10.30495/jntell.2023.1972577.1027

Power and Identity: A Case Study onDavid Mamet’s Boston Marriage

  1. Associate Professor of English Literature and Member of Faculty, English Department, Faculty of Humanities
  2. PHD.Candidate, Islamic Azad University of Arak Branch
  3. Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University of Arak Branch

Revised: 2022-11-12

Accepted: 2022-01-01

Published in Issue 2023-01-01

How to Cite

Azizmohammadi, F., Ghiasvand, F., & Yarahmadi, M. (2023). Power and Identity: A Case Study onDavid Mamet’s Boston Marriage. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 2(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.30495/jntell.2023.1972577.1027

PDF views: 198

Abstract

This research is an endeavor to shed light on the issues about the mechanism of power and its sociological implications in David
Mamet’s Boston Marriage based on Michel Foucault’s views. Power circulates everywhere, or rather as something functioning
in the form of a chain so that it is not repressive; rather it is productive and described as biopower. Furthermore, an individual’s
identity is constructed through social relations over which he/she has less control. In this regard, the center of the discussion is
on the concepts of power and identity, subjectivity and relational freedom. Therefore, Mamet’s characters live in a special social,
and cultural system with which mould their identities. The research demonstrates how Foucault’s views about sexuality as an
instrument for biopower are shown in Mamet’s work to control and regulate individuals. The result shows that individuals attempt
to put up much resistance against the authorities via the techniques and practices of self. However, their relational freedom is
particularly determined by cultural constraints that are in the discursive regime of truth. Mamet’s characters are the products of
the regime not a pre-given entity. Thus, the disciplinary control over their bodies and souls both subjugates individuals and
constructs their subjectivitie

Keywords

  • Biopower,
  • Identity,
  • Relational freedom,
  • Subjectivity

References

  1. Bernauer, J., and Rasmussen, D. (1988). “The Final Foucault“: Mit Press.
  2. Boden, R., and Epstein, D. (2006). “Managing the research imagination? Globalisation and research in
  3. higher education“. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(2):223-36.
  4. De Beauvoir, S. (1949). “The second sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.)“. New York, NY,
  5. USA: Vintage International(Original book published in 1949).
  6. French, P. (2004). “David Mamet and film“. The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet. pp, 171-93.
  7. Foucault, M. (1977). “Politics and reason“. Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings.
  8. pp:57-85.
  9. Foucault., M. (1978). “The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction, trans“. Robert Hurley (New
  10. York: Pantheon, 1978), 43.
  11. Foucault, M. (1982). “The Subject and Power.‖ In Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics.
  12. Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow“: Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press].
  13. Foucault, M. (1984). “The foucault reader“: Pantheon.
  14. Foucault, M. (1985). “The history of sexuality I-III“. The Use of Pleasure. pp, 191-221.
  15. Foucault, M. (1986). “The Care of the Self, trans. R. Hurley“. New York, NY: Pantheon.
  16. Foucault, M. (2002). “The archaeology of knowledge.(alkuteos L’archéologie du savoir 1969, käännös
  17. AM Sheridan Smith) Routledge“: London]
  18. Foucault, M. (2007). “Security, territory, population: lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78“:
  19. Springer.
  20. Lynch, R. A. (2014). “Foucault's theory of power“. Michel Foucault: Routledge; p. 13-26.
  21. Mamet, D. (2000). “Boston Marriage“: Dramatists Play Service Inc.
  22. Ojakangas, M. (2005). “Impossible dialogue on bio-power: Agamben and Foucault“. Foucault studies.
  23. pp:5-28.
  24. Rabinow, P., and Rose, N. (2006). “Biopower today“. BioSocieties. 1(2):195-217.