Gramsci's And Foucault's Notions of Power

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

Cultural theorists therefore focus their studies on ‘group level processes’ (ibid) when conducting research. However, as highlighted by survey researchers Almond and Verba, by identifying cultural variables, it is almost inevitable that analysts will engage in generalised comparative study. Synthesis can be found between cultural analysis and less rigid forms of structural institutionalism. Political theorist Antonio Gramsci pointed out that coherence between these two schools of thought can be found when considering the fact that whilst, according to Marxist teachings, capitalist societies are based on underlying structural conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the manifestation of such conflict is dependent on the cultural circumstances of the country concerned. Similarly to culturalists, structuralists adopt a form of methodological holism. Structuralists task themselves with identifying the underlying dynamics that govern social systems as a whole, and upon doing so are able to embark on comparison between larger groups of countries governed by similar systems; they are unconcerned by ‘the ‘micro-details’ of the political process’ (Bara and Pennington, 1997: 26). It is therefore said that a structuralist approach appertains to ‘the relationships - both static and dynamic - among individuals, collectivities, institutions, or organisations’ (Lichbach, 1997: 247).

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.

The first premise of Anscombe’s argument is that the distinguishing mark of authority of the state is the actual or threatened use of institutionalized violent coercive power. Here, we

Physical dominance over another will temporarily make one feel ecstatic, but the ultimate outcome will make them disgusted. “The poor don't live in functional market economies as the rest of us do, but in political economies where corruption and broken systems extend from local government to moneylenders.” (Novogratz, 2013). Obligations on a group of individuals are illicit and against basic human rights; like the Party in 1984 and the New Founding Fathers in The Purge: Anarchy. As seen in many dystopian societies, the government authorizes unlawful acts against its citizens, which are a violation of the citizens’ rights. The government enforces laws, brainwashes its citizens, and uses a hierarchy to benefit the rich over the poor in an economical perspective.

Modern day power originates from the mind in that we give certain figures power based upon man-made forms of value or worth like money. The definition of power has fluctuated throughout time, and while the past may have emphasized the more violent aspects, today, we have shifted towards a more control based interpretation. Both Michael Foucault and John Berger delve into the idea of power and its functionality. Based on their texts, in our current socio-cultural setting, power is best exploited when the concept behind the power is deindividualized for many purposes, internalized by the people, and integrated throughout society to the point that its origins is mystified.

This essay will argue how the society dictates the state, as it will be organized into six sections. The first part of the essay provides the opposing argument that the social compact is dictated by the state. In the next section, I will demonstrate why the opposing points are weak and provide my main arguments. The arguments will comprise of how individuals in a society create laws and we collectively can change and implement new laws. The four ways individuals can

A world of system designed to keep people in unjust and unequal positions is held in place by several interrelated expression of "power over": political power, economic power, physical force, and ideological power (Bishop, 1994: 36). So, we can say power is defined as a possession of control, authority or influence over others. In terms of power of dominant groups over subordinate groups, we define power as domination of one group of people over another in major important spheres of life. Power inequities have been in existence throughout the history of humanity and the ways of manifestation evolved from extreme overt oppression to subtle, covert oppression. Three major forms of power inequalities discussed in this paper are

Both Foucault and Butler claim that sexuality is not what makes us who we are, that it is simply a social construct. In addition, they both believe that by submitting to the mechanisms of power and categorizing ourselves sexually, we are giving impetus to our own subjugation. While they hold similar beliefs in many ways, and much of Judith Butler's work is building upon work done by Michael Foucault, Judith Butler does diverge from Foucault's ideas. The reason Butler revises Foucault is that his concept of biopower leaves no room for resistance to power. For Foucault, a shift in the 17th century from a top-down monarchial model of power which focused on the individual gave way to a political technology for controlling entire populations.

Weber believed that power occurred due to the presence of bureaucracy and on the other hand Foucault believed that power was present in every aspect of life. These two theorists evaluate power and dominance in different ways (Roth and Wittich, 1968). Both of them had different perspectives in looking at these aspects. This essay will evaluate the powers of both managers and workers and will also explain role of managers and elaborate on the roles of employees. Comparing the theories of Weber and Foucault would do the evaluation.

We have to contend, in the exercise of our personal power, with the influences of such power-channels in our environments and how they add to, limit or distort our exercise of power - e.g. hierarchies, coalitions,

Through analyzing the written works of Max Weber’s Types of Legitimate Domination and Bureaucracy to C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination, the writings of the comparative authors reveal the domination of power in a socially constructed society and the way that individuals are influenced by the constructed hierarchy of power. Through sociological analysis, these concepts can be applied to the ways individuals are continuously influenced through socially constructed institutions in a society where individuals constantly interact with one another. As Mills and Weber apply sociological analysis to the context of their observations, they are able to observe the growing positive and negative influences that ultimately shape the

Society is a structured hierarchical system of classes. The higher class you hold, the higher power often associated to you. With this construction of society one-group claims dominance over another doing so with “power over” (Bishop, 2015). Power over others can be visible through physical strength, wealth, resources, and access to opportunities, etc. These dominate groups not only spread ideas, but often are in charge of the creation of ideas, their importance, and the norms and roles for society and classes labeling groups different than their own as inferior.

One major link includes the fight between an oppressed group and their persecutors. Whether it’s the proletariat and the bourgeois in “The Communist Manifesto,” or the inequality of genders in “The Second Sex,” or the flight of the African Americans in the “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. In all of these texts we are shown how easy it is for one group to abuse their power and create unfair rules and regulations only imposed on the more inferior members of society. Each group of oppressor thrives off of alienating, and subjugating their inferiors.

Though such institutions are capable of reaffirming certain statements of power, hegemony itself is, as Raymond Williams states, "a whole body of practices and expectations...our ordinary understanding of the nature of man and his world...a sense of reality...a sense of absolute" (4).