Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2019
…
5 pages
1 file
‘Power’ is one of the central concepts in the social sciences, and yet there is no single definition in use. The aim of this lecture series is to provide an overview of the most important understandings of power in sociology and political theory. It does so through a close engagement with the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Michel Foucault, Erving Goffman, Judith Butler and Bruno Latour, as well as a series of group exercises centred around such contemporary phenomena as the upsurge of populist parties, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the #MeToo movement and the Fridays for Future demonstrations. The lecture is part of Modul 1422 “Macht-Herrschaft-Gesellschaft”, and is offered as double sessions between the 6th May and the 3rd June 2019. The successful completion of the course requires regular attendance and active participation in the group exercises. Detailed information about the individual lectures, including literature and background material, is available on Canvas.
The power at Foucault point of view
Power is often associated with struggles for power, and therefore with fair competition at best, domination at worst. However, since the ways we think and talk about a subject influence the ways we act in relation to it, it is important to recognize how this conceptualization of power blurs an important mutualistic dimension of power that plays an important role in the conduct of our everyday lives, and needs to play an even more significant role in a still more complex and globalized world. Starting from a notion of power as a capacity for action, this paper attempts to outline an alternative vocabulary for thinking about power. The vocabulary is not meant to replace, but rather situate the adversarial conception of power within a broader framework, encompassing both ‘power over’ and ‘power with’ relations. The framework draws on different inspirations but mainly on German–Danish critical psychology.
This is my teaching document on the relationship between power and theory, and power and society. It summarizes the literature, and if original, it presents a way of fitting the landscape of power, theory, and society, together and still allowing for the reality of conflict. It was originally delivered on 9 August 2020, for The Philosophy Café Meet Up (Brisbane, Australia).
Journal of Power, 2010
If the task of social philosophy is understood in terms of a critique of power, the question of a proper understanding of power becomes particularly pressing. This article recalls two well‐known, different ways of conceptualising power from the philosophical tradition, roughly domination and constitution. It is argued that the very definition of what contemporary social philosophy or a critical social theory can, and should, do is dependent on the very notion of power employed. Social critique can accordingly be conceived of as either the detection of impediments to individual agency or a more general assessment of power relations. Though the former remains more prominent in social theory today, the latter is broader in scope and remains useful for the project of a critical analysis of the social.
Finding a realm of social life independent from relations of power and politics is an extraordinary and futile task. After the advent of the feminist movement in the 1960s--with its core motto the personal is political--we have realized that the most minute aspects of our everyday life are informed and shaped by relations of power, both at the macro institutional levels of state and party organizations, as well as micro levels of interpersonal relationships, such as parent-child, husband-wife, brother-sister, professor-student, employer-employee, etc. etc.
2010
Both modernist and post-modern social criticism of power presuppose that agents frequently consent to power relations, which a political theorist may wish to critique. This raises the question: from what normative position can one critique power which is, as a sociological fact, legitimate in the eyes of those who reproduce it? This paper argues that "symbolic violence" is a useful metaphor for providing such a normative grounding. In order to provide an epistemological basis of critique, it is further argued that social actors have multiple interpretative horizons available to them as part of their everyday social practices. Thus, they are not caught in a preconstituted web of meaning from which there is no escape, as is sometimes implicit in the over-socialized perceptions of agency associated with post-modernism.
European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology , 2018
In this article, we propose a new direction for social theory, based on a distinction between action and agency, a reconsideration of sociological theories of power, and a rereading of the transition to modernity. Drawing on Aristotle, Carole Pateman, Hannah Arendt, and Ernst Kantorowicz, we propose a conceptual model of power centred on the sending and binding of another to be one’s agent in the world, and the varying representation of this relation and what it excludes. This approach allows a different understanding of modernity than is offered by accounts of power derived from the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault. With reference to the French Revolution and twentieth and twenty-first century presidential politics in the USA, we manifest the utility of the framework for the construction of a research programme in historical and political sociology.
International Journal for Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 2022
Alevilik-Bektaşilik Araştırmaları Dergisi , 2023
Litua XVII, 2015, p. 75-133
Marginalidad y adaptación: Historia social de los vendedores callejeros en la Buenos Aires moderna, 2024
Symmetry
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2011
PSICOLOGIA, 2014
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2004
Computers & Operations Research, 2013