
When people talk about power these days, they are often referring to some kind of ubiquitous force that exists between all objects (and maybe subjects, if they believe in these). This is thanks to a man, named Michel Foucault, especially in his brilliant book The History of Sexuality Volume 1.
Very briefly, he proposes that the modern paradigm of power, is one based on repression (properly speaking power-over), and there are serious flaws with this model: a) is it historical fact, b) does power operate this way (as per repression, denial, censorship), and c) does this theoretical understanding actual help perpetuates the modern regime of power. His answer is No to the first two, and Yes to the last one: this creates a problem for the big baldhead of postmodern philosophy. If power does not operate as repression and thinking of it helps maintain power’s status quo (and we don’t want that), how can we conceive of power differently (and helpfully)? The answer: affirmation. Or that power is not a power of repression, but instead a power of creation (a power-to). Power is not something to be acquired or held on to; power is not external to objects rather is the relationship between all objects; power comes from below, or that both rulers and the ruled have power; power is intentional but non-subjective, or that it has a series of aims but is not the product of an individual; where there is power there is resistance (1990. P. 94-96).
So what does this have to do with hockey? Well there is a type of player, often referred to as a Power Forward. This post will be an examination of Foucauldian power in relation to the action and definition of this type of player.
First, can a power forward be acquired or held onto? We not really, they are virtual impossible to get until the reach the grand old age of 30, and usually only through free agency. If they are traded for it is usually in their last year of their contract and they will become a UFA. At this point they are in the down swing of their career. More importantly, they are not acquired but instead choose to play for their new team; if they want to be traded they ask for it and usually get it, hence not held onto. A perfect example of this is Mr. Keith Tkachuck and his career with the Jets/Coyotes and his movement between the Blues and Thrashers.
Second, is the power forward external to the other objects (players)? No, they only demonstrate their power in relation to other players: they can hit and knock people down or score goals, but these actions involve another player in relation to. That their practices of power limit other peoples practices (their hits stop another’s practices to skate with the puck, and their goals limit the goalie’s practices to stop the puck).
Third, power forwards’ force comes from below. They have power over their coaches and management. They, as the ruled, have power over the operations of the team, the rulers. If they want to see another type of player added, the GM often goes out and finds that type of player (since other types of players are often more difficult to get then the elusive power forward).
Fourth, the effectiveness of a power forward is intentional, but not subjective. That it maybe be the intention of a player to play that way (as in their aims), but it does not come from them as a player-subject. That there is a multitude of conditions that need to come into play (such as their line mates, the system of the coach, their training, etc…). It would be a little silly to think Cam Neely would have been as great as he was, without Bourque, Janney, Sweeney, and Oates (or Milbury or Moog for that matter). Neely’s aims are part of his power, but it is not a single subjective action that allows it.
Fifth, is resistance. What is the resistance to a power forward? Really I don’t know, but I am thinking of the large checking defenseman that was often used against them in the pre-lock out period.
Do I believe any of this? NO.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets look at the power forward on the Oilers today: Dustin Penner. Is it fair to say that his actions and play support the repressive hypothesis of Foucault? Maybe. It could definitely be argued for that he is the affirmation of power: that a new coach, team mates, etc… have allowed him to affirm himself in as the power forward that he is. Goals, hits, and being a game changer are all aspects of a power forward, and can be seen as an affirmation of his skill, or force. But is it only goals and hits that make a power forward?
Over the last year or so, Derek Zona or coach pb9617 has been on a rampage to prove that Penner’s skill and worth is much as a product of his defensive play as it is his scoring. If I could find his great post on the matter (stored at the Church of Kurri), I would link to them here, but I am not allowed access to that site anymore. But any regular reader of The Copper and Blue and Lowetide, should know what I am talking about. Briefly, some stats:
2008-09: minimum 20 games played
GFON/60: 2.96 (highest among forwards)
GAON/60: 2.20 (lowest among forwards)
Corsi Rel: 16.3 (highest among forwards)
QualComp: -0.003 (fifth among forwards)
I have no idea how to find Zone Starts but I am sure he would be high on that list as well.
2009-10: minimum 10 games played
GFON/60: 4.28 (3rd among forwards)
GAON/60: 2.35 (6th lowest among forwards)
Corsi Rel: 13.9 (3rd among forwards)
QualComp: -0.038 (12th among forwards)
So he is not quite at them same horizon he was last year, but still. Is it only the goal production of Penner’s that brings him into the realm of a power forward? If he was playing against third pairing defensemen and bleeding goals against, would his name be up for the Canadian Olympic team? I doubt it.
It is Penner’s ability to repress that makes him a true power forward. Yes, his affirmation on the scoreboard does secure it, but without the ability to deny and censor the other team, he would be another Nilsson (one good season, with the appearance to cover the contract, but still a one dimensional, limited player). Penner’s power as a power forward comes from his defensive or repressive game, in conjunction with is goal scoring or affirmative game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does this mean for the philosophic concept of power? Well, I think it means that the Foucauldian understanding high lights one aspect of power, but down plays the other. Another way of saying this is what is power-to other then a temporal form of power-over?