Memory/Forgetting: Priests

Deleuze writes, "Foucault saw the origin of this double charge in the pastoral power of the priest – the flock and each of its animals – but civil power moves in turn and by other means to make itself lay 'priest.'" (5)

This passage can be interpreted a number of different ways depending on the memory of the reader. First, assume the reader remembers nothing before this sentence. If one remembers Foucault's depiction of power in his A History of Sexaulity, than one might call to mind Foucault's depiction of power as being everywhere and constituting everything. In this way, one comes to see this quote as modifying a treatise on how power operates and who holds power. If one does not remember Foucault's depiction of power, on the other hand, then this sentence reads as nearly incomprehensible. Why does the priest have power over animals? Are we supposed to store in our memory this statement so that we can comprehend the author's argument in the future?

With memory of the sentence immediately before this, one sees that the statement is used as a digression from Deleuze's main argument and a means of giving legitimacy to his unreferenced definition.

With memory of Deleuze's overall argument, meanwhile, one reads the statement as an important historical reference for better understanding the operation of power under each of Deleuzes' three 'societies' (of sovereignty, of discipline, and of control). With this knowledge, meanwhile, one sees that Deleuze's argument rides on the back of Foucault's prior work and views the writing in that alternative context.