Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (Library Of New Testament Studies)

LIBRARY OF N EW TESTAMENT STUDIES

325 formerly the Joumal for the Stt1dy of the New Testameut Supplement series

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M . G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dmm, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gat hercole, John S. Kloppenborg, M ichael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H . Williams

This page imenrionally le(r blank

PAUL AND THE DYN AMICS OF POWER

Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement

KATHY EHRENSPERGER

·" t t tclark

Cop)•right ©Kathy FJmnsp
All rights rcscrvr.d. No part of this publication mar be rrproduc.rd or transmitted in any form or by an}' means> dcctronic or mechanical, including photocopring, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishcn.

Kathy Ehrcnsp
JSBN-1 0: 0-567-04374-6 (hardback) JSBN-13 : 978-0-567-04374-0 (hardback) Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production limited Printed on acid-free pap
To Bill

This page imenrionally le(r blank

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations

:<1

xu1

Chapter 'I. Rc.ading the-Pauline Letters: Pre-suppositions and Conccxrs 1.1

Earlier Studies on Paul and Power

1.2 Hermeneutical Presuppositions o f this Study I .2.1 The Cultura l Embcddedness -Juda ism and its S
Roman Empire 1.3 The Focus o f this Study 1.4 Plan of the Book Chapter 2. Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

1 2

3 4

9 11 I4 16

2.1 Definitions of Power 2.2 'Powc.r·ovcr' or Strategic PO\vcr

17 20

2.3 'PowcNo' or Communicative Power

22

2.4 Strategic and Communicati\'C' Concepts of Power in Critic-al Discussion 2.4.1 Critiques o f Arendt: Habcnnas and Feminist Theories

24 24

2.4.2 Transfonnativc Power

27

2.4.3 Powcr·ro and Power-with - a Feminist Conception of Power

2.4.4 AsymmcnJ and Hierarch)' in Po\~t'cr Relations 2.5 Conclusion

Chapter 3. The Exercise of Power - Networking in chc- Early Christ-MO\'<'mcnt 3.1 The Circle of Apostles and P<>ul 3.1.1 Apostles a nd Their Relationship According to

3.2

30

31 34

35 37

1 The-ssalonians 3.1.2 Apostles and Powe-r Dynamics According to Galatians

38

1.13- 2. 14 Paul and Co-Workers in Christ

41 46

3.2.1 I uvfpyoi - Te-rminology and ldcntit}' Issues

47

3.2.2 A&}.<jlOc;, A8!A<jlq - Terminology a nd ldentit)' Issues 3.2.3 Co-Senders of the Pauline Letters 3.2.4 Letter Endings and Paul's Assista nts

48 50 51

\'iii

Coutents

3.2.5 Others Greeted in the- Pauline letters 3.2.6 Moved by Christ - leadership on the Move 3.3 'Eto:}.,f!atat, Paul and the Pauline Cirde3.3.1 letter Writing and Ongoing Communication 3.3.2 'EKKA11ala1 as Communities of Siblings 3.4 Conclusion: ! uvtpyol and 'EKKXT)alal - Asymmetrical Relationships Chapter 4. Powc.r in Action- the D)•namics of Grace 4.1 The Powc.r of the 'Grace and Works of the Law• - Dic.hotonw in Pauline Interpretation · 4.2 Grace and Po\l.ter or Grace as Power 4.3 Grace in Action - the Collec-tion Project (2 Corinthians 8·9} 4.4 The Power of Grace according to the Scriptures 4.4.1 Xap"; and the ]i1110n Debate 4.4.2 The Covenanta Dimension of J;'ii10n 4.5 Conclusion: Grace as Mumal Empowerment Chapter 5. The Grace and Burden of Apostleship: Paul's Perception of ArrotJToAI] 5:1 The Xap1~ of Being Called and Sent - Paul's Call Narrative in Galatians 1-2 5.2 Being Called and Sent According to the Prophets 5.2.1 The Call Narrative in Isaiah 6 5.2.2 The Call Narrative in Jeremiah l 5.2.3 The Call Narrati1•e. in Ezekiel 1-2 5.2.4 Paul's Experience of Xap" in l ight of the Prophets 5.3 Xcipu; and ArrooTo},~ in Romans 5.4 Paul's Perception of Xap1~ in Relation to Arroorol.i\ 5.5 Authority and Power in Prophetic and Apostolic Sending 5.6 Message and Me.ssengcrs lnterm1ned 5. 7 Conclusion Chapter 6. Powc.r in \Xfe.akness - The Discourse of Confrontation and Conflict 6.'1 Troublc.some Beginnings - I Thessalonians 6.2 A Letter of Passionate Concern - 2 Corinthians 6.3 The. Signs of an Apostle - Disputed 6.4 Suffering, Weakness and Power - Related but not Identical 6.5 Entering the Ring of Competition - 'For When I am Weak I am Strong' 6.6 Weak Apostlc.s but Powerful leaders? The Power of Gentleness and Humbleness 6.7 Conclusion

52 53 55 55 57 61

63 63 65 67

71 71 75 78 81 81

83 83 84 84 85 86 90 91 93 96

98 100 101 102

104 106

11 1 114

Coutents

IX

Chapter 7. Power in Interaction - Paul and the Discourse of Education 11 7 7:1 The Ethos of Education in Jewish Tradition 1 19 7.2 Aspects of the Teaching and Lc-.arning Discourse in the Scriptures

120

7.3 Traces of the Teaching and Le.arning Discourse in Second Temple Judaism 7.4 Paul - a Father/Mother of his Communiries 7.5 Parental Images in 1 Corinthians

123 126 128

7.6 Paremal lmagc-.s in 1 Thessalonians 7,7 Paul the Tc-.ach("r and Transformative Power 7.8 Conclusion

13 1 134

Chapter 8. Powc.r in Interaction - The Discourse of Jmitation 8.1 The Perception of Imitation in Pauline lntcrprc:tation 8.2 T he Texture of P;ml's Imita tion Language 8.2.1 Ml~not<; as Copying

135

137 137 138 138

8.2.2 Imitation in the Scriptures

139

8.2.3 Aspects of Mimesis in Contemporary Literary T heory

142

8.3 Content and Structure of Paulinc- Imitation Language

143

8.4 T he Imita tion Discourse in 'I Corinthians (4. 16 and 1 1.1 ) 8.4.1 Again - Pa ul the Father

144 145

8.4.2 Divisions and Diffc.rcnces - Struggles for Power?

146

8.4. 3 The Functionality of Apostleship 8.4.4 Diversity Among Apostles 8.4. 5 Flexible. Hierarchies a nd Apostolic Claims

147 148 150

8.5 Christ as the 'Pattern' - The Deconstruction of Hierarchie.s

15 1

Chapter 9. Power in Interaction - The Discourse of Rcsponsc·abil ity

155

9.1 Obedience as Fa ith and as Submission to God 9.2 Obedience as Hearing and Responding 9.2.1 In Contrast to Judaism?

9.2.2 As Oral Transmission 9.3 Called to Hear and to Do - God and His Pe.o ple 9.3.1 Called into Existence

156 158 158

159 160 162

9.3.2 lnter-Depende.ncc - not Subordination, Submission or 9.4

Obedience Responding as Response-ability

9.4.1 Yno:Koi) and AKoiJ rrlon t:.:Jt; in Romans and Galatians 9.4.2 Guidanc.c to the Called in Corinth 9.4.3 Yna Kot\ in Other Letters 9.5 Submission and Order Discourse (1 Cor. 14.32-34 a nd Rom. 13.1 -7) 9.6 n a paKa.Aw - a Hidden Request for Obedience? 9.7 Conclusion

164 166

166 168 171 172 174 178

Coutents

X

Chapter 10. T he Dynamics of Power a nd the Challenge of

Empowerment "10.1 10.2 10.3

179

Beginnings - Promise and Tmst I 80 The Guiding Parameters- Christ and the Coming Kingdom ofGod 183 Life in the Realm of Christ - 'Already and Not Yet' 186 10.3.1 •Jr Shall Not Be So Among You'- Internal Limitations to Power 186 10.3.2 Ambiguous Leaders - Vulnerable and

Disappointing but Empowering

187

10.3.3 'In This World but not From This World' - Impacts o f 191 the Empire I 0.3.4 Limited Ch<1lknges: Gender Hierarchy and the

[nstirurion o f Slavc.rr 10.4 The Drnamics of Power and the Tunc of Empowerment Bibliographr

Index of Ancient Sources lndc.x of Modern Authors

193 196 20 1 227

233

PR~FACE

A study is the responsibility of the author. This, of course, also a pplies to this book. But it is at the same t ime not merely the fruit of a single mind,

but o f a long journey which included numerous com•crsations wit h many people in a varict)' of contexts; academic and non·acadcmic. Some o f thc.sc conversat ion partners get mentioned in t he. text or in foo tnotes, manr not. Some contributed with their questions and critique to the clarification o f chapters which in draft form were given as papers a t conference-s: Chapter 3 at BNTC 2002 in Cambridge, Chapter 4 a t SBL Internat ional 2004 in Groningen, Cha pter 7 at SBL Internationa l 2006 in Edinburgh, Chapter 8 at SBL Interna tiona l 2003 in Cam bridge, Chapter 9 a t the SBL Annual Meeting 2006 in \Xlashi ngton DC. Part ners in the academic com•crsat ion concerning interpretation have enriched my thinking about Paul and issues o f power b)' their learned a nd thought-provoking writings and k cture.s , s tudents in Switzaland a nd \Vales wit h their que.st ions kept reminding me that a nswers a rc the bc.g inning of new quest ions. Colleagues in the Depa rtment of T heology and Rel igious Studies a t the University o f ·wales l a mpeter and, during study Jea ve from August to Dcc.ember 2006, at the Ccntcr fo r Theological Jnquiry, Princeton Seminary and Princeton University, shared of their time and insights in discussing aspc.cts o f my work~ and provided me. with t he context of a co mmunity of scholars so important for any academic work. But t here \\'ere many people outside the academy who decisively s ha ped more than my thinking and writing a bo ut power. T here were the.sc lovdy and awful 13 - to 16-ycar-old teenagers in dassrooms who did not know about theories of power but about the power of action, interaction, and true communication. T here were the members of the Swiss Reformed congre.gation I had the privilc.ge to serve for 'I 6 years} who invited and appreciated fema le leadership in their congregation. In celebrating and mourning, in st ruggles and reconciliation with and a mongst them [learned much about the a lways prc.s ent dynamics of power. And my three c hild ren, Rahcl, Joachim and Aurelia, taught me about the fragile ba lance. of trust and t he treasure of mutuality inherent even in asymmetrica l relat ionships. I could not have written rhis book without having been involved in all these conversations, without ha \'ing been part o f all these net works, without the treasure of a ll these shared experiences. J am most grateful for all those who travelled with me on this journq•, Most o f all I could not

xii

Preface

have wrinc-n this book witho ut the supporc, patic-.ncc- and encourage-ment of Bill.

Kathy Ehrcnspcrgcr Lampe-ter, February 2007

A BBREVIATIONS

BAGD

BDF

Bib Biblnt BR BTB BWAi'.'T BZ CBQ EuT ExpTim FRLANT HTR IBS ICC Jut }AC }BL }BV }FSR }R JSNT JSi'.'TSup }SOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JTS LSJ

\VI. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, F. W. Danker, A Greek-

E11glisb Lexicon of the Netu Testament and Other Earl)' O.Jristiau Litt,rawre (Chic-ago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn 1958l. Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert \VI. Funk, A Greek Grammar of tbc New Te..stament and Other Early Christiart Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni\'crsity Press, 1961) Biblica Biblical interpretation: A journal of Contemporary Approaches Bible Review Biblical Theology Bulletin Bc.itr3gc zur Wisscnschaft vom Altcn und Ncucn Testament BiblisdJe Zeitsd>rift Catholic Biblical Quarr.erly EliOJJgeliscbe Tbeologie Expository Times Forschungc.n zur Religion und Litcratur des Altcn und Ncucn Testaments Harvard Theological Rel,ierv Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Interpretation jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christelltttm joumal of Biblical Uterature joumal of Beliefs and Values Joumal of Feminist Studies iu Religion journal of Religion journal for the Study of the New Tesuwwut joumal for the Study of' the New Testament, Supplement Series joumal for the Study of the Old Testameut Joumal for the Study of the Old Testammt~Supplement Scric.s journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha joumal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series joumal of Theological Studies H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart jones, Greek- English Lexicou (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th cdn, 1968)

xiv

JSR Kul

f_TQ LXX NKJ NovT NovTSup NRSV

i'rrs PT RB RSV

""

SBL SBLASP SBLDS SBLSP SBLSS Scr SerB SJOT SJT SNTSMS SNTIJ THAT

Abbremfltious

Joumal of Scriptural Reasoning Kird~e und Israel Lexington Theological Quarterly Septuagint New King James Bible Novum Testamentum Novum Testamcntttm Supplements New Re.\'ised Standard Version New Testament Swdies Political Theology Reuue Bibfique Revised Standard Version Revised Vusion Society of Bibli..:al Litcraturc SBL Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBL Dissertation Series SBL Seminar Papers SBL Scmcia Studies Scripture Scripture Bul/etiu Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish joumal o{Theolog)• Societ)' for New Tc.stament Studies Monograph Scric.s Studicn zum Nc.ucn Testament und seiner Umwd t Ernst Jcnni and Claus We.stcrmann (cds.) Theologischcs HamlwOrterbuch zum Aften Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1

1971- 76).

TynBul TZ

WBC \VW \1C'UNT ZNT ZN\V

Tymlale Bulletin Tbeologische Zeitschrift World Biblical Commentary Word and World Wisscnschaftlichc Untersuchungen zum Ncuc.n Testament Zeitschrift fiir Nemes Testameut Zeitschrift fiir die neutcstamentliche \f/issenschaft

Chapter 1 READING T HE PAULINE lElTERS: PRESUi>i>OSn"'ONS AND CONTEXTS

Paul was po\~t'CI' conscious. This is hardly a rnancr of controvc.rsial de-bate. It is perceived as almost S<'l f-cvidcnt that Paul had something to do with power and was not narvc concerning it. In recent scholarly debate controversy has arisen whc.n it c.omcs to the evaluation of what is pC'rcdvcd as fact in different readings. Paul~s usc o f po\~t'cr is positively acknowledged when he is attributed the role of the first Christian theologian and church 1c.adcr who provided the basis for the subsequent dcvclopmcnr of Christian doctrine as well as the organization of what cmc.rgcd as the Christian Church, thus legitimizing among other things, strictly hierarchical structurc.s and the exerci-se- of domination and control by church authoritie-s for what was pe-rceived as the bc.n dlt of the- entire- community and the salvation o f the faithful. Paul's usc of power and claims to authority arc challenge-d by othe.rs who se-c- in his letters - which provide-d the foundations fo r both Christian doctrine and church life - the roots for the- importation of the usc of power by establishing hierarchical structures and dominating patterns of authority into a previously egalitarian mm·cmc-nt. I am oversimplifying the positions but these 'extremes• at both c.nds of the spc-ctntm indicate that there is more at stake in the. debate- about Paul and power than mere academic insights. 1 It is a debate which is embedded in, and has a major impact upon, the life of churches and thdr respective- politic.al, social and economic contexts1 both in the past and in the present. It is not a purcl)' theological debate, although there arc- significant theologic-al dimensions m it. Bur it is also not a purdy sociological debate~ although it has significant sociological dimensions. lr is a de-bate- which is inRuc-nccd b)' and which has inRucnc.cd issues concerning civil rights, women's roles in church and socic:tr, and church order, as wdl as issues in relation to other faiths.

I.

If such exist al all. Cf. Rourdicu 2000: 81-2, !llso

128~3 .

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

2

I .1 Earlier Studies on Paul aud Power

Signific.ant studic.s on Paul and power have. b«.n informed b)' debates and thcoric.s of power which have emerged in sociology, political scicm:c and philosoph)• because it has been recognized that the tools pro"ided by such thcorlc.s might contribute in nc.w ways to an analysis of power in the Pauline discourse. John H.Schiitz in his Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority to my knowledge pr01•ided the first book·lcngth study inionned by soc.iological theories of power. He critical!}' interacted with \X'cbc.r~s and others' theories and proposc,d a model o f power for an analysis of Paul's claims of apostolic authority which he dc.scribc:s as follows ' Power is the source of authority and authority is a version of power as it interprets power and makes it ac.ccssiblc ... Legitimacy on the other hand, is a formalization of authority in those circumstance.s where the shape and texture of the social aggregate allows or demands such formalization.' 2 It was Schiitz' inte.ntion to follow up Kiisemann's perception of Paul's letters as ' ... constantly seeking to establish a basis for aurhoriry'.J and provide an analysis o f the struct ure of that authority..a Schiitz tried to come to an understanding o f Paul's perception of authority 'by locating it within the larger fra mework o f order '.s as expre.ssed in theological vocabulary. Guided by ·weber's d istinction between charismatic> traditional and legal authority he views both Paul and his communities as sharing in the same charismafic expericnce.s>and thus in principle in the same authority in Christ. He concludes 'Where thq• stand "in" the gospel che.y stand in the same power as he docs and the.ir authority is the same as his.'' Bc.ngt Holmberg's stud)' Paul aud Powe-r also presupposed Weber's theorie-s} but in distinc.tion from SchUtz he emphasized the e.n tircly social nature: of authority which he perceived as 'a social phenomenon, not a theological intc.rprctation o f social phenomena'.1 Holmberg views Paul as an apostle who acknowledged that he was parr o f, and dependent on a movement, but nevertheless claimed specific power and control over his communities. Thus in relation to other apostles, Holmberg perc.cives Paul as both viewing himself and also be-ing accepted by other.s as equal with regard to power and authoril)·~• \vhere.as in rdation to his communities he views him as promoting an asymmetrical hierarchy in a stafic sense.' More rc.cently Cynthia Briggs Kittredge in her anal)•sis, Conmumity and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience iu the Pauline Tradition, has focused on the impJic.a tions of the discourse of obedience~ presupposing that the Pauline discourse was primarily informe.d by the obedience discourse o f the 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

SchUrr. 197;:21. Quote in Schl•tz I975: i:oc. Schi"nz. 1975: i:oc. ScbUtz1975: i:oc. Schi"lrz 1975: 181. Holmbe-rg 1978: 104. Holmberg 1978: 194-201. Holmbe-rg 1978: 116. 158.

Reading tbe. Pauline Letters dominating Graeco-Roman imperial d ite culture.") Sandra Hack Polaski's study> Paul aud the Discourse of Porver, is informed by Michel Foucault's perception of power as an often hidden but a ll-pen•asivc discourse of po\~t'er exerc.ised over others. She pays particular attention to the discourse of grace in the Pauline letters as a form of such a hidden discourse of power claims.•• T hese book-length studies from diffe.rcnt pc.rspcctives contribute valuable insights into the discourse of power in the Pauline 1cttc.rs. They each focus on particu lar aspects of that discourse {Polaski, Kittredge), and interpret it from particular he.rmcneutical prc.suppositions {Kinrcdge), or through the lens of

one parricular rheory oi power (Schiitz, Holmberg, Polaski). T hese studies have contributed to the recognition that the Pauline discourse of power is not uniform. Depending on the perspective chosen~ different aspe.ccs of the Pauline claim to, and exercise of, power a rc highlighted- a ll of which have had a major inAucncc in the course of the history of interpretation. T he approach advocated in this study builds on these studies, and is informed by insights they provide. But it presupposes a perspective which d iffers in a number of ways from these. Issues raised by contemporary sociologica l, philosophical a nd politic.a l theories will be taken into account, in that the Pauline discourse will be re.ad in concert with such 1heorics. But 1 do not rely on one particular theory or

model and rhen read the Pauline discourse rhrough the lens of this rheory or modd. To read the Pa uline discourse in conce.rt with, and informed by, comemporary 1heories of power is a frui tful mO\'C but one which also needs to be approached with caution. Since contemporary t.heoric.s of power arc based on data gained through analyses of modern \'V'cstcrn societies a nd/or through the perspective of such~ their appropriateness for an analysis of communities of the first century c1: c.an only be limited. The necc.s sarr dam

cannot be gained by sociological methodology as applied in rhe reS<arch of contemporary societies. but on I)' from fragmentary literary and archaeologic.a l sources. This further limits the possibility of attaining direct sociologic.al insights. Nevcnhdess contemporary theories can provide an illuminating perspective and shed light on aspects of the fragmentary discourse of the Pauline epistolary conversation which would otherwise go unnotice.d.

1.2 Hermeneuticol Presuppositions of this Study

My proposal to read the •fragmentary discourse of the Pauline cpiscolary conversation' in light of contemporary theories of powc.r reveals that 1 have already made a decision concerning 1hc hermeneutical presuppositions o f my reading: 'Fragmentary' indicates that the letters arc se.en as only part of something dsc; 'discourse' indicates that the contents arc influenced by specific c.hoicc.s and intere.sts; 'Pauline' indicates that [his is seen as a label which 10. I I.

KittrtdgC' 1998: .l 7- 51. Polaski 1999: l04--2J.

4

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

might comprise more than one person; 'con\'c:rsation' indicates that the lcttc.rs arc not seen as a means in thcmsdvcs or perceived as theological essays. In agreement with most of contcmpora rr Pauline scholarship, J perceive claims to objective readings, and to the reduction of texts to one correct mc.aning, as a concept of the past. I have prniousl)' arguc,d that interpret ation should rather be seen as a process of ncgorjating mc.aning in and for specific contexts, with a conscious appreciation and open conversation about each interpreta tion's hcrmcnc·utical prcsuppositions. 11

1.2.1 Tile Cultural Embeddedness - judaism and its Scriptures Thus, the reading of a text, panicularlr one like the Pau1inc letters, which e.merges from a context and time not our own, requires a framework of reference and understanding which precedes this veJJ same re.ading. Since the reading of a biblical text in a scholarlr setting is preceded br an act o f translation, rhe re-ader is in a situation which has been described as follows: 'If in order to translate one must make a scrie.s of h)'pothe.sc-s about the deep sense and the purposc.s of a text, then translation is a certain form o f interpretation.' 1 0 This insight leads Eco to the: conclusion that •a translation is made possible b}' a previous interpret ation of a text. ' 14 In light of this any reading of the Pauline lertcrs is seen as informed by some pre-reconstruction of a framework within which the letters arc seen to be located. This framework- or what Eco describes as •Mutmassung iibcr die bcschriebcnc mOgliche. \Vclt' is itself influenced by the perspective. of thC' interpretcr, that is his/her context and choice.s concerning the hermeneutical presuppositions that have been made prior to rcadingt interpreting and translating a text.U Hermeneutical pre.suppositions arc.constructed and constmcr a framework of interpretation which influc.nces the choices necessarily made in the process o f translation. This consc.qucntly implic.s that translation is as much a proce.ss of negotiation as is the process of intcrpretation. 16 Texts such as the New Testament writings and the Pauline letters in particular, which arc written in Greek, give rise to the question of what should be c.o nsidered the relevant cultural c.o mext in which these te.xts arc embedded and with which they resonate. Since. Greek in this c.asc is not the language of a particular people or of a particuJar geographic region, chc.sc parameters can not contribmc to guide an informed hermeneutical choice. Greek culture

12. Cf. J:hrC'nsperg<."r 2004~ : 5-26; PanC"/Grenbolm 2000b. 13. Eco 2004: 113, cf. the GC'rman vC"rsion 'OC'r Ubc:rsC'tZC'r muss dc:u Satz zuniichst ~uf Basis C"inc:r Mutmassung iibc:r die darin bcoschriC'bene mot;li,hc: Wdt umformuliC'un, erst dann kann C'r sich cmscbcidC'n, ihn t.u iibC'rscarn• (2003: 189). 14. Eco 1004: 124. 15. Cf. P.mc:/Grcnholm 2000b: 34-44; also BourdiNI 2000: 138-42. 16. Cf. Eco 2003: 11--11; concC"rning intC'rprctarion :1s nrgoriation S
Reading tbe. Pauline Letters

5

in its various forms and combinations - Graeco-Roman, or Hellenistic - has been proposed as the most likely context for the Pauline letters and thus many interpretations presuppose a Gracco-Roman framc.work for translating and interpreting them, including the traces of the power discourse found within them. t':" T his is one hermeneutica l choice based primaril)' on an interpretation of the usc of the Greek language as a n indication of a primary enculturation in that respective cultural world. But there. is a question which is often overlooked when e.nculturation of the Paulinc lcttcrs in thc Grae.co-Roman is advocated: who is enculturate.d? The addre.ssces or the scndc.r(s), or both? To put it in thc discoursc of translation - is the usc of Gre.ck herc target· or source·oriented or both? 111 In some litera l')' approaches it has been a rgue.d that this question is obsolete or must remain undecided, and so the issuc is not what the scnde.r(s)/author(s} intention was a nd thus what symbolic universe they a rc embedded in, but rathe.r what the- addressees might have heard and understood. Although I consider it important to pay spc.cific attention to rc.ccption hist ory a nd the history of thc cffc-ets that a text which was and is pcrccived as authoritative by a community of faith ma)' have had, I c-annot sce how thc questions of authoria1 intention a nd an author's cultural cmbcddcdncss can be renderc.d obsolcte.'' I am awart . of the limitations of the quest for authorial intc.n tion, and I am certa inly not promoting a q uest for a so·callcd re.a l Paul 1 but to pcrccive the reception of a text as the most, or even onl)', a ppropriate and acc.cssiblc way of intcrprcta tion 10 means ro hand it over to the interpretation of the victorious of history, that is to the dominating voiccs, there b)' silcncing altc.rnativt. voice.s of interpretation of the past (aga in) and possible alternative interpreta tions for lhc prc.sent.2' To rcfrain from promoting a quc.st for thc re-al Paul docs not imply that historical research a nd reconstruc.tion a rc considered irrdc\'ant for the intcrprcta tion of the Pauline lcncrs. Although rhc contemporary d iscourse of historicity and thc viabilit)' of historical re.conscruction cannot be dc.a lt wilh hcrc, 1 am of the opinion that the Paulinc lcncrs arc documents which rclate to some re.a lity outside thcmscl\'e.s. Although thcy al'c. only ac-cessible as texts for contcmporarr readcrs, thc.y arc texts which contain traccs of the livcs a nd thoughts of real people. T hus despite not bcing rcprc.sc.ntations o f 17. Kitfrtdge 1998: 37- 51; Castelli 1991:59-87. IS. Cf. E
6

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

pure historic-al facts the}' relate to and reflect upon a life beyond themselves. Traces of this life, which is the life of real people: at a particular time and in a particula1· place, arc stored in the archives of the traces o f those who lived before us. The difficulties in finding such archives or gcning accc.ss to them docs not excuse the exegete fro m trying to reconstruct a framework

of understanding for his/her interpretation informed by such traces of the past.l! T hus a reconstruction of the possible world within which a text emerged, although it can never be a nything other than a (rc-)construction, must be

informed by as much historical (social , cultural, literary. archaco1ogic.al, linguistic, etc.) knowledge as possible. One significant aSJX.Ct of such historic.al and cultural knowledge has, so far in Ill)' \'iew, not bc.cn seriously recognized in Ne.w Testament interpretation in ge.nc.ral, and in the interpretation of the Pauline lette.rs in particular. It is hardly conte-sted that the historical contc:xc which the c-.ar1y Christ-followers inhabited was first-ccnn1ry Judaism and that Israel's Scriptures were the Scriptures by which the.y lived, and which they quoted and interpreted. But the rheological significance of chis is only slowly bdng recognized. The fact that the Christ-movement in its beginnings was fully pan of the communit)' of the Jewish people and the Jewish faith" is more. than merely a stateme.n t about origins or roots. To ackno\\tlcdge the embcddedness of the c.arly Christ-move.ment within and as part of Judaism implies that the question of primary cnculturation must be taken more seriously. The usc of the Gree.k language, for instance, is then not such a dear indication for an enculturation of the early Chri.st-movcment in the Graec.oRoman 'world'/s)•mbolic universe as has been suggc:sted.24 lt is far fro m scMevident that the Pauline letters should be re.ad with the prc.supposition that they arc embedded primarily in the Grae.co-Roman world. Again in applying translation discourse, u the question of the .source of the Pauline discourse nee.ds to be considered afresh when, what Rolf Rendtorff has recently argued, is take.n seriously: For tht'm !the first gcncr:ttion of Chrisriansl the 'Scripture• is their Bible, the use of which they t'.d:.e for grantcd. requiring no justitic:uion ... Right through lO the: time of

12. Cf. Strecker who in his srimul:uing cssay cond udC's ·Dic GC"Sehichuschreibung stdlt keincn Spiq;d in dic VergangcnhC'it bcrc-it, sie ist ''idmchr cine Pro .xis dcr jc spC7.ilischen Ancignung bcnimmrC'r Brudtstiid:c der Vcrgangcnheit minds planvollrr lnszcnicrung dersdbcn. Die.sc Jnsr.cnierung \'ollzicbt sich indc:s nicht im grenztnlos offcncn Raum litcr:n. ischer Freiheit und Phant:lsie, sir \'OIIt.icht sich unt
Reading tbe. Pauline Letters

7

Christi3n origins, including tht period of the: C'mc-rging New Teu:unem, the~ is thus only one Bible: lst;ld's Bib!<. 1ts .-euthoricy•as Holr Scripture is undispute-d among all Jews., iocluding those th3t formed ~ group of thrir own 3S disciples of jesus.26

It follows from this that a perspective which holds that the primary 'world' of Paul and for the othc.r first Christ-fo llowc.rs was the. Scriptures, including their interpretation within the Jewish world, that is, in conversa tion with t heir fellow Jews, is a viable., even nec.essary, option.17 The information, that Paul was a Pharisee which we get from Philippians 3, facilitate.s a more pre<:ise notion of the world in which he li\'e.d and to which he related. It is unlikdy that he got this Pharisaic education anywhere other than in Je.rusalcm,z11 which means that he 'may have been exposed co the pluriform inRuenc.c of traditions circulating in j e.rusalcmite cirdcs',l" Hogeterp thus concludes that Paul did have. strong connections to Palc.stinian Jewish culn1re and 'It is therefore inadequate to s uppose that Hellenistic Diaspora Judaism constitutes the predominant background to Paul's previous jewish life.' 30 T he frequent references to the Scriptures in the Pauline lcrre.rs thus arc more. than mere proof-texts or ornaments to an a rgument prc"iously made;

they consritutc the world in which he li>'ed and thought. The re~ding put forward in this study is informed by Rendtorff's approach which ad>'ocatcs that ' ... Christian theology docs not begin with the message of the New Tcstament.'3 1 I thus will attempt a reading o f the Pauline d iscourse. taking into account that the Scriptures arc Jsracl's Sc.ripture.s and that they a rc the symbolic uni't·ersc which .shaped the socia l world in whic.h Paul and his colleagues in the apostolate lived and from which they a rguc.d:12 T his is perceived as the 'source' of his writ ing and even though the source might resonate differently with the 'target) audience, this docs not invalidate the

16. Rrndtorff 2005: 742-43. 27. On the difficulties some GC'rm3n Gr«k philologists fo und in tr)·ing to underst3nd P3ul \vith tht'it ·Greek car• S« T:n1bc:s 2004: 3-5. 18. Murphy·O'Connor 1996: 52- 70; F.hr<'nspergC'r l004a: 12 .S-31. For a uscfu1 discussion of Paul's Pharisaism SC't' Overman 2002: 180-93, 29. Hogetcrp 2006: 135. On the implicntions this ma)" have had for his rebrion to wome-n gcner:~lly nnd female 1~dc-rs in the movemc:m in p:m icular sce Han 2006:73-1 10. 30. Hogct<."rp 2006: 135. 31. Rencltorff 1005: 749. The primarr significance of the Old TC1't:unem for undcrsunding the: New Tcst:unrnt was ~ l re.1dy recognized :md advocated br the Swiss Reforme-r Heinrich BullingC'r (1504-1575). He consistently ~ ppl it'd th<se insights in his writings. prc.1ching .-end lecturcs. His comribmion is only now being fully apprcci:ttrd for its diffcr
8

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

It rather require-s that a reading which take-s the non-Christian reading of the Scriptures seriously should be part of~ or even the starring point for a reading o f the Pauline Jcnc.rs. The rc.ading of the traces of the 'sou rcc-~ .JJ

dynamics of power found in the Pauline. letters proposed here. is infomtcd by this presupposition: the people who lived wirh the Scriptures formulated their sclf·undcntanding in conversation with them and perceived them as the

authority for all aspects of Jifc and faith; and this is the context and sourc-e within which the Pauline-letters arc also cmbcddcd.34 The issue gets more difficult when it comes to the target or audience of the letters_,that is, the addresse-es. As gentiles in Christ their primary soc.ializ.ation most 1ikcly took place mainly within the Gracco-Roman cultural, political and religious world. J.s The degree of their ac.quaintancc with the Jewish scriptural and culmral world can on I)' be. a maner of informed gue.ss work. j.(, E\•cn if some of the gentile Christ-followers had previously been wel l acquainted with the &riptures and Jewish tradition this \Vas most likc:ly not the case for all of them. The proclamation of the message of the gospel ro gentiles thus invol\'cd a process of transmission from one cultural context to another (even if there was some overlap between them)..;; It is not difficult to envisage that in this transmission process between source and targe.t something mar have been lost or may have been heard different!}' by the. addressees, 'lost in translation' so to s.ay..u In this study I will focus primaril)' on the aspect of the source in this process of transmission, that is the authors' cmbe.ddcdncss. 3"~ But funher research into the proccss of transmission of the message of the gospd lx-twccn different cultures is rcquircd.-'<~ The presupposition of Paul's embcddedness in a 'world' which was shaped by the Jewish Scriptures and traditions is combined here with the: view that this tradition was not mcrelr a religious 33. See Horsley \o,.·ho notes that "As bttomcs unavoidably C\'ident in the Corinthinn correspondencr . .. Pilul did not share much of a common cultural hr riragc with his t~udience' (2000: 84). 34. In this respect my approoch could be called a "canonical approach• to Pttu1 (informOO by Rendrorff), n:ading Paul in the light of the Hebrew S.:riprures r-..nher than in the light of 1ater New TC'stament traditions. 35. The- rccognition of this most likd)' informed Baur in his per.:eption of Paul as the one who 'trilnslatcd' the mess::tge of rhc gospe-l into ·Hdlensim', and thC't<:br liberated the gospel from the consttaints of Jewish p:trticulorism to iu uni\'t"rSJI truth. Cf. lding which percei\·es the IC'ttC'1S as theological rrcanscs. 40. On basic i ncom p:~tibi liti<s bctwcen Roman and j ewish JX'tCepcions of dependC'ncy :lnd domination see Bllrrosch 2002: 141.

Reading tbe. Pauline Letters

9

belief system but encompassed all d imensions o f life. The fact chat in ancient societies a separate c.oncept of 'religion' did not exist is taken into ac.count, thus political as wel l as economic factors and the: 'religious' dimension arc seen as inseparably intertwined:• Political and economic factors thus arc seen as having significantly influenced the ('.arlr Christ·movcmcnt:11 1.2 .2 The Social, Political, and 'Religious' Context - The Romau Empire

Jews, induding Christ-followers, whcthc.r they lived in the Roman province of Judac:a~ provinces in its immediate ndghbourhood~ or elsewhere around the Mcditt'.rranc.an basin~ livt'd under the conditions set b}' Roman imp
See Stegemann 1003: 43-69. Cf. c:.g. Freyn.: 1002a: 37-5 1. Also Stegemonn/Stcg.:m:mn 1999: 15- 52. lbhru.sch 2001: 137-41. Bahru.so:h 2001: 48. On the economic realities of Rome's rulr as a poremial source of conflict SC'C Freyne

45. 1002: 136-51. 46. Bahru.sch maintains that this actu:.llly mt"ttns thnt Rome could not .accept rdigious pluralis-m proper at .aU (2001: 118).

10

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

and onl)' God of Israel and the idenrit)'·shaping dimension this loyalt)' had for their wa)' of lifc, \vas actually inc.ompatiblc \vith these goals o f Roman imperial polic)'.4 ':' This was recognized very early on br Cicero who already in 53 sc:F. in his Pro Fiacco claimed that Jewish cult and practice stood in contrast to the splendour of the c.mpirc) the dignity of ic.s name and the order of its anccstors.411 Cicero was wdl aware that rhc religio of the Jews encompassed political dimensions which were incompatible. with the intcrc.sts of the empire. This basic. incompatibility was to lc.ad to increasing tensions in Judac.a but also occasionally bctwcc.n Jewish communities elsewhere. and impe-rial authorities. Tc.nsion d id not constantly burst into open c.onAict but it certainly produced a kind of constantly pervasive insecurity and ambiguity in Roman-Jewish relations. Since the early Christ-movement, including Pauk his collc.ague.s and communitie-s, were part o f the jewish communities throughout rhe empire, these tensions must have had some effect o n the.m as well. In addition to the general incompatibil ity o f Judaism with imperial ideology~ the Christmovement followed one who had died on a Roman cross, that is, they specifically rdated to a Galilean who had been e.xe.cutcd in a clash with Roman imperial power. Thus the context of the Roman Empire fa r from providing the. mere background of the events rc.sulting in the emergence o f the early Christ-movement, is the eva-present foreground the early Christ· fo11owcrs and the Jewish communitic.s had to rdatc to and with which they had to interact. The political dimension inhe.rcnt in the Pauline lette.rs has caught rhe attention o f a number of scholars (R. Horsley, N. Elliott, ~rlicr also D. Georgi}.41 One of the first to draw anention to this dimension in the Pauline discourse was the Jewish philosophe-r Jacob Taubes whose lect ures on Romans in Heidelberg in 1987 were published posthumously in Gem1an in 1993. He maintained that the opening verses o f Romans 'is a political declaration of war' and •... in this sense the Epistle to the Romans is a political declaration of war on the Cacsar.'so Even if I were to e\•aluatc the Pauline language and discourse more moderately, I consider the political and religious dimensions as inevitably inte.mvined in the message of the gospel inasmuch as this was the case in Roman society. In the context of an empire which was organize,d as a stricti)' hierarchical, auroc.ratic structure, 47. Bahrusch notes that not only did such tol-erance- not -exist in the Roman -empir-e, but it was also foreign to Hdlrnis:m, -as only what was: the ~me was: assimilatrd into 1he Hdlrnis:tic p.1nthcon. Wh-at \V"J.S diffe-r-ent could nor be integrated, ·... dcr ji"ldischr Monothrismus w:1r nicht nur inhaltlich vOIIig nnders als dcr hdlenisrischc Polytheismus, er W!lr \'Or allem in besondcrer Weise politis-.::h und gewiss ni.:ht in den hellcnisrichrn GOn<"rhimmd int<"grir rbar.• (2002: 57). 48. ·sua cuique civit-..n i rd igio, Ladi, C"St, nostra nobis. Stantibus Hicrosol)·mis pacatisque 1u
Reading tbe. Pauline Letters

11

a structure embodied by the absolute ruler who claimed and was hailed to be 'the Fathe.r of the Fatherland', Saviour, Pcacemakc.r etc., the mc.re claim to call no one 'father' except God, and to proclaim another Saviour or a peace other than the peace. and justice of Rome was an act of resista nce to the dominant and dominating imperial orde.r.j• It is presupposed in this study that the imperial context had a significant impact on the dynamics o f power to which the Pauline letters bc.a r witne-ss. Still part o f Judaism, with their specific wimess to Christ crucified, the Christ-following communities formed a sub-groupH which proclaimed a message which implkitl)' challenged Roman imperial power. Inasmuch as the.sc groups were a lso living in the context of Grae.co-Roman society the.y were influenced by aspects of this. But to acknowledge such influence is not the same as to propose that they shared these aspects. 1 have: alre.ady mentioned the issue of the usc o f the Greek language. In a similar \'e.in one needs to ask whether the usc of titles and tams dear1r resonating with Roman imperial propaganda indicate.s a sharing in the values promoted by Rome or rather dc.notes that the.y serve a \'cry different purpose. A similar issue arises when Paul's literacy and rhetorical skills a rc naluate.d. Do they indicate, as they would if he were part of Roman society, that he was a mcmbc.r of the upper strata of this society, the 3 per c.c nt of the e.n tirc population of the empire which formed the dite ?H T his is very un1ikcly since most of the Jewish intellectual d itc were not land-owners (which was the decis ive criterion in antiquity by which me.mbcrship in the upper classes was determined) but usually had to work ro make a living, in a variety o f profc.ssions ..« Thus unlike Gracco-Roman literature, ancic.nt jewish literary sources, •do not reflect the upper-class view only but were more varic.gated in their perspective' as Hcszer notes.js Presupposing that the Pauline letters, and in fact all New Testament writings fall into the category of 'ancient Jewish literar)' sources' they do not reflect an elite perspective but most likdy indicate a lower-class perspective~ that is the perspective of people who lived not only economic.a ll)' but a lso ideologica lly at the margins of the empire.

1.3 The Focus of this Stud)' T he all-pervasive patriarchal domination panern of societie-s in antiquity is another issue which is critically discussed, particularly in gender-sensitive

,

51. .

Cf. also Caner 2006: 83- 99 .

Cf. Nanos 1996: 13-10; Esl
53.

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

12

approaches. J have. argued elsewhere that this is the given structure of these socktics, and that Paul and the entire c.arl)' Christ-movement were children of their time even in this respect. However, the .sometimes c.x plicit, and more often implicit, patriarchal pcnpc-ctivc on gender relations (as e.g. in 1 Cor. 11.2-16) should not obscure the reading of other parts of the letters which dearly call for ways of life which differ radically from the values promoted in the dominant society (as e.g. Rom. 14.1 -lS.lJ).u As luzia Sutter Rehmann notc.s 'Much more is involved now than the "question about women" in Paul, more chan a c.r itica1 deconstruction of androccntric writings, more than the contribution made by the female point of vicw.'.s" Moreover, more rc.sc.arch on the implications of androcc.ntrk perceptions and structures on different class levels is needed since they C-C'rtainlr diffcre.d to a significant extent. Also to be noted is the. fact that the idco1ogic.al underpinnings of this androcrntrism wc.rr nor idrntka1 in each socicty..s11 Powc.r issues in rhe Pauline letters arc all-pervasive including, but by no mc.ans limited to, ·women~s issues'. Thus although the focus of this study of the Pauline letters is not particular!)' on the implications of the d)'namics of power for women, I presuppose that, c.xcept where exp1ic.itly stated otherwise, women arc always present as active members of the movement. Thus, for example, the frequent address cXsiA¢101 is taken as referring to both women and men. I am aware €hat this prc.supposition has similarities with the claim that 'women' were/arc included in patriarchal language, but there arc sufficient explicit references in the letters thcmseh·cs to the presc.nc.e and role of women in the Christ·movemem, to substantiate the presupposition of thc.m being present and addressed C\'cn when not explicitly mentioned. The dynamics of power is also not limited (0 the usc of parlkular terms such as E.~ouola, 5uvaplc; or dpx~- \'\lhere.as e-ach of these terms refers to aspects of a power discourse in specific ways and contexts, the dynamics of power of which traces can be- found in the Pauline letters, arc nor restricted to the occurrence of explicit power terminology. These terms in themselve-s oscillate betwc.cn a wide range of meanings, not all of which neadr fit into c-ategories of powu. In a number of chapters I will deal with aspects of the 'power~ terminology as re-levant in its specific tc.xtual and/or historical context, but I will not deal with terminological issues as such, since a thorough analysis of this ferminology would require a study in its own right.·" This smdr docs not pro\'ide a detailed terminological analysis of Greek words usually pcrcc.ivcd as fitting into the-cate.gory of 'powe.r'. M)' particular interc.s-t lies rather with what I would call 'the network of power', that is, with aspects of group dynamics within the earlr Christ·movemcnt in the conrc.xt of Judaism under the conditions of the empire as outline.d above. 56. 57.

For :.1 more dliled discussion of this S« F.hrcnsp«ger 2004:.'1: 27--42. Sunc:r Rehm:lnn 2000: 5. 58. Arriswtlc:'s perception of womC"n diffC"rs r~dically from c:.g. rhc Genesis nour:uivc, (Politica tl54b.ll), cf. F.hrenspcrger 1004:.'1: 93-4. 59. Some :.1sprcts of 'power'. terminology h:.1vc b«'n dealt with in srudies such as Krug 100 I; Horsley lOOOb, 2004a, and 1004b.

Reading tbe. Pauline Letters

13

The wide field of literature of Second Temple Judaism would most likely provide significa nt insights into the study of the dynamics of power in the Pauline letters. But this is a major research project which c.a nnot be undcrtakc.n within the space of this monograph. I will thus focus on the scriptural dimension of the Pauline c.mbeddcdness, being aware that there i.s a field o f research out then;. T his study docs not deal with a theology of power since its focus is not

on the power of God (althoogh it will touch upon the dynamics of power in relation to the divine where this is an issue in the Pauline letters). Nor doc.s this study address the big issue of the relationship between Church and state or ci\•ic powers. The passage which is pcrccive.d as e.x p1icitl)' and in many interpretations as paradigmatically dc.a ling with this relations hip, Rom. 13.1-7, is, in my view, limited, contextual advice given under specific circumstanc.es. It serves a particular func tion under the c ircums tances then prevailing which do not allow us to neatly universalize them into something like •paul's rule concerning the. Christians relationship to the state'.00 As an attempt to understand some of the power dynamics within the early Christ· movement, and ho\V the early Christ-followers related to the Empire, this passage is only of limited significance. T his is not to deny the fact that the earl)' Chris t-movcmc.nt did live under the conditions set by Roman impc.rial power a nd societ}' a nd that this had a decisive influence on the power dynamics within the movement general!)', not only when the relationship between Christ-followers and Empire authorities is e.x plicirly addressed. As mentioned abO\•c (1.2.2}, this is one of the presuppositions which guide this research. T his s tudy docs not sc.r k to extract an ethics of power from the Pauline letters; or to dr\•elop a contemporary ethic.s o f power in light o f the Pauline letters. Rathc.r it seeks to lis te.n into the conversation o f c.a rly Christ-followe.rs, trying to hc.a r what they say about, and hO\v they dc-.al with, issues of power within their movement, embedded in the Scriptures and informed by traditions about Christ. This listening is informed by contemporary iss ues of power which a rc a matter o f concern in churches and societies today. It is driven by the hope. that aspe.cts of the ea rly Christ-followe.rs' conversa tion, without providing d irc.ct guidance, may stimulate and illuminate contemporary com•c.rsations and thus contribute to chc finding o f ways to negotiate. t he drnamics o f power in contempora ry c.h urchcs a nd societies so that thc.y contribute to the life and well -being o f all their members.

60.

Cf. Stubbs 1004, also Flliott 1005b and Horrdl 1005: 151-57.

14

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 1.4 Pla11 of the Book

The second chapter provides an overview of key aspects of the contemporary debate on power. In view of its rcln·ancc for the study o f the. Pauline letters, particular interest will be paid to the: focus on the differentiation of power as power-over, powcNo and power-with. The most significant dimension of this debate is seen in the contribution of scholars such as Hannah Arendt, who c.hallcngc the perception of power as cxclusi\·cly dominating and controlling) that is1 as something which is alwa)'S asymmetrical, and thus limits the options and possibilitic.s of action of others. Although her provocative approach to power as communicative action was widdy dismissed as idc.alistic1 her strc.ss on positive and empowering aspe-CfS of power has had a lasting impact in \'arious more recent approache.s. Thus it is wide!)' acknowlc.dged that the perception of power cxclusi\•dy as power exercised over others is only one. dimension of power, and other aspecrs arc significant when social interactions arc analysed. This is pcrceivc.d as being of great importanc.e for a rc.ading of the traces of the power dynamics in the Pauline letters. Chapter 3 focuse.s on how this dynamics of power was exercised within the \'arious communities/fKKAEolal of the early Christ-movement. Particular attention will be paid to the differen t wa)'S apostles and co-workers in Christ relate to each other on the one hand, and to the communities on the other, in order to create and sustain a network of communities. The letters arc seen as one medium through which this network was maintained despite the distances between the communities and the ua\'dling agents, and it will be discussed if and how the exercise of power between all those involved in this movcme.n t was possible even at a distance. The relationships between the members as communities of siblings is another focus o f attention in this chapter. This needs to be differentiated from the SJX'cific patterns o f relationships between those travelling between the communities - mainly, but not cxclusivel)\ apostles - and the communitic.s themsclvc.s. In Chapter 4 it will be demonstrated through an analysis of the discourse o f grace that the issue of power exerc.iscd through it is not inextricably connected with some inherent or d isguised form of control, or power-over, but rathc.r with the notion of concrete activity on behalf of others, that is, with something thaf resonates with Hannah Arendt's notion of power emerging in communic.ativc action for the enhancement o f the life of all involved in the proc.rs.-s. Chapters 5 and 6 address issues of the Pauline perc-eption of the function of apostle.ship within the movement. Jt will be argued that although this understanding implies daims of specific authority and leadership fu nctions, these arc not restricted to Paul himself, but arc regarded as characteristic for all who arc perceived by the fKt
Reading tbe. Pauline Letters

15

entirely within the parameters of the values of the kingdom, and with the recognition that not e\•e.n the strongest leadership d aims could have ignored the all-pervasive constraints put upon them by the empire. Jn Chapte.rs 7 and 8, aspects of the trans-formative dimension of power will be at the: centre. o f attention, focusing on the role- o f Paul as one who aims at socializing a group into a value S)'Stem which for them is very new, that is the value system of the kingdom/Christ, embe.dded in the Scripture.s and Je.wish tradition. He is thereby seen in the role of a teacher, \vho doc:s exercise power, who doc.s claim to maintain boundaric:s of ethica l orientation, and who seeks consciously to shape their identity. [n good tc-.aching practice he tries!daims to embody the me-ssage he proclaims and the guidance he tc-.ache.s as a trustworthy messenger of the gospel, thus presenting himself as an example from which the communities may learn to live in Christ . Chapter 9 argues that the aim of this teaching of Christ is to guide these newt primarily gentile, Christfollowers into an 'attitude' of hearing and responding to che call of God by embracing/embodying the 'way' within a nd (hrough a ll aspects of thdr lives. T hus the a im of the guidance provided is transformative 1 b<-.ing rooted in a previouslr c:stablished relationship based on trust. T he power operative in this guidance can only be opc.rative inasmuch as the basis of the relationship is not in an}' way in doubt, tha t ist as long as tmst is maintained between all invoh•«l in the relationship. Chapter 10 concludes by emphasizing that the exercise of even transformativc power can only be cffcnive if it is base-d on trust, and thus opcrate.s in conformity to the message proclaimed. The c.x crcise of power in the form o f control or domination) in the vein of oppression and wich the help of force~ is a contradiction in the context of this movement. T his is not to claim that .such exercise was impossible, and that Paul and other apostles, or le.aders and followers of Christ generally were not prone to dominating and controlling tendencies - the exercise of power is alwa)'S dangerous. But being prone to a tc.ndcncy and the perception of the dominating .and contro11ing exercise of power as not only appropriate, but also legitimate) in light of the Christ-event arc two differen t things. Moreovu, it should be remembered that there. were no ways and means by which an)•body in the c.arly Christ-moveme.nt could ha'lc enforced power claims by force or violence:. Rather, as 1 hope to have demonstrated by the e.n d of this sttld)', the exercise of power within the early Christ-movement was guided by the Scripturc:s and the Christ-nent. It was exercised in \'arious forms 1 asymmetrical in certain contexts) and involved in boundary setting in others, but overall aimed at empowering one another fo r a wa}' of life in response-ability co the call of God.

Chapter 2 C ONCEPTS OF POWER IN CONTE~I PORA RY THEORY

The purpose of this chaptc.r is to sketch out aspects of the c.o mc.mporary discussion of ' power' in politic-al and soc.ia l theory as the contc.mporary context and background for this analysis of the dynamics of power in the Pauline lc.ttcrs. However, the intention is not to apply one particular model to the Pauline discourse and interpret from this perspective. Rachcr, the aim is to gain some insight into the issues that arc at stake in the c.ontcmporary debate on power., and then embark on a rt'.ading of the Pauline discourse in light of and in conversation with thc.sc. The term ' power' is frequently used in cvcrydar language where it seems to cause few problems for an understanding. It appc.ars to be clear and obvious what is meant by it, although the valuation that often goes with the usc o f the term ' power' or related terminology can differ widely. Pe:rceptions of power range from viewing it as the ultimate evil) to something neutral or something to be positively appreciatc.d. It is rhus not much of a surprise that upon reflection) what 'power' acn1ally is, is far from clc-.ar. This becomcscvidc.n t when politi~l, philosophical and social-scientific analyses of power arc st udied. It cmc.rgcs that it is a highly contested and vlvidly debated concept/issue not only in r«cnt political and social thcory but also within a long history in political and philosophic.al discourses In \Vcstc.rn tradition.' HistoricaVdiachronic studies, such as those br Michel Foucault) have contributed significantly to the insight into the divcrsit}' of the perceptions of •power' and their cultural and historical contexts. 1 Inasmuch as such historical studies arc necessary and valuable contributions to the debate on •power', they also demonstrate that conclusions from perceptions of the discourse of power in societies and among groups in previous cr.n turics arc to be trc.atc.d with caution. The. data available is limited as is the perception of the rc.searchcr.J Thus, this study 1. My study will focus on this tr::.dition. h takC's imo account the most rC'c
l. Cf. e-.g. Foucault 1971, 1979. Foucault himse-lf was :1\vare of such limitatio-ns: 'It is tnl<' that we h:tve to give up 3. hope of c-~·c-r acceding to a point of viC'W thut could giv< access to a comple-te- ~nd definitive knowledge of what m-ay consrirute our historic~ l limits. And from this po-int of ~·i ew the th<"orc:tical ~nd procric:1l expc"riencc- that we ha\'C" our limits and the possibility of moving beyond them is~ l ways limited nnd det
Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

17

will not provide a historic:al acc.ount of power relations in the first century C E but will prcscm a reading of a first-century discourse~ the Pauline letters, in the light of and in conversation with contemporary theories of powc.r. This chapter will thus give an overview of issuc.s raised in c.ontcmpornry debates on power rdcvant to rhis comparative exercise.

2.1 Definitions of Powe-r It ca nnot be ignored that thc recent dcbatc.s on ' power' arc. still shaped or at least influenced by the thought and writings of Max Weber. Although his definition of power is far from bc.ing uncontested, no contc.mporary approach can ignore Weber's contribution. Debates evolve in agreement, \'ariation or diffe-rentiation from ·weber's classical definition of power as' ... the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position co c.arry out his own will despite resista nce, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.' 4 Although \X'e0Cr asserts that domination is a specific application of power he nevertheless perceives domination to be one of the most important dements o f social interaction. T his perception of power as 'power-over~ has been differentiated a nd challenged from numerous perspectives in the last three decades. I will return to this debate later in the chaptc.r. O ther scholars perceive power as a capacity or ability to do something, to have an effect on something - 'powe-r-to' achine what an individual or a group set om to do. This aspect was particularly highlighte.d in the last century by Hannah Arendt who defined power as 'the human a bility not just to act but to act in concert.'! T his view is supported by taking etymological aspects into account as has been highlighted by Peter Morriss in the introduction to the second edition of his philosophical analysis of power.6 He directs the reader's attencion to the differenc.cs in me.aning of terms in other languages which in English would be rendered by the term 'powe r~ . This is taken as an indication that 'power' act ually is not perceived as being one-dimensional. It is some.thing which seems to be experienced different!)' according to diverse cultural, contextual and situational loc.ations. T hus, Morriss notes that in Russian 'vlast' de.arlv indicates power as ' power-over' , a nd has a n inherently dominating me.mtini,

.l£~ i n' (Foucault 1984:~ :

47). HC' also exp-licitly st:JtC'd th:u hi.s modd of an an:~l ysis of powlted with~ gm«al nnalrtics of C'very possible pow<'r rebtion' (Fouc:Jult t984b: 3801. A simil:1r :.warC'nru and restriction can bC' found in Bourdieu 1000: 94- 127. 4. \'1/ebc-r 1957: 151. Or as he: put it (';lrli« in thC' sam<' work: 'Pow« ffi(';lllS every ch t~nce within :1 social rd:Jtionship co .-.SSC"n one's will ('~·en ago1inst oppo.sirion' \'fC'bcr 192 5:

16.

5. 6.

Ar~'tldt 1970: 44. Morriss 1002: xiv- x\·ii.

18

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

whereas the German 'Macht\ the Frc.nch 'pouvoir', and the Jtalian 'potcrc' arc derived cithc.r from the verb 'vcrm8gcn' (Macht), or the. Latin ·porcrc', 'potc.stas' which all rc:fcr to the concept of being able to do or achieve something. to have an effect on someone. The issue of power-over or domination is a possible secondary mc-.aning which thc.se terms c.an carry but which need not necessarily and always be the c.asc. A similar ambiguity seems to be carried by the English term ' power', which is also rdatcd to the l atin word-stem ' pot' .... Morriss vic.ws these language-related differences as clear indic.a tions that a perception of power in any possible context as always c.arrring the meaning of powc.r-ovcr or of domination c.annor be maintained.' Nevc.rthcle.ss, a definition of power soldy as 'the abilit}' to act in concert~, rhus distinguishing power from authority, strength, force. and viole.ncc:, has bec:n criticized as too limited a perception as well) as it excludes any strategic aspc.cts from an anal)'sis of 'powc.r' referring the.m to these other cate.gories.' Habcrmas and others emphasize that the strategic - or powcr·over - aspc.ct of power cannot be: excluded from a definition and critical discussion of power since thereb}' the dimension which is most troublesome. and which studie.s of power arc often most interc.sted in, would not be addre-ssed at all. Thus concepts which try to acc.ount for both dimensions of power in various combinations have been devclopcd 10 alongside concepts which adhere to the vic.w that power-over and power-to rder to completclr differen t meanings of the term 'power' and that they therefore cannot possibly be subsumed under one and the same definition or the.ory." This first brief overview of the main conte.sted aspects of the contemporary power debate demonstrates that thc.rc is more going on in this debate. than a mere discussion about the proper definition o f a word. Nevertheless, there is one aspect on which most participants in the debate seem to be more or less in agreement: it is barely contested that to speak of power implies a refcrenc.e to social relations and to social interaction. Power is pc:rc.cive.d as relational in that it significantly i nRuencc.s~ or emc-rges out of1 interactions among agents. It exists only in its cxercise.u This applies to perceptions of power as powcr·o\•er as well to perceptions of power as powe.r-to. Moreover) thc.rc is some sort of agreement that the d iscourse of power in societies is not confined to the political sphere but is present wherever 7. See Morriss 2002: xv-xvii, a{so 8-12. Cf also Pitkin who notC'S the e-tymologi-cal rdotion of the English renn ·power' with the French 'pou\·o i r~ and the Larin 'potcrl!'' ' ... power is a some-thing ... which makes or renders somebod}" able to do, <:apabk of doing some-thing. Power is -capacity, potrmial, 01bilirr. or whe-rewithal• l1972: 276). 8. Cf. Morriss 2002: XY-X\'i. He notes ' ... the locution of -pow.:r over.. has~ sp«ific use of its own; it is not th!!' general, and c:errainl)· not rbc main way we talk of power.' l2002: 33J.There arc otht'T aspects which support these linguisti-c ind i~"'3ti on.s which will be dis..:u.s.scd later in this -chapter. 9. See Habrrmas•s distinguished -critique- of Arendt. IHabC'rmas 1986: 3-24 •. 10. Allen t999n and Lukes 2005. 11. So Pitkin 1972 nnd W:1rt<."nbc-rg 1990: 10-21. 12. Allen 2002: 142.

Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

19

humans intcract.U The distinction Hannah Arendt tried to draw between public. and private docs not hold, as particularlr Michel Foucault in his many writings on power, and feminist theorists also have demonstrated. The feminist perception of 'the private as the political' and the Foucaultian 'politic.s of everyday life' can hardly be ignorr,d in the analyse-s of power. u The fact that the field oi the definition of power is highly contested and that it is impossible to achic.vc agreement in this, points co an aspen which impacts on anr definition and discussion of pO\vcr. When thinking about concepts of powc.r it has to be taken into acc.o unt that no one approach is neutral or objective. Thus any sn1d)' of powc.r has to ask it.sdf what is the motive and interc.st for focusing on this topic in the first place. WhatC\'C'f conceptions of power we arc dealing with, and in whatever way we arc engaging in such a project- it cannot but be shaped by contexts and rdations which arc. influenced by power.u Although it is beyond dispmc that power can be exercised in a dominating wa)' (as defined by W\nd Alle-n comments on Foucauh ' ... Foucault's call for the end of man is be-st unde-rstood as the c~ll for ., critique of critique, and thus il.S the rc\·darion thor human subjC'Cu arc always embedded in contingently emcrg<'nt (and thus rransformab!cl linguisric, historical, and cuhurnl conditions• t200J: t9Jj. 16. I am inspirC'd here by Amy Allen who norc.s that "'Feminists Jl('('d a conc
20

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

felt empowered for life rather than dominated and restricted. h is with this 'altcrnati~o·c' rc.ading tradition in mind~ that I wish to embark on t his project. 2.2 'Power·Oller' or Strategic Power In the wake of Max Wcbc.r's writings about powcr'l- theories o f powc.r in the social scic.nc.cs focused significant!}' on powc.r as powu -ovcr someo ne - and more specifically o n power as domination. Weber c.crtainlr contributed decisively to the recognition of the significance of power as an aspect of social intc.raction in society, in his pcrcc.ption of domination as c.onstituting a special case. of power which nc.vcnhclc.ss 'is one of the most imponant dements of social action'. 111 T his dtrc.ad of argumentation has bcc.n taken up by scholars such as Steven Luke.s who with his study Power: A Radical Vie~u (1974) triggered a wide and ongoing debate. " Lukes defined power as follows: 'A exercises po\ver over B when A affects Bin a manner contrary to s~s intercsts!!o [n his comments in the second edition Lukes' concedes that in Power: A Radical View he had exclusively addressed issues related to a concept o f power as domination and w the que.stion how the agents in a SUJXrior position secure the compliance of the subordinates. Whereas the e.arlier discussion pcrce.ived of power almost exclusively as power·ovc-.r and equated this with domination, the following d iscussion demonstrated the nee.d for more d ifferentiation in the debate. Thus Lukes~ in the new chaptc.rs of the. second edition~ concedes that domination is one specific aspect o f power - and even o nly one specific aspc.ct of power·over. He now de.sc.ribes power as an "agent's ability to bring about significant effects, specifically in furthe ring the.ir own interests and/or affecting the interests of others, whether positively or negari\•cly'.!l Domination, then, is perceive.d as the abilit}' of an agent to limit the options and choices of others. The mc-.ans to achieve- such domination is through the e.xcrciS<". o f force~ coerciont or by securing the compliance of the subordinates.!! Lukes maintains that this last aspect drives Foucault's massive and influential work. Fouc.ault's approach is thus loc:ated within the power· over paradigm. [n contrast with othc.r approaches, Foucault docs not view power as something which is in the possession of some and thus can be e.xercise.d over others. He maintains that 'power ... is not that which makes a diffc.rc.nce between those: who exclusively possess and retain it, and 1hosc who do not have it and submit to it. Power must be analysed as something which circulates, or rather as something which only functions in the form o f 18. 19. 20. 11. 12.

\'<'rbrr now in l ukrs 1986:28. This led to the publication of an amc:ndc-d second e-dition in 1005. l.ukrs 2005: 30. l.ukrs 2005:65. l.ukrs 2005: 85, nlso \V..utrnbrrg 1990: 93- 96.

Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

21

a chain.m Foucault thus 0\'crcomcs to some cxt<'.n t the. dualistic perception of power as simplr creating dominating and dominated agents in that he describes power as a nc.twork of interaction within which individuals arc 'vehicles of power, not its points of applica tion'.u His aim is to discover how within this network subjc.cts arc actually constituted through many dive-rse energies, forces~ desires, influences - and in turn contribute as active agents to the constitution of subjccts.zs Thus power is not merely exercised by a state. or instinnionalizcd authority but is seen as a mobile. set o f force relations thal arc permeating societies as a whole. Foucault thus emphasizes that power is an unavoidable. clement o f social life which has to be accounted for in any analysis of groups and their interaction within societies as well as of societies as a whole. He also warns against visions which depict ide.al social interactions as interaction from which power is absent. Such visions arc at best mere illusions and at rhe.ir worst they arc dangerous as thc.y ignore decisive facto rs of socia1 interaction b)' submerging them into the unnoticed. The problem is not the pre-sence. of power a.s such but rather the hindrance of a free Row of power among its various agents. As long as this Row of power is guaranteed within a group or society and power relations remain variable and unstable and thus mutable., even asymmetry is not a problem. But states of domination arc established when the relations of power arc fixe.d in such a way that they are perpen1ally asymmctrkal and the margin of liberty is c.xtremdr limited. 16 Foucaulf s approach is significant to this study sinc.e he is one of the theorists who raised fundamental criticisms against an understanding of power which presupposes as the paradigmatic model, the relation of a powerful agent who impoS<'.s his will on a powerless subordinate. His e.mphasis on the. all-pcrvasivenc.ss of power and the differentiated perception of asymmetry and hierarchy in social relations deserves further consideration in our reading of the Pauline discoursc.1 7 But his perception still operates within the constra ints of a paradigm of power as power-over>as stratc-gic - as a means by which agents tr)' to determine the choices, behaviour or options of others, cvc.n though this is not necc.ssarily pursued by means of cocrc.ion or C\'en violence. but through the compliance o f willing subjc.cts. Foucault thus docs not pc.rccivc o f power as something bad, but always as something dangc.rous since it can c-.asilr tum into domination.l8 Jn viewing power solely in strategic terms Foucaulrs approach docs not allow for a perception of power whk h has positive and empo\vcring impacts on social relationships. This is one of d1e major c.ritiques of Foucault~s stance which has been raised 13. Foucaub in Lukes 1986: 233-34. 24. Foucault in Lukes 1986:234. 15. Foucault 1986: 233. 16. Foucault 1988: 3. 27. Cf. Chapter 3. 18. Foucault 1988: 18, ~ lso AIIC'n 2002: 141; WartC'nbcrg 1990: 1 13. On a reading of the P:HIIinc discourse from within a Fouc~uhian framC'work sec the signilic:uu study b)' Polaski 1999.

22

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

by feminist theorists. His approach docs not hdp to analyse or explain power which arises from solidarit)'> or powc.r arising from the conscnsu.s of a group of people to act togcthc.r. It also docs not account for what has bcc:n called 'trnnsformativc power' .

2.3 "Power-to' or CommunicatiliC Power The perception o f power as power-over and rhus inhcrcndy dominating or at least dangerous has been challenged parricularly by Hannah Arendt as it conccivc.s of powr.r as an cntircl}' negative, cvc.n repressive force. Arendt mainta ins that the logica l consequence of a defi nition of po\~t'cr as powerover- or, in her perception) according to a command-obedience model - is that violence is the ultimate form that power ca n take. Violence then is a

particular way through which power can be exercised. This reduces power to domination in various forms which in her view have nothing to do with power at all. She distinguishes betwee.n powc.r, strength) force, authority and \'iolcncc:,n and notes that •power is indeed of the e.sscnce of all go\'c.rnmcnt, but violence is not.'JO Violence i.s instrumental~ a means to achie\o'e an end, power is not. She nen maintains chat 'power and violence arc o pposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absc:nt.'.l 1 It is viokncc which always invokes a command-obe-dience: structure whereas power is neither command or rule but collaboration and action~ it is •... the human abilit}' not just to act bm to act in conc.c.rt. Power is never the property of an individual; it bclong.s to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group kc:e.ps together.'.ll Power cannot be fully realized where violence reigns. She emphasizes that 'Power is actualized only where word and dcc:.d have not parted company, where words arc not empty and d«ds arc not brutal, where words arc not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities~ and deeds arc: not used to \~o l a te and de.stroy but to establish relations and create new re.alitie.s.m In addition to distinguishing power from \'iolc.ncc etc. 1 Arendt share.s with Foucault and others che view that power is not something one can possess, not something that some have which can be stored and then applied over othc.rs, and which others do not ha\•e. She stres-ses that power c.xists only in its actualization; it •is always .. . a power potential and not an unchangeable, measurable, and reliable c.ntit)' like force or strength'; it 'springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment when they dispcrse.)4

29. Arendt 1970: 44-7. 30. Arendt 1970: 51. 3 I. Arctldt 1970: 56. This is a concc-prual distinc.'1ion and Arendt is wdl.-.warC' that 'in the rC':tl world' powC'r and ' 'iolencc arc more often rhan nor inextricably intcrm·ined. 32. Arendt 1970: 44. 33. Ar~'tld t 1958: 100. 34. Arendt l9;8: 200.

Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

_,

?'

Thus power derives from rc.ciproc.al collective action>that is, it is inherently intcrtv.•incd with action which takes places within a web o f relationships with other acrorst and its main purpose is to establish and maintain this web of rclationship.J~ She states chat action •is never possible in isolation; to be isolated is m be deprived of the capacity to act'.-.,, Other aspects of Hannah Arendt's political thinking ha\'c co be mentioned here briefly as her conception of power is closcl)' related to these. To perceive of po\vcr as a collccti't'C, relational phenomenon for Arendt implies the plurality of human beings. If \'lC were all the same, communication and action in concert would be superfluous. Rdarionality and group solidarity do not rest on some sharc.d identity in the sense. of inherem sameness, such as a same essence~ a same experiencC of oppression or posse.ssion etc. She states that 'Plurality is the condition of human action bt-cause we arc all the same, that is, human> in such a way that nobody is e.ver the same as anyone else who ever li'fc.d, li'fcs, or will live.'.l7 This should not be understood as a promotion of individualism or existentialism as Arendt d early reje.cts 'all notions of man creating himself' since they 'ha\•e in common a rebellion against the very factuality of the human condition - nothing is more obvious than that man ... docs not owe his cxistcnc.e to himsclf.'·011 But she maintains that the very fact that human beings do c.ommunicate and act in concen indicates that the presupposition of sameness or a share.d ontological identity is flawed. Nevcnhclcss, she doc.s not advocate the entire abandonment o f the notion of commonality, acknowle-dging that communication and action in concert would be impossible if we were all radically differc.nt. Arendt advocates a perception of a d ialc.ctic.al relationship betwcc.n equality and distinction, commonalit}' and diffc.rcnc.c. Although she. e-mphasizes difference in her writings she doc.s not gi\•c up the notion of identity categories c:ntirclr. But in ascribing some validity to group identities she. warns against taking these as fixed> natural or ncn historicallr determined. She maintains chat identities should be perceived as webs constructed ouc of fabrics of differences and distinction. It is circumstances rather than ontological essentials which drive 35.

Cf. Allen 1002: 137.

Arendt 1958: 188. Arendt 1958: 8. She- funher note-s 'Hum:1n plurality, the txlsic condition of both t~crion :md speech, h:t.s the- rwofold ch-arncter of equality -and distinction. If mrn wcre not equal, they c:ould ncither understand (';lCh othe-r and thosr who C:lrtlC' before- the-m nor plt~n for tbr furore- and for<s« the n«ds of rhosc who will come afrcr thcm. If mcn wrre not distinguishrd, e-ach hum::ln bring distinguishe-d from :my othe-r who is, was, or will be-, the-y n«-d nrithrr sp«.:h nor acrion to make themsclvcs understood' ( 1958: 175-76). 38. Arendt 1970: 13. She cmphasius that ·... the id(';l of man creating himsclf is stricdy in th< n;.1dirion of Hegdian nnd "'brxian thinking ... According to Hegd nmn "'produccs,. himsd f through thought, whc-re:1s for .Marx, who turne-d Hrgcl's '"idealism.. upside- down, it was labor ... th-at fulfilf.ed this fun~1i on' l1970: 12-1 3}. S« nlso her earlier conlmrnt "... nobOOy is the- :1mhor or produce-r of his own life- story ... the stories, the results of t~ctions .md speech, rrve:~l an :1grm, but this agrnc is not nn author or produc:cr. Some-body brg..1n it t111d is its subj.C'ct in the twofold srnsr of fhe word, namdy its :IC:tor and suffe-rer, but nobOOy is its t~ u thor' ( 1958: 184). 36. 37.

24

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

people to perceive o f certain facts and expcric.ncc.s as forming something like a common idcntity:111

Plurality and difference arc at thc hc.art of Arendt's pc.rc.cption of power as communic.ativc action, as a fu nction of consent. As Habcrmas notc.s: ' E\'cry interaction unifies multiple perspectives of perception and action of those prc.scnt~ who as individuals occupr an inconvertible.standpoint.''"' For Arendt such communicative powc.r is inherc.ntl)' positive as it is the medium through which the space of a shared lifc·\\o'orld is acmally created. To act together thus doc.s not rdy on an essentialist and thus c.xclusionary definition of group idcntity.4t T he power of solidarity grows out of an interplay between identity and non-identity, bctwc.en c.quality and distinction. It emerges not out of a pre-existing~ exclusionary unity but out of dc.cisions and promisc.s by people through which they mutually commit themselves to act in concert. Po\\o'C r in Arendt's perception is inherently rdatcd to communities who commit themselves to act together by way of promise. and contract. [n such binding commitment, structures arc generated which enable a community to continue to gc:nc.ratc power over rime. To sustain a ' powerful' community it is crucial that its membc.rs continue to engage in promise-making, promise-keeping and fo rgiveness. T he c.o ntinuing existence of a community which emerged through power-in-action is an indica tion that the}' arc •in the process o f foundation. of constituting a sta ble worldly structure to house, as it were.~ their combined power o f action' :u Such binding commitment resulting in the formation of a community cannot be static but must be subject to ongoing revision and negotiation othe.rwisc the power emerging from it is transformed into something else. Hannah Arendt limited this discourse of power to the sphere of the public political arena. She did not pcrcdvc power, as did Foucault, as permeating the fidds of oconomy, work, family~ education etc. This is one o f the many critiques which have been raisc.d against her approach. Neverthe-less, she has drawn anention to a dimension of power as a positive aspe('t of human interaction and various theorists have followed that thread and dndoped it in critical discussions of Hannah Arcndr~s work.

2.4 Strategic ami Commtmicatitte Concepts of Power in Critical Diswssion 2.4.1 Critiques of Arendt: Habermas and Feminist Theories T he main critique which has been raised against Arendfs perception o f power (apart from the critique raised against the limitation of her concept to the 39. On this S« also Allen 1999b: 105..07 and her rtfrrcncc to Arendt 1968: 18 :tnd 1963: 171. 40. Habcrmas 1986: 78. 41. Cf. he-re Esler's discussion of F. S:tn h :tnd others on whether identity is an ontological or consrruncd c-mitr !2003: 19- 53); also C:tmpbcll2006: 2-6, 94- 96. 42. Armdr 1968:176.

Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

25

public {political) rcalm)0 is that she exdudcs any stratc.g ic aspc.ct from it in cla iming that 'strategic action is instrumental as well as violent, and that action of this t)'pt: falls outside the domain of the politic.al. ' 44 As suc.h strategic action has nothing to do with power as she defines it Habcrmas appreciates that over against a tradition of political theory which identified power with the potential for succc.ssful strategic action, Arendt maintained that 'strategic contests for political powu neither call forth nor maintain those institutions in whic.h that power is anchored. Political institutions live not from force but from rccognition.'.u But Habcm1as maintains that to pcrc.ch'c of power c.xdusivdy in te.r ms of communication is too limite.d a perception. As an analytic-al tool it is not adequate: enough to acco unt for wa)'S and means by which groups pursue certain aims and achieve certain goals. Social intc-.raction is not e-xclusively communicative and consent is not merely a means in and by itself. Habcnnas thus srrcsses that strategic action alongside communkativc action is not onl)' another form of social interaction and cannot be- equated with violence or domination. but also that inherent in communkarivc: action arc specific goals or purposes. The purposc of achieving consent in an idc.al speech-act situation \vhich is free of domination and where e\o·eryone involved can freely speak and his/her voice is he.ard, is to achieve cc-.rtain aims, to come to an agrcc.mcnt about ce-rtain issues. Communicative. acrion is not a mc.ans in itself but always strategic, according to Halx-rmas. Habcrmas~s critique of Are.ndt in this respect has bcc-.n widely recognized, also by feminist theorists, although his perception of an ideal speech-act which would allow "alidity for political decisions only when a consensus is achicve,d in 'communication free from domination' has triggered critical and ongoing debate- in turn (on which I cannot elaborate herc).46 Others have drawn attention to the fact that Arendt's concept of power docs not account for the many forms of power which do not fall into the othc.r analytical categories of Arendt's approach, that is, violence~ strength, forc.e or authorit)'· Forms of power e-xercised in and through economic factors or in famih• rdations, in relations bet\vccn men and women do not fit into Are.ndt's c.itcgoriz.ation of power. In that sense Arendt depicts too rosr a pict ure o f power. 43. Cf. Habermas who m:~inrnins that "Arcndt•s concC'pt of communic:uivdy t;C'nemtrd power c-:m become a sharp insuumr m onlr if we C'Xrric-.m: it from the d amps of ~n Anistotdi:~n theory of ncrion. ln sep:~mting prnxis from the unpolitical acrivities of working ~nd labouring on thr one sidr and of thinking on thr othc:-r, Arendt traces back political powC'r exdusi\·dy to praxis, to spe-aking and ~<:ring tog<'ther :t.s indi,·iduals' ( 1986: 83). 44. Habrrmas 1986: 84. 45. Habem1as 1986:85. 46. SeC' r .g. Bosehki who draws :utemion m thr implicntions of Habermas's pc:rception of discoursC'S of m utu~l understanding in his concept of the "id<'tll sp<'C'ch-acr• aiming :11 consc:m in thr overcoming of differcncC'. Roschki mainmins that this implirs that conscnt is achic\•rd only at (hC' expmsc of obliterating diffcrrnces. which comts d ose m ad\'oc-ating sameness as a prcsuppoS'ition of communitr. Over ng:1iost this Ros..::hki land Ar('ndt) emphasize that
26

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Despite such critique;, feminist theorists such as Amy Allen have dra\\'ll significantly on Hannah Arcndt~s concept of power in their search for a concept of power beyond a command-obcdicncc~ domination-subordination model. This sc.arch is motivated by the fact that in traditional concepts of power the relationship between men and women lc-.ads to a perception of women's role in patriarchal socicric.s as powerless vic.tims of domination. In contrast to chis, Allen views Arendt's concept of power as enabling a perception o f power whk h takc.s into account that people~ c.\'Cn though in a situation of subord ination arc noc just mere powcrlc.ss victims bm in manr circumstances arc able to form communities and act in concert~ which is a form of power in action. Arendt's approach take.s into ac.count that groups can be formed~ and the mere fact of doing this can be an act of mutual empowemtent despite and within a sinJation of domination.47 O ut of such empowering group fo rmation the power to act in solidarity can em erge. Moreover, Arendt's emphasis on plurality as the presupposition of communicative power and action provides a basis for thinking about mutuality and solidarity beyond the constraints of a concept of identit)' as same.ness. As Allen states' ... Arendt makes possible a poliric.s of shared differences'.4.s Despite the significance of Arendfs approach for thinking about power in positive temlS and for developing a perception of power as empowerment, it is in and by itself coo limited. The same applies to perceptions of power which perceive it exclusivclr in negative terms as a means co co nstrain the choicC'.s of others. Habermas and Allen, from differing perspectives, thus c-all for a perception of power which takes both the: communicati\'e as well as the: strategic aspect into account. Alle.n thus devdops a concept o f power which integrates aspects of Foucault's as well as Arendt's approach, distinguishing thrcr forms of power: power-over, power-to and power-with. These hardly ever occur in 'pure' form or arc dc.arlr separable from each other. They arc, more often than not in real-li fe circumstances, inhc.rc.ntl)' intcrtw·ined.4 ? I will deal with this aspect below (2 .4.3) but will no\1..- nm1 to one particular aspc.ct of power-over - or strategic power - which has been highlighted by Thomas \X'artenberg in his snld)' The Forms of Power: From Domim1tiou to Transformation..so

4 7. On the pow<'r of subordinate groups in the context of domination stt Scott 1990: 108-35. Elliott 2004: 118. 48. Cf. Alkn t999b: 109. This is signillcant not only for a g<'nd<'r cliscour.sc but also for oth<'r os~o:ts of social rchuions such tts etbniciry, inter-faith rdnrions ct.:. 49. This is something th"lt Ar<"ndt is wdl awore of since she st;;ltcs afur hn definitions of the v-..1rious categorirs which she diffumriates from power 'h is perhaps supcrOuous to ~dcl that these distinctions. though by no m<":lns arbitr;;lry, hardly ('\'cr correspond to watertight compartments in the: r<'al world. from which ther arc drawn' ( 1970: 46j. 50. \'<,.artenbcrg 1990.

Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

27

2.4.2 Transformative Power Wartcnbc-rg's intc.ntion is to develop a 'socia l-field thcor}' of po\vc-r-ovu',

rather than a general theory of power. He thereby rcc.ognizc:s that it is impossible to subsume all aspccrs and forms of power undc.r onc category or even deal with them in one theory. Ht' maintains that Hannah Arendt's c.ritiquc of perceptions of power as powc.r-ovcr docs not recognize that not all forms of power-over amount to the domination of the subordi nate. As

the title of his study already indicates, his pc.rccption diffcn significantly from other theories o f powc.r which focus on power-over or strategic power in that he maintains that power-over is not inhcrcmlr 'bad' and its exercise need not necessa rily le.a d to domination or oppression,u He sees a power relationship (in the sense of power-over) emerging when ' ... an agent who e.x erciscs powu over another agent does so by affecting the circumsta nces within which the agent acts and makes choices.'J.! ·w arrenberg maintains that this need not be to the disadva ntage of the one over whom power is c.xerci.sed, it can a lso be to his/her benefit. Parenting is mentioned as one e.xample of a power-rdationship where it is presupposed that children need the guidance of a nd restrictions by parents as it is assumed that they a rc not

ret fully capable of judging what is best for themselves. Such a relationship is called 'paternalistic' and is d istinguished by \'Vanenbcrg from another form o f positi\•e power-over which he ca lls 'transformative':'J Whils t Wartcnberg acknowledges that under certai n circumsta nces a paternalistic relationship might be exercised to the benefit of the dependent agent, he maintains that ' ... paternal istic relations have a n inhcre.nt drive for stability', whilst 'transformativc one.s a re inherently dynamic' ,.u As distinct from paternalistic power, the aim of transformativc power is ro render itself obsolete by means of empowering the subordinate. Despite this distinction, Wartenberg:S concept of ' transformative power' relics significantly on perceptions of parenting, in particular on re-evaluations of ' mothering} as emphasized by feminist theorists. Women as primary caretakers of children a rc ascribed a spc.cific type of power in society despite general male domination. It has bec.n maintained b)' feminist theorists that 5 1. \'<1artenbag mointains that ·.. . the repeated usc of power is not itself sufficient to ch(u·.lctC"riu ~situati on as on< in which domin:uion exists; the power must be systC"matic_..lly uSC'd by onr agl!'nt to th< dmimt nt of th< othtr _..gent• (1990: 1191. 52. Wartenbrrg 1990:88. W:~ nC"nberg furtb
Paul and the Dynamics of Power

28

' ... women have a different model of power than mcn1 one in which one's person's possc.ssion of power docs nor c.xisr through the diminishing of someone dsc's ':u The mother-child relationship is perceived as paradigmatic for a relationship in which power-over is exercised to empower and transform the other~ that is, to enhance the capabilities of the child so he/she can grow into an adult. The aim of such a relationship must be. to •... bring about a situation in which it will no longer be ncccssary~ ..s' To usc power in a transformativc way implies that it has to bring about its own dissolution and provide the basis for a relationship between equals. 'The task of such power is fulfilled when the grounds for its cxistcnc(': are no longer there. •n \X'arcenberg appreciatc.s chat the feminist emphasis of the social role of mothering (which is not restricted to womc.n)$11 as one which involves the exe.rcis.c of powe.r has highlightc.d an aspect which has not been sufficiently recognized in previous thcorie.s of powe.r: its successful exercise- means that it renders itsc-.lf obsolete. lnhere.n t in this is the recognition of the temporal dimension of power. Similar to Arendt and others, Warte.nberg notes that power is inherendy dynamic and constituted, reconstituted and thus altered c.ontinuously by social agencs. This means that power relations ne"er remain the same o't·er time - bur arc always open to changc.s' \Xfartcnberg perceives transformativc power as 'a complex mixing of power-over and power-to'.60 Inasmuch as the focus on the significance of nurturing and caretaking in a theory o f power has lead to insights which previously ha't'e gone unnoticed> one has to be cautious not to fall into the trap of idealizing ' mothe.r ing' as the 'good' war of e.xcrcising powe.r. One such trap c.ould be to 't'iew 'mothering' as typically female and using it to define female identity in an essentialist war. I have written about the problems of suc.h a perception of women's identity el sewhe re:.~ ' Idealizing mothering also docs not take into account that caretaking valuc.:s can serve as a means to stabilize and maintain dominating power structures in the wider soc.icty in heali ng the wounds of those who suffer under unjust domination. 'Mothc.ring', 'caretaking' and 'nunudng' can only escape this trap if they arc acknowledged as values be)'Ond the private realm, as rcle.vant factors in the public. sphere as well.~ Moreovc.r~ it has to be recognized that 'mothering' is not always exercised to che benefit of the.child. The power in nurturing and caretaking rc.lationships can be consciously or unconsciously misused by the stronger agent, leaving the chi1d or dependant scarred for life.' > 55. 56. 57.

\'(tartenbcrg 1990: 189. W:mm bcrg 1990: 191. Wartenbcrg 1990: 191. 58. Cf. P.lUi ss 3 good example- of this., S(e 7.4 below. 59. Wattenberg 1990: 164 and 175. 60. \'<'artmb
Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

29

Despite these dangers, the; attention fem inist theorists have drawn to

power relations which arc shaped by nurturing and c-aretaking rather than domination is significant not o nly for analyses of famil)' relationships but for analysing other social interactions as well. In learning-teaching settings for instance, the aspect of nurmring and thcrcb)' transformativc powc.r plays an important role .64 Wanc:nbcrg maintains that the aspect o f power highlighted

by feminist theories gains support and more clarity in applying it to te-acherstudent relationships. He chooses to analyse- Plato~ narrative of Socrates' relationship with )'Otmg Athenian 'students'. The relationship between Socrates and his students is not depicted as one among e.quals but, as distinct from a parent-child relationship, the smdents choose: to emer a nd maintain the rdationship with the teacher. Socrate-s here has no coercive power to enforce the co ntinuation of the relationship, he cannot resort to physic.a l mc.ans to get the students ro continue the- discourse. For the relationship to exist the free consent of the 'we.a ke.r' interlocutor is indispensable. If the relationship were enforced, its basis would be eroded. For uansformative power to be power at all, to have an effect on the 'weaker' agent at all, n·ust is constitmive of its very existence. T rust must be seen as absolutely essential ro the establishment and continuation o f a truly empowering relation.65 To trus t someone trul)' implie-s to entrust oneself to the other, to place oncsd f in a vulnerable position and crust that the other will not take advantage o f the situation. As long as the 'we.a ker' agent c-annot be sure of the intentions of che 'stronger' age.nt a transfonnative power relationship cannot emerge. Trust a nd dn1s openness cannot be enforced. They sta nd in utmost contrast to any form of force or domination. Trans fomlath·c power relics on consent and trust. Even the parent-child relationship, although this is not a chosen relationship on the pan of the child 1 cannot be transformative if it is not based on trust.66 T he very basis of rransformativc power is trust. As soon as the dominant agent lose-s sight of the goal o f a transformative powerrelationship, that is_, its own evenwal transccndc:ncc., and tries to maintain it as an end in itself, it easil)' wrns into a dominating rather than empowering relationship. This is noc to sar that the maintenance o f a relationship is not a laudable goal, 67 but the hierarchy of a trans formative power relationship, the balance of cqualit)' and diffc:rc:nce has to be re-negotiated, a nd the character of the relationship changes once the 'wea ker' agent is empowe-red to be: an equal panner within the. relationship, whereupo n the relationship changes from one of power-over and power-to to a relationship of pO\\'er-to a nd powc.r·\~t·ith.

64. \'<'artc:nbtrg 1990: 200. 65. Cf.WartC'nbc-rg 1990:21 1. 66. Cf. <.g. Er;kson 1968: 96- 107. 67. As notC'd abov('. for :\rc-ndt power c-mc:rgcs from acting in conc<'n and onlr in :wing in concC'rt is thC'r<' power. The purpoSe' of powC'r :lnd acting in conce-rt is the mainte-nance- of the rC'huio-nshiplgroup; Arendt 1958: 199-207. Also Wartc-nbc-rg 1990: l 13.

30

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

2.4.3 Power-to and Power-with - a Feminist Conception of Power One of the most interesting feminist approaches to power is that developed by feminist theorist Amy Allen. She. maintains that, dcspitc their apparent diffcrencr.s~ aspc
Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

31

T hus powcN o is inhcrc.n t to both powcr-o\'cr as wd l as power-with. In order to exercise powa -ovcr someone an agent has to be a ble to act in such

a way that an effect is achieved. And in order to exercise power-with a group has to exercise power-to) that is, strategic power, in order to achiC\'c what they have agrc.cd upon.73 2.4.4

Asymmetry and Hierarchy in Power Relations

One aspect in this O\'trvicw o f contemporary power thc.o rics needs to be

specifically mentioned here for its signific--ance in relation to the discussion of aspects of the Pauline discourse of powc.r: the issue of equality and asymmctq' in power relations. As noted above. not a ll power-over rdations

arc pc.rccivcd to be nc.ccssarilr exercised to the disadvantage of the- weaker agent. It is obvious that even in a transformative power relation in which the subordinate is genuinely supported} and thus empowered to transcend the rdationship~ this relationship is asymmetrical, since asymmetrical interactions arc involved. The exchange between those involved is not reciprocal, or symmetric-al, but •uneven'. The fact that such a relationship is asrmmetrical doc.s not re.ndcr it inhcre.ntly dominating. Thus we: c.an establish that asymmetry in a relation cannot be pc.rceivc:d as being identic.al with domination. \X' hilst the asymmetr)' is obvious in a power-O\'t.r relation, a question arises when it c.omcs to power-with relations, power rdations which arc more of a communicative kind. Arc such relations ncce.ssarily relationships of equals? Given thm not all social intc.ractions arc d riven by economic interests (although certainly not exempt from being influenced by e.conomic as wdl as othc.r co ntextual factors), it is not feasible to perceive of them in terms of rcciproc.al gih exchange, h)' which equality in terms of economic value, would be- established or maintainc.d.7~ Also s.ame.ncss cannot be a presupposition for communic.a tivc actions. Hannah Arendt docs not presuppose anr kind of samcne.ss or symmetry for achieving consent through communic.ativc aaion. Allc.n pcrc.eivcs this to be a strength of Arendt's approach as it allows for a pcrce.ption of communic-ation and e\'en solidarity in diversity. As me.ntioncd above, for Arendt difference and pluralit)' arc the presupposition for communic-ation. She shares this perception with philosophers such as Emmanuel Lninas and Jacques Dcrrida. L<"vinas throughout hi.s philosophical work has cmphasiud that the: •other' in his/her difference is lhc- presupposition of communicaf:ion and relation. He expresses ir thus: 'The relation with the other docs not nullify separation. It docs not 73. Allen J999a: 118. Similor insights concerning empowering interactions ol .solidarity have bt