interactions are used to feel out and determine the rules, or the power structure of the relationship, so that you can move forward with your goals while working within that power structure, or, in extreme cases, attempt to completely throw it out. Language games, and interpersonal interactions, are never games of complete information, such as chess. They are always games of incomplete information, where one perhaps has a good idea of what could be in someone’s hand, and perhaps even has a good working knowledge of how they play the game, but in the end, the specifics of their options and goals are unknown. You work with the hints you have to establish their strategy as best as possible, and adapt yours accordingly. Your methods of doing this, of course, change based on your status in the D/s power structure. The D member of the interaction could much more easily simply ask or demand this information. The s member of the interaction might have to use different methods, manipulating the fact that the source of the D interactant’s power comes from the s member of the conversation in order to get what they want without the D member knowing.

Most of the time, this isn’t obvious. As I mentioned, the level of power difference between two people is not always as clear cut as talking to a boss, a mother, or a child. It’s also something that most people use and manipulate without a distinct knowledge of the game being played. However, it’s also something where knowing the rules, or even the fact that there are rules, is something you can use to your advantage. As a verified “rules laywer” in the various games I play, it’s extremely clear to me that that’s the case. Lyotard breaking it down into the fact that it is a game, and Foucault pointing out the ruleset of that game, well, that’s just a very nice added benefit, and hey, it doesn’t even have to use sexual subcultures to explain it, as I always tend to for whatever reason.

Yeah, this is the kind of bullshit I do when I’m getting edumacated.