Compare and Contrast Goffman's and Foucaults Explanation of How Social Order Is Made and Remade

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

This first part of this report will look at the development of social theory and its responses to the changes that took place during the 18th Century. It will examine some of the classical social theorists and their contribution to sociological theory.

Both Simmel and Goffman have greatly contributed to the development of the sociological investigation of human interaction and experiences, they have taken a science that was not easily understood and brought it to the center of attention. While using different methods to ultimately obtain an understanding of how society functions, whether it be on the individual level or the as a group interplay.

For example in the setting of a workplace the power does not pass from the top down; instead it circulates through their organizational practices. Such practices act like a grid, provoking and inciting certain courses of action and denying others. Foucault considers this as no straightforward matter and believes that it rests on how far individuals interpret what is being laid down as "obvious" or "self evident", institutional power works best when all parties accept it willingly. Foucault's notion of power is a difficult notion to grasp principally because it is never entirely clear on who has the power in the first place, once the idea is removed that power must be vested in someone at the top of the ladder, it becomes much more difficult to identify what power is or where and whom it lies with. Foucault believes that we are used to thinking about power as an identifiable and overt force and that this view is simply not the case, because it is taken for granted that the above statement is true then it is much more complicated to comprehend power as a guiding force that does not show itself in an obvious manner.

These institutions and social relationship structures, to remain, put in place hierarchies of power, which evolves with a stint of inequality. As systematic means of maintaining order in such society may necessitate the need for control via force or putting in place an ideology. Thus controlling the way the specific society sees the world and current social relationships appearing natural, normative and inevitable.

According to Max Weber, the economic and technological relationships that organized and most importantly grew out of the capitalistic production became fundamental forces in the society. This means that one has to adapt to the society that he/she was born into in regards to the division of labor, and the hierarchical social structure. When analyzed, this theory shows that it is difficult for one to envision a life that is alternative to what they were born into.

Examine the view that Erving Goffman’s work focuses on forms of social interaction but ignores social structure.

Erving Goffman was a sociologist known for developing the symbolic interaction and dramaturgical theory perspective. The dramaturgical theory is a social psychological perspective that studies human behavior and social interaction in terms of the analogy of the theater. This perspective is also related to symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism is a theory based on interaction and communication, facilitated by many different words, gestures, and other symbols that have acquired various meanings. Dramaturgical theorist focus on how people manipulate various aspects of themselves and their settings to influence how others define and respond to them. In this perspective, “the self” is constructed of the various roles that one acquires, in order to present their various selves in ways that sustain particular impressions to their audiences. “The self” is a private possession established in and reflective of an individual’s personality, which includes ones values, beliefs, motives, traits, and dispositions. In addition, a person’s “self” is acquired through social relationships and is a structurally fundamental process that may change due to various situations. As humans interact with one another they are placed in social categories based on their attributes and actions. These assessments are primarily based on ones knowledge of roles.

Foucault address the changing definition of crime and how power is exerted through the enforcement of punishment. During the monarchy, kings and queens showed their power and authority of the people by determining what punishment someone would receive for their actions. In the current political system, judges and juries are in the position to make these decisions. Judgement is the current system is based on motives and intent rather than on the severity of the crime alone. We care more about the psychological state of the individual and want to be able to change the person's soul to better respect society. The quote below addresses how punishment uses a variety of specializations and how the individual's mental state is molded to fit into standards we have created today.

Goffman was interested in how people present themselves in society. He states that everybody has their own designated roles that they play at different points in their life. Furthermore, because people have multiple roles in life, each time they’re in a new role, they present themselves in a certain way or context that fits that particular role. For example, a face to face interaction between two people could vary depending on the location and the number of people around to witness their behaviors. More specifically, in a more public place the conversation could be more conservative as the person maybe more reserved whereas if the duo had a conversation in a more private location, he or she would be more willing to open up and act more like

The idea of not expecting too much led to Goffman adopting a naturalistic view of social

Compare and contrast the views of Goffman and Foucault on how social oreder is produced.

This essay seeks to compare and contrast structural consensus and conflict theories of social action such as Durkheimian, Parsonian, Marxist and Weberian with interpretivist perspectives. The aim is to outline the main features of each theory whilst critically analysing the similarities and differences between them. It will also examine the relevance of these theories within modern day society.

Simmel argues that ‘society exists as social forms that come through human interaction’ (1971). He was interested in the interactions between individuals within society over a period of

Foucault argues that it is the people who have authoritative knowledge, particularly those in positions of power that create social order. Both of them want to know how social order is created, but Goffman wants to know how the individual creates it and Foucault wants to know who defines the rules that the individuals follow (DD101, Online Activity 23, 2009).