Classical Sociological Perspectives, Lukes and the Three Faces of Power - Coursework Example

SOCIOLOGY: POWER LOG BOOK SOCIOLOGY: POWER LOG BOOK Log Book Entry Week Two: Structure and Agency In analysing the society, it is questionable if one should use the individuals’ approach or examine the structures in which individuals operate. Gidden’s principal focus in his famous theory of structuration is the connection of the structural explanation with the notion of human action in the social analysis (Giddens, 1984). The making of such a relationship requires the theory of the human subject, an account of the consequences and conditions of action, and a critical interpretation of the structure. Giddens mainly refers to the ideas of George Mead Herber in addressing issues that related to the traditional American pragmatism. He views the Orthodox sociological theories as having placed more emphasis on social life as a purposive accomplishment of knowledgeable actors through symbolic interactionism. Giddens puts a fault on these theories and observes their inability to conceptualise precisely the social-structural context. The inadequacy of Durkheims efforts to provide resources for the description of the external character of the society is clearly observable in Giddens ideology. Neither the structuralists nor the individualists have prevailed in demonstrating the inherent interdependence between the agents and the structures (Layder, 1995). The relation implies a major problem. When power is given to the structures, the agents become robots controlled under the structural conditions. When power is given to individuals, Giddens observes that institutions and structures disappear. For Giddens, the extremes structures and individuals must be considered from the perspective of a typical formulation. The argument here is that the notions of structure and action, as manifested in the social theory, presuppose one another. The recognition of this dependence, however, prompts the reworking of the concepts linked to these terms. According to Giddens, the agency primarily refers to a temporal framework. It involves presumed interventions of corporeal humans in the progressive process of events in the world. Contexts, in which actions take place include the responses of other people and the opportunities and constraints imposed by the social structures. Giddens appears to prefer the examination of structuration. For him, the continuity of interaction and the patterning of interaction, which are elements of the social structure are not distinguishable from one another. These features imply the relations between groups. In his structural theory, Giddens expresses the mutual dependency between the agents and structures (Giddens, 1984). Through knowledge, the actors understand and transform the conditions around them. Thus, agents are described as reflexive cognitive actors. The structures and agents are presented as interacting over time. However, Giddens idea does not adequately address the complexity of the patterned activities and the abiding abstract social realism. One can be prompted to ask whether the economic capitalist structure is an ensemble of the patterns of relations and power or whether it is a stable social entity. Though Giddens reference to a system may encompass this, the concept is not clear (Layder, 1997). Agents and structures are mutually constitutive and cannot be separated. Humans are always trapped in a chain of social relationships while structures are constituted by individuals. This relationship remains. Giddens theory is thus a practical solution to the problem of structures and agents. Log Book Entry Week Three: Classical Sociological Perspectives It is debatable whether one should look at the existence of conflict or consensus when analysing the society (Marx & Engels, 1986). The classical sociological perspective presents a profound difference between the views of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim about the society. Despite the observable profound difference in their outlook, Durkheim and Marx were both concerned about the emergence of modern capitalism. The two focused on the effects of the spread of the market relations on solidarity and the societys ability to reproduce itself. Both engaged the causes and implications of the key developments in the endeavour. Marx proposes that under conditions of exploitation and alienation, money exemplifies the domination of the world of things over the human world. For him, the social character of activity confronts the individuals and makes them subordinate to relations that subsist independently. The critiques advanced by Marx make him appear less deterministic and a thinker who lays emphasis on the role of class struggle and the interplay between the subjective and objective elements of its consciousness. The notion of the existence of a continuous state of conflict, though making a significant contribution to the view of the society exposes its deficient nature. It may not look prudent if one only considered the conflicting elements without due consideration of the functionalism that Durkheim introduces. The problems of the modern society require a modern way to solve. The reviving of traditional practices that do not show correspondence to the current social situation cannot be the solution to seek as Marx proposed (Marx & Engels, 1982). Durkheim supports the idea of finding means that restore the harmonious cooperation between any conflicting organs by introducing justice into their relationships. His was a more active approach to modernity. The conflict experienced in the modern society is caused by the external inequalities between the social organs. Our view of the society should be focused on reconciling the functionality of each organ and not the analysis of the conflict using a traditional approach as suggested by Marx. There is a need to reinforce the sense of solidarity and avoid the extremity of individualism as the highest moral value. The effort requires an identification of a value system for the increasingly pluralistic and differentiated modern society. Both Marx and Durkheim do not achieve a meaningful balance between the structure and agents on individual application. Rather, a combination of their ideas bestows a liberal approach to the view of the society. Durkheims view of the person as the universal embodiment of humanity and not self-glorification is a more active approach to modernity (Durkheim, 1996). Comparing the thought of Max Weber, Marx and Durkheim, the Marxs though underestimates the significance of cultural and social practices beyond the economic sphere. Weber (1968) acknowledges that the power of the political economy should not dominate the social concern. The focus of the individuals as the components that make up the society is paramount to the comprehension of the society as a whole as Weber suggests. Log Book Entry Week Four: Lukes and the Three Faces of Power Upon their appearance in 1974, the points made by Steven Lukes have become the benchmark for subsequent discussions relating to the social reality of power (Dahl, 2005). Power is manifested as a multidimensional social factor. However, the paradoxical relationship between democracy and power and their being concentrated in an elite as claimed by Mosca and Pareto are debatable. In his argument, Lukes asserts that there are non-coercive sources of power in the modern society. His 2005 inclusion of ‘power, freedom and reason and the ‘three-dimensional power are a significant contribution to our understanding of power in the modern society. The three faces of power are the issue method, setting the agenda and manipulation of others. In his account of the treatment of power, Luke observes the 1957 contribution by Robert Dahl in his theory ‘The Concept of Power. Lukes first dimension of power involves a look into behaviour in the perspective of the decision-making process in which conflict of interests is observable in political participations. Morton Baratz and Peter Bachrach (1962), in their theory "The Two Faces of Power" made a significant observation. They noted that a person or a groups power can be demonstrated by their ability to consciously or unconsciously reinforce or create hindrances to the airing of policy conflicts by the public (Shapiro, 2006). According to Lukes, shaping the agenda, which is a significant source of power is overlooked by the pluralist one-dimensional view of power. It is dubious that Lukes uses the word dimensions of power rather than the forms or aspects of power. Referring to them as dimensions suggests that power in its totality is a vector of three quantities that vary independently (Morris, 2006). Lukes treatment barely sheds light on the mechanisms of power. For example, what social features enable a group or individual to influence another in any way? Or through what individual or institutional facts allow individuals to exercise power over others. A version that analyses the social relations in a manner that discerns the reasons why some individuals and groups obtain the material resources to prevail is needed. His is a semantic analysis of power rather than a sociological analysis of the structural and causal reality of power as discussed in the Marxist theory. An example of the application of the faces of power can be seen in the Forbes Magazine article of December 2009 which was entitled "The Most Powerful People in the World". The faces of power in their application were used to 67 people as the most influential of every 100,000,000 people. The Elite Theory as advanced by Mosca and Pareto is particularly important in appreciating the development of counter-elites within the excluded groups. However, the same can be criticised for laying so much focus on the contribution of elites to the extent of undermining the non-elites who can accept or reject the rules made by the elites. Ian Shapiros reading of Lukes third face of power is quite persuasive in that the normative questions of power are addressed. The institutional design meant to deter domination while at the same time not interfering with the legitimate power is discussed adequately. Log Book Entry Week Five: Structuralism The theorists discussed in the previous have a perspective of structuralism that takes a divide between consensus maintenance and individuals interested in conflict. Whether for consensus or conflict, the common interest is the way societal organisation affects the behaviour of the individual (Barthes, 1972). In later days, the contributions of the Anthropological and linguist theorists have an impact on our understanding of the individuals behaviour as shaped by the societal structures of language and meaning. The significance of these contributions cannot be undermined in our endeavour to understand the social representation. The Constructionist theory and description are recursive in as far as the production of meaning through language is concerned. Hawkes (2003) explains language as a representation system that involves the construction of meaning and making things meaningful. It is true that on one side, language is constructed by signs and symbols while, on the other, it helps us create meaning. Saussure emphasizes that structure and codes are a social part of the language and hence their significance in social representation. It is in creating meaning that we share our ideas, feelings and concepts with others. His implications for politics have been the way the appropriate language in a political context is created to deliver meaning in that intended course. The work of Mythologies, which is Barthess most influential, has had a lasting influence on the critical theory to date. His work significantly relates to power in the sense that signs have many subjective meanings depending on individual experiences that are used by people to exercise their influence on others (Barthes, 1972). These signs as revealed in myths and legends represent ideologies and value systems in particular societies. As explained by Barthes, myths are signs that carry a larger cultural meaning for both the individual and the group. The ideological aims of the dominant class according to Barthes are served by the well-formed system of communication through myths. The use of the term myth b Barthes carries with it a significant meaning even today. It is mostly important in deducing the cultural meanings attached to varied signs and how they contribute to the structuring of the society. Log Book Entry Week Seven: Modern Marxist Approaches- Class Power, State and Ideology In the Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is described as the domination by the ruling class of a culturally diverse. Marx argues that the societys culture in its perceptions, values and beliefs is manipulated by the ruling class (Althusser, 1971). For him, the ruling class is the world view that is accepted as the cultural norm. However, this theory is weak in the sense that it overemphasizes social constructs that only benefit the ruling class. Gramscis conception of hegemony is important in understanding the political, economic and social status quo that is beneficial to everyone. His notion is essential for the synthesis and research in political science, cultural studies and sociology today. In the modern world, Hegemony can be seen as the geopolitical means of indirect imperial dominance which relies heavily on interventions as opposed to the military power as practised by the ruling class. Gramscis contribution to the democratic practice and theory went a long way in addressing the criticism staged against the Marxist ideology. Gramsci identifies the peace-building elements and the dialectical relationship between the war of movement and position (Gramsci, 1986). His approach to material and ideological hegemony address the problems of coercion and consent while at the same time neutralising the effects of the economistic and reductionist Marxist ideology. In his articulations, Gramsci helps us understand the elements that interplay in the creation of a truly civilised and democratic social order. In the Althusserian sense, ideology is the relationship between imagination and the conditions of existence. It comprises the conscious and unconscious ideals that make up peoples motivations, expectations and goals in life. The Marxist ideology, however, is that ideas are put forward by the dominant class to the other society members. In his proposal for both materialistic and spiritual conception of ideology, Althusser aimed at solving some special discourses and propositions that were untrue. He endeavoured to demonstrate that ideas and beliefs are produced by social practices and not as misconceived that social practices were a product of ideas and beliefs. In his concept of interpellation, Althusser objects the definition of cause and substance as advanced by the classical theorists. He rather emphasizes how the subject is preceded by the situation in which case the individual is always-already interpellated. Drawing from Lacans concept of the mirror stage, Althussers concept of interpellation can be used to recognise the process and moment upon interaction with modern ideologies. Gramsci and Althussers take on culture differs with the Marxist approach to culture majorly on the elements that comprise culture and how it is brought to existence. Marx asserts that culture is an imposition of the ruling class while the two recognise the contribution of individuals in the society in defining culture (Craib, 1992). Log Book Entry Week Eight: Critical Theory- Domination in Advanced Capitalist Society The Frankfurt theorists appear to have had a typical paradigm of thought. They shared similar assumptions and were preoccupied with similar questions in their approach to human emancipation (Marcuse, 1972). Their ideas primarily borrow from Jürgen Habermass work of Communicative, the philosophical discourse of modernity and linguistic intersubjectivity. These theorists expressed their critique of modern capitalism. The theories appear to undermine the aspirations for social change that was instrumental in the critical approaches. There is an observable problem with these ideas of what reason should mean. Similarly, their enlargement and analysis of the conditions of possibility for human emancipation can be questioned. The pessimism associable to the Frankfurt theorists is based on their extensive borrowing and manipulation of previous theories. Their arguments did not constitute a series of complementary projects that to a great extent can be associated with their diversion from Horkheimer’s research program. However, the Frankfurt school has made a significant contribution to philosophy as well as political and social theory. In his quest for revolutionary subjectivity, Marcuse searched for spaces that the repressive and oppressive forces of capitalism had not whittled down. Unlike the Marxist and Freudian notions of class domination and repression, Marcuse observes that social change and revolution requires space for action and thought that make resistance to the status quo possible. As a dialectical thinker, Marcuse was able to view the two sides of both repression and class domination. Though art comprised a revolutionary potential, Marcuse observed that it was interpreted, produced and distributed in a repressive society (Marcuse, 1971). Most importantly, he notes that in the oppressive and repressive society, the forces of domination as advanced by Marx and Freudian forces of liberation cannot develop in isolation from each other. They instead develop in a dialectical relationship in which case one produces the conditions for each other. In his view of the formation of a radical society, Marcuse maintains that the society can be taken up by systems which domination and be used to support further liberation. For him, the culture that is a domain of art develops under tension with the societys overall structure. The freedom to reflect and think at the level of culture makes it possible to formulate ideals and values that challenge the social order. In this argument, Marcuse votes out the working class as a revolutionary agent. He rather supports the revolutionary potential of all art by introducing the autonomy of authentic art. The concept of commodity fetishism in the contemporary society is essential for the transformation of abstract aspects of economic value into real things that appear to have an intrinsic value as viewed by people. In the modern capitalist society, the state, religion and political economy are all marked by alienation (Craib, 1992). The theory of separation is necessary for todays contemporary society in solving the many alienations unto which man is placed by the fruits of his labour. Communication, according to Habermas is by its very nature dialogic. Undistorted communication helps us to talk to each other and enlighten us about dialogue. These aspects of communication play an important ethic in human emancipation. Log Book Entry Week Nine: Post-Structuralism- Foucault on Power and Knowledge Structuralism and post-structuralism share several concerns about practices and the systems of ideas which order life in a human society (Foucault, 1985). However, the two share some differences in a number of respects. The two concepts are similar in that post-structuralism maintains structuralisms emphasis on language. It retains the structuralist belief that cultural systems can be presented as coded systems of meaning rather than direct translations with reality. Foucault and others started their work as structuralists but later changed the course of their thoughts to post-structuralism. Key differences between these two concepts are notable. Firstly, while structuralism believes in the existence of reality, post-structuralism doubts the very existence of reality. Structuralism emphasizes on the systems coherence that allows the construction of meaning. On the other hand, Post-structuralism emphasizes the ambiguities and tensions created by the existence of multiple systems. While structuralists set limits as to what can be said, meant and thought, the post-structuralists focus on the plurality of meaning and their mushrooming out of control. In their approach, structuralists focus on the monolithic structure while post-structuralists focus more on the reader who operates within the structure. Post-structuralism maintains that systems and frameworks are just fictious constructs that cannot be trusted to give an order or develop meaning. The very law of seeking a singular truth or order is absurd and ironical (Layder, 1994). The same concept holds that there are several truths, that structures must be decentred and that frameworks must bleed. Further, the concept holds the concern of hegemonies and power and how the elements maintain structures to enforce hierarchy. The implication is that the theory goes beyond literary criticism. Foucault, I his chapter of ‘Discipline and Punish’ introduces the concept of “regime of truth”. He talks about the formation of techniques, knowledge and scientific discourses that got entangled with the practice of the power to punish. For Foucault, a new regime of truth had emerged. In the famous expression, Foucault links the explicit political notion of system to the notion of truth. Every society has its regime of truth. It has instances and mechanisms that enable us differentiate between truth and falsity. Each of the elements in the society is sanctioned in a way that the procedures and techniques are geared towards the fact. Identity is an effect of power. Goffman (1963), observes that groups and individuals can formulate self-serving impressions that transmute, accommodate, mitigate and contest the understanding of their selves (Barret, 1991). Giddens (1994), depicts people as intelligent strategists who create, repair and discard their identities in a continuing effort to retain their social support and self-esteem. These concepts explain identity as an effect of power. People maintain their identity through an effort to remain significant and visible. From a feminist perspective, the politics that aim to promote womens autonomy, the tendency of a Foucauldian perspective of power in reducing the social individuals into docile beings is a problematic and difficult thing to conceptualise. Log Book Entry Week Ten: The end of Ideology The many ways in which ideology has been presented on structure and agents, power and society and many other concepts in the previous discussions make it lose relevance in the contemporary society perspective. After ideologies, people compile lists, observe anniversaries and formulate rankings to disguise their disagreeable confusion on how to value inheritance (Lloyd, 2003). Today, one can easily crack a jock ‘once upon a time, ideologies told us what mattered in society. Bells commitment to ideology and yearn for a cause cannot be taken to infer the reflection of interests and the shape of ideas. Ideology in the sense it is used can be referred to as a secular religion. This conception of ideology is what Bell addressed in his reference to groups and issues. Timing was an important pillar in Bells argument about the end of ideology. He describes the end of ideology as the end of a thirty-year-old dark nightmare with fanatics of history (Bell, 1988). Another essential element in his arguments was the danger that lay in the past. Bell confirmed the repudiation of the youthful idealism as observed in the generations of 1930s. The end of ideology has received criticisms from people that feel that it has failed to analyse the economic, political and ideological trends of the modern time adequately. Bell has been criticised severally for his precision that Marxism and other radical ideologies had lost relevance and their ability to motivate (Howard, 1998). However, responding to the much-heated criticism, Bell feels that his opponents have misrepresented his case in that they merely considered the pillar of timing in their argument. He dismisses the critiques on the argument that it was only fair that the factor of time was brought to sense in analysing the radical theories. Many of the endist accounts complement each other in the observable similarity of ideas and description of the meaning of ideology. However, there is tension in the way the end accounts approach the relevance of Marxism and the radical ideas. Some end accounts preserve the importance of Marxism and the radical ideas while others totally dismiss them. There is opened a gap for contradictions between the end accounts. Fukuyamas end of history and the last mans thesis appears more interesting. The argument that the advent of modern western liberal democracy signalled the end of sociocultural human evolution and the final form of government is quite paradoxical. The importance of ideology that is centred on distortions cannot be undermined and ultimately dismissed in the modern times. References Giddens, A (1984). Elements of the theory of structuration The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Layder, D (1995). Giddens’ Structuration Theory ‘Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Layder, D (1997). Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New Directions. London: UCL Press Marx, K & Engels, F (1986). The German Ideology in ‘Politics and Ideology: Donald, J et al. ‘Open University Press. Marx, K & Engels, F (1982). Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Burns, E USA – Crown Publishers Weber, M (1968). Economy & Society. New York: Bedminster Press Durkheim, E (1996). Individualism in ‘Social and Political Theory: Bellamy, R et al.: Manchester University Press I. Shapiro (2006). Political Studies Review. Cambridge P. Morris (2006). Steven Lukes on the Concept of Power, Political Studies Review. Cambridge Dahl, R. A. (2005). Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. Open University Press Hawkes, T (2003). ‘Introduction’ and ‘Linguistics and Anthropology’ in Structuralism and Semiotics. 2nd edition. London Routledge Althusser, L (1971). ‘Ideology & Ideological State Apparatuses’ Lenin & Philosophy. New York Publishers Gramsci, A. (1986). The German Ideology in ‘Politics and Ideology. Donald, J et al. Open University Press Craib, I (1992). ‘The World as Puppet Theatre’ in Modern Social Theory: 2nd edition. Harlow Pearson Marcuse, H, (1972). One Dimensional Man. London Marcuse, H (1971). Liberation from the Affluent Society in D. Cooper. The Dialectics of Liberation. Harmondsworth Press Foucault, M (1985). ‘Truth, Power and Sexuality’. Subjectivity and Social Relations. Milton Keynes Open University Press Barrett, M (1991). The Politics of Truth. Cambridge Polity Foucault, M (1980). ‘The Eye of Power’. Power/Knowledge. New York Pantheon Lloyd, M, (2003). The End of Ideology. London Routledge Bell. D (1988). The End of Ideology. Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison Notebooks. Stony Stratford Open University Press Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge University Press. The Appendix Gramsci’s Main Idea about Hegemony Hegemony, according to Gramsci (1971) refers to a philosophy that demonstrates the interaction between reality and consciousness. The representation of political and philosophical advance is clearly observable from the political developments in Gramscis argument. In it, action and thought are integrated in a manner that allows members of a hegemony to understand the ‘self. Political hegemony is a presentation of a struggle between the fields of political proper and ethics. What does Gramsci mean when he articulates the idea of political consciousness? In this concept, the contemplation of understanding from the perspective of being in a particular hegemony is conceptualised as part of the progressive self-consciousness where practice and theory integrate and become one. As stipulated in the introductory philosophical underpin of the conception, there exists two notions of the world. The first idea is conveyed through words while the second is expressed through action (Hampton, 1986). For Gramsci, politics and philosophy are inseparable. Social and political groups, as shown in hegemony, develop conceptions of the world gradually. When these hegemonic philosophical are put into action, the groups become political. The concept of power takes effect when a group adopts other peoples conception, attest to it verbally and belief in following it. The groups conduct neither occurs independently nor autonomously but assumes a submissive and subordinate nature. There have been many philosophical thoughts and systems of hegemony over all periods that prevail currently. In this perspective, the intellectual explanations of the political thought express the underlying relationship between history and philosophy (Marcuse, 1964). For hegemony to prevail, the human population in which it is formed must take action first to reorganise itself (Hampton, 1986). The success of this reorganisation largely depends on the ability of leaders and intellectuals among the human mass to transform the philosophical theory into practice. The process requires that groups with the specialisation in the conceptual and philosophical unification of ideas formulate the practice concept relationship that helps link politics and philosophy. According to Gramsci, the development process is a tie between the masses and the intellectuals (Gramsci, 1971). It is clearly observable that in the prevailing credence that scholars grow both qualitatively and quantitatively toward a new dimension of intellectuality. It is clear that involves the process, the masses also elevate their status towards higher levels of culture. These developments lead to the expansion of the gap between the intellectuals and the masses. In the diffusion and elaboration of the worlds conceptions, political groups play a critical role. The political groups elect their members, help in the development of various conceptions that both innovate and contradict the traditional approaches. Essential Features of the Reading The primary characteristic of the reading is its successful explanation of the relation between philosophy and politics. The reading is necessary for ones understanding of the relationship between the intellectuals and masses as applied to the political domination of particular groups over others. The masses represent subordinates in their actions while intellectuals act as the dominant group. The intellectuals successfully develop their conceptions of the world and pass them on to the subordinate masses (Gramsci, 1971). Interestingly, philosophy has made a tangible effort to expound the reasons behind particular groups of people submission and loyalty to various political wings and political leaders in the contemporary society. The relationship between the intellectuals and the masses in the process of development does not remain static (Marcuse, 1964). The masses can raise new breeds of culture and intellectuals that challenge the existence of the prevailing intellectuals. This way the society experiences a state of continuous change. The ability of the masses to develop and challenge the intellectuals is used as a protective mechanism against the oppressive nature of hegemony. In the 21st Century, for example, many African countries including Libya, Egypt and Ivory Coast witnessed a series of political revolutions in an effort to refute the long dictatorial systems of governance. Thus, Gramscis idea of hegemony about the linkage between philosophy and politics gets a practical meaning in this example (Gramsci, 1971). It was through decades of the development of new breeds of culture and intellectuals in the mentioned countries that the masses were able to develop new democratic conceptions of equality and freedom. Theirs was a demand for a halt to the oppression of the ruling classes that bore a reasonable amount of success. Issues or Problems related to the reading How justifiable the concept of the support that masses advance towards intellectuals and ascribe to their ideologies and conceptions is arguable. According to Thomas Hobbes, the consent of the subordinates is sought first in order to justify the actions of the ruling class (Hampton, 1986). In reconciliation to the concept of sovereignty, the governed make their independent choices and appreciate them under their social contracts with the rulers. In the analysis of political issues, therefore, the consideration of the agreement between the ruling class and the subordinates matters. Marcuses idea of concept sublimation, social control is achieved through direct control and manipulation of desires (Marcuse, 1964). Under this theory, the ruling class can use their intellectual ability to manipulate the desires of the governed so as to maintain their control. Read More