A Critical Analysis On The Road Of War During Iraq Starting From The Era Of ' Governmentality '

Although there are somewhat of similarities between Weber’s and Foucault’s relations of power and dominance, how they evaluate the concepts separately and the ways these concepts are practiced in society, can be distinguished differently. Webber appears to occupy the polar opposite with the respect to his claims of how power becomes existent with bureaucratic instruments and bureaucracy itself, Foucault argues that the power relations are everywhere in society and with expansive elements; society has no option but to internalize (Shaw 2011). His explanation of power is much broader than Weber’s. Focault rejects the hierarchical models of power, and believed that relations of dominance are formations of unequal power (McClaren 2002), and over time domination may seem fixed in society’s social structure (Shaw 2011). Additionally, Foucault looks at the concept of power from a functional strategy, with the functional practices administered by authority, and emphasises that authority commonly uses discursive power and the operation of discourse to maintain the dominance (Smart 2010; Shaw 2011). What is compelling about Foucault’s concept of power are his discursive claims. Unlike Webber, he suggests that power relations are not necessarily derived from state practices, but are all under state control, and highlights that “state and hegemony is in the every area of life” (Shaw 2011). Further, to understand some of Foucault’s functional examples, he focuses on the everyday lives of

Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman’s work was centralised around there two different concepts of how your identity is formed through the process of power and expert knowledge. This Essay will discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault who was a French Social Theorist. His theories addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and how both of these are used as a form of social control through society. The essay will look at Foucault’s work in The Body and Sexuality, Madness and Civilisation and Discipline and Punish which displays how he conceptualised Power and identity on a Marxist and macro basis of study. The Essay will also address the Ideas of Erving Goffman who was A Canadian Born Sociologist who’s key study was what

The Government is the collection of people from a single or multi parties who are elected in to power by the public with the goal of improving the nation, catering to public interest and attending to the public’s needs. – It’s important to provide a clear definition linked to the role of government. Moss is himself unsure as he uses the words “I think” which automatically create doubt among the readers. He also fails to use a clear definition linked to the meaning and purpose of the government which further affects the reader’s attention.

Foucault goes through the way governments have attempted to control populations throughout history, and how power has exercised

Foucault began to compare this new idea of surveillance, power and punishment of the Panopticon to the power during the Middle Ages by the King which was more public in contrast to the Panopticon. The Panopticon was more discrete. It was not a show or form of entertainment when someone was punished unlike when someone is punished with the King. By exploring this, Foucault demonstrated how surveillance has changed overtime.

Foucault introduces the modern police force as an example of Panopticism. He explains that the development of a more centralized police force in the late eighteenth century stemmed from the need of sovereigns to maintain a sort of surveillance over all miniature details. With a mobilized, invisible force stretched from even the most “extreme limits”, it becomes possible to extend constant supervision “to reach the most elementary particle” (Foucault 386). The organization of the police became the vehicle in which political power could keep a “permanent, exhaustive, omnipresent” gaze on the entire population; a regular Panopticon for the city. Beyond duties of surveillance, the police would also pursue and punish criminals, plotters, and opposition movements as a way to demonstrate the consequences of bad conduct; fear would then keep the population as pure as possible and “accustomed … to order and obedience” (Foucault 387).

Government is an administration defined by the Constitution, but is also a constantly adjusting foundation by the efforts of its citizens. By Litherland (2014), government is defined as policies set in order to lead a body of people (p. 395). Over the span of time, the idea of government has been stretched, changed, and applied to various communities throughout both the nation and the world. Whether it was back in the eighteenth century, current, or in the very near future—government has existed and will continue to exist for its people and the nation it has built its foundation upon. With the use of multiple authors, those of: “Difference between Direct and Representative Democracy” (n.d.), “Federalism - Dividing Power between States and the

Lazzarato’s sympathetic critique of Foucault and his argument about the absence of the capital relation in the concept of governmentality are convincing and refreshing. So is his call for rethinking governmentality in light of current politico-economic events ,through which “disciplinary technologies, which have never disappeared, acquire a new importance, particularly in the management of the ‘unemployed’, the ‘poor’, the labor market and in the governance of social services” (211). Lazzarato also discussed profit, rent, and taxation as the three different apparatuses of capture specific to periods of capitalism. Profits to Fordism, rent to Post-Fordism, and taxation to the crisis-ridden present after

Philosophers have struggled with determining the proper role of government. In the absence of government and laws, people could do whatever they wanted, and some of them would try to slaughter others and steal their property. This is the state called anarchy. People have realized that the safety of the people and the country would be in jeopardy in such a state. Thus, it is necessary for a country to have a government and/or ruler. However, a ruler must not have absolute power nor lack authority. But the protection of the people and the country alone is not enough for a country to prosper. The property and the natural rights of the people and the government must also be protected. Thus, the proper role of government is to protect the

Michel Foucault’s work within philosophy has made important impacts when it comes to understanding how power affects a capitalist state. Believed that history of a country should how the past created a better future for society but in most cases through history, that was not the case. One of the examples that Foucault uses is how the mentally ill were treated in the Renaissance compared to the 18th century. During the Renaissance period, the mental ill people were allowed to seen within society and were seen as useful and gave wisdom into their society rather than in the 18th century. People with mental illness were put away and see as a burden to society and seen as needed to being cured by sinister people. Another example that Foucault discuss

dealing simply with subjects, or even with a “people,” but with a “population,” with its specific phenomena and its peculiar variables." (298/25) This is where we begin to see Foucault's concept of Biopower come into play. One of the central themes of Foucault's writing, he defines biopower as "[T]he forms of power, the channels it takes, and the discourses it permeates in order to reach the most tenuous and individual modes of behavior, the paths that give it access to the rare or scarcely perceivable forms of desire, how it penetrates and controls everyday pleasure—all this entailing effects that may be those of refusal, blockage, and invalidation, but also incitement and intensification: in short, the 'polymorphous techniques of power.'” (292/11 For Foucault, Biopower relates to the government's concern with fostering the life of the population, but is also a form of complete control of that population through surveillance or perceived surveillance. Foucault believed that Biopower permeates through the

Subsequently, the modernist approach of Buchanan (Silva et al., 2009) illustrate Foucault’s theory that ‘’the development of standardised uniform spaces commanding uniform behaviour, leaving no room for individual interpretation, explaining everything with signs and texts. The government and public authorities look after the citizens’’ (Silva et al., 2009 p. 339). In modernist approach rules, orders and prohibitions enforces behaviour demanding individuals to adapt to the system on the street. The individual conforms to rules and a state solves problems and looks after the people by setting up laws and prohibitions. In contrast, the flexible approach or shared space movement has the opposite outcome, making human behaviour central and negotiating ‘shared space’ as emphasised by Goffman. (Silva et al., 2009)

Moreover Michael Foucault’s concept of governmentality is concerned with the relationship between external governing systems and the control of oneself. The concept of governmentality works with the problems of the government and how to guarantee the wellbeing of society, so it is a beneficial for investigating how drugs and drug users are problematized in society and socially controlled. Problematization and governmentality go hand in hand because they allow an understanding of the relationship between power and government. Furthermore, Foucault has said that power is not owned but is exercised and suggests that power constantly creates knowledge and knowledge continuously encourages the effects of power (Foucault, 1980,

Michel Foucault was an unconventional philosopher in relation to the ideas and reasonings of law and why they are just. He takes a different approach than many of the most prominent philosophers in the study of the philosophy of law. If someone were to compare his ideals with the ideals of some of the most prominent law philosophers an interesting total theory of the philosophy behind law could be created. The intentions of this writing are to relate and compare Michel Foucault with many of his predecessors in order to create an interpretation of the philosophy of law that is unique and interpretative.

Both Goffman and Foucault want to understand how social order is made, and they both look at bigger ways in which to understand it. However, Goffman focuses on society at a micro level, to help him understand the bigger picture of how social order is created. His work is very much centred on the individual. Goffman believes that social order is created by everyone’s individual actions. He likens people’s everyday interactions to a stage, where the front of stage is where people put on ‘performances’ to meet the demands of maintaining social order, and backstage as a place where an individual could let go of that (Silva, 2009, p.317). Foucault looks at the micro level, but also sees the big picture, the macro level of social order. He claims that social institutions (schools, workplaces, families), have a certain knowledge and power over an individual, and it is by using that power that social order is created, through the discourse of creating rules and regulations. (Silva, 2009, p.319). By concerning himself with people who have