Knowledge, Power and The Game of Thrones

7:06 AM

This blog is a part of a larger project associated with scholarsofthethrone.com. Visit our site for more information.

Ned, Cersei, and Foucault

This week the Scholars of the Throne took on the last for episodes of Game of Thrones, Season 1 (7-10). Upon re-watching these episodes, I could not help but think about all the ways that Ned Stark could have approached "the game" differently, potentially leading to a different set of results (i.e. keeping his head and protecting his family).



In exploring ideas about Ned, I could not help but think about Michel Foucault. Foucault had really interesting thoughts on power and I think his ideas shed a lot of light on the power dynamics at play in GoT. Foucault believes that "power is not something that is acquired, seized, or shared, something that one holds on to or allows to slip away; power is exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of non egalitarian and mobile relations" (Foucault 94). Many of the characters in GoT participate in some form of this complex power dynamic. The potential  to exercise power is everywhere and exists with everyone in this series. For some characters this exercising of power is physical in nature  (e.g. The Mountain, Bronn, etc.) but for many, power is exercised via mental maneuvering (quite literally playing politics) and these particular power plays are largely dependent upon what certain characters know, when they know it, and how (and when) they use that knowledge.



It is here that I would, again like to return to Foucault, who understood that knowledge and power are interrelated. Those who have or gain knowledge gain the potential to exert power over those who lack knowledge. Similarly, divulging knowledge (or confessing) one's knowledge can negatively affect one's ability to exercise power. I would also contend that choosing when to divulge knowledge can also be seen as an exercising of power but choosing to divulge at the wrong time can shift power out of one's favor.


For Ned Stark, I am of the opinion that his fate becomes (mostly) sealed in the moment that he confesses to Cersei that he "know[s] the truth Jon Arryn died for" ("You Win or You Die"). Ned confesses this revelation to Cersei as a means of honoring his own integrity. Ned wants to allow Cersei a chance to escape the kingdom before he reveals her indiscretions to King Robert, a revelation that would undoubtedly cause Robert to condemn her (and possibly her progeny) to death. However, Ned unwittingly gives Cersei the upper hand by revealing his knowledge of her children's paternal origins. Although Ned has given her the chance to escape, she seems to disregard his advice and stays put because she understands that this move has shifted the power dynamic in her favor. Although the passing of time in the television series (and even the novels) is not entirely straight-forward, the novel indicates that there has been some amount of time between Ned's meeting with Cersei and Robert's return from his hunting trip, stating Cersei "had lingered too long already" after being warned of Ned's information and his intention to reveal it to Robert (Martin 423).

Of course, it is heavily implied, and in the book made quite explicit, that Robert was never meant to survive the hunting trip, but had Ned chose to stay quiet about his revelation regarding Cersei's children until Robert's return or at least acted on Robert's behalf and had Cersei (and the children) held under suspicion of her crime, he may have been able to use this knowledge to more adequately exercise power over the situation. The fact that Ned revealed his hand too early and to Cersei, no less, ultimately undermined his ability to exercise power. Instead, by virtue of revealing knowledge to Cersei, Ned unwittingly allowed her to arrange her own exercising of power over Ned and the court by seating Joffrey on the throne immediately following Robert's death and arranging to have Lannister forces on hand to seize the castle (and Ned) before he can exert any further power over the kingdom. I cannot help but think that Cersei's swift action was made with all the more urgency as a result of feeling threatened by Ned's possible reveal of her indiscretion PRIOR to Joffrey's ascent to the throne.



Ned's mistakes regarding timing continue after Robert returns from his hunting trip. Ned, who again attempts to live honorably and with compassion, spares Robert in his last moments of the upsetting news regarding his wife and "children." It is hard not to wonder how things would have turned out differently had Ned made the choice to throw compassion to the wind and reveal the truth to Robert (preferably in the company of additional witnesses who might have ensured that Robert's punitive requests were seen through). Because Ned has no allies who know the truth and no direct orders specifically regarding Cersei's indiscretion, Ned's accusations after Robert's death appear to be nothing more than political posturing by another player in the "Game of Thrones",



Knowledge/Power Cont.

Even moving beyond this instance of Ned and Cersei, one can see that there are many other characters that are able to exercise power as a result of knowledge. Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish and Lord Varys are two individuals that seem to understand the implications of this Foucauldian paradigm of knowledge and power. These two characters even have several individuals throughout the kingdom working for them as spies, who are able to feed them information which they are later able to use in power plays. In fact, it is implied that these characters knew the truth of Joffrey's origins long before Ned. The difference, of course, is that these two understood the value of the information they had and were wise enough to keep it to themselves. Well....at least until the it would have served them to reveal it to their own ends. Clearly, neither of these characters is afflicted with the morality that drives Ned to unwisely surrender the means (i.e. information) by which he might otherwise be able to exercise power.



Summing it up...

Clearly Cersei was telling the truth when she said "when you play the game of thrones you win or you die" ("You Win or You Die"). One really has to have a mind for the game, which Ned's morality clearly prevented him from having. So...unfortunately for poor Ned...well... he died.





References

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon, 1978. Print.

Martin, George R.R. A Game of Thrones. New York: Bantam, 2013. Print.


"You Win or You Die." Game of Thrones: Season 1. Writ. David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. Dir. Daniel Monacan. HBO, 2011. Xfinity OnDemand. 6 February 2016.

_________________________________________________________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT

You Might Also Like

8 comments

  1. Very interesting to bring in Foucault, but a couple of reactions. In some ways knowledge gives Ned less power. If he never had curiosity about the genealogy of Robert's children, would he threaten anyone and therefore be killed? Knowledge seems to be dangerous in his case at least.
    Robert's interesting because as a King he certainly has a lot of relative power. (I think the Bank in Bravos has more.) But he's the character who is always complaining about the responsibilities that go with power--he advocates for a simpler life of fighting, hunting, drinking, and whoring. Power doesn't seem all it's cracked up to be for this particular character--and Ned in a lot of way empathizes with that perspective.
    In this story, however, when you are not aggressively seeking out power and advantage, you become vulnerable to those who are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the case of Ned, I would actually contend that knowledge does in fact allow Ned the potential for exercising power over others but he exercises this power in ways that are not always favorable (or safe) for him. He let's his honor get in the way. I certainly agree that power is not "all it's cracked up to be" especially in Westeros. I also agree that those aggressively seeking to exercise power over others are often okay with trampling those who get in there way.

      Delete
  2. I like the consideration of Swiftness. I think a huge key to characters' effective or ineffective actions is because of the swiftness with which they act (or lack thereof). Ned attained the necessary knowledge, but should have acted more swiftly after revealing his knowledge. Littlefinger acts in the exact moment he makes his intentions known and Cersei begins acting immediately after Ned approaches her. Ned expects a reciprocal morality (especially in warning Cersei) and that expectation keeps him from acting more swiftly and definitively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely agree that Ned's morality/honor and his naivete regarding the intentions of others plays a large role in his eventual demise and inability to play "the game." I wonder, however, if there was a way for him to balance these factors that might have allowed him to survive.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This post screams Machiavellian theory to me, especially when it comes to the concepts of virtu and fabula. Some characters benefit from luck but those who make their own luck are really the ones who get lasting dividends.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I absolutely love the GIFs at the end! Oh, Ned. Your post has me wondering if Ned is sometimes not smart. I mean, we know he's got honor coming out of his ears, but did he not think through some of his choices? He decides he must warn Cersei because he hopes it will save the children, but perhaps there might have been a better way. I suppose he thought he had men on his side because he believed Baelish...I just think he's not the brightest crayon in the box. He's got good ideas and intentions, just not the best execution. He thinks with his honor, not his brain cells.

    ReplyDelete

Popular Posts

Like us on Facebook

GoT Scholars on Twitter