Foucault and Bourdieu on Historical Changes and Social Movement
Social movements aim at introducing resistance and change. This indicate the opinions and values that focus on creating change and exploring certain elements of the society. In elaborating the social movement, Bourdieu indicates that class is an important determinant of social movement. He also lays the claims that power is interwoven in the daily relations and structures in the form of divisions. He also considers that new social movements are in most cases aimed at attaining personal transformation and self-change. On the other hand, Foucault was interested in determining how knowledge is generated. He indicated that modern societies created regimes of truth which indicated that systems of ordered procedures aimed at the production, regulation, and circulation of statements. Foucault changed the perspective on power which led to changes in the understanding of the resistance. He indicated that if power is not just a sovereign center of forbidding then it must be more skewed towards productive multiple network of power techniques that falls short of a unifying center, then resistance also becomes transformed. Foucault offered a new understanding of power and resistance by offering a perspective of power that considered being virtually silent and invisible. Foucault’s famous works includes the genealogy of power that highlighted the historical sources of the contemporary technique of power. He illustrated the configurations of power, the common sense, and subjectivity which were not natural but rather appeared to be historical and contingent. He indicated that power transformed into society control that government what went into the society based on the statistical patterns of risk-behavior. Among his famous quote is, “Where there is power, there is resistance (Foucault, 1990)”
Comparison Theorist on Social Reproduction and Social Revolution
I agree with the accusation that the theorists have explained the concept of social reproduction better than social revolution. An analysis of Foucault’s perspective indicates that most of his works deals with the emergence of new regimes of power or social reproduction. He is very effective in describing this through his concept of “bio-power”. This is relevant in providing the description of social reproduction of capitalist relations which are said to have supported the growth and proliferation of capitalism. In explaining the concept of social reproduction, Foucault questions the concept of rationality and the existence of a rational economic agent. His argument indicate that rationality is a social construct that is based on field of power relations that are useful in defining it. In the explanation of the concept of social reproduction, Foucault relies on the power relations. He first criticizes the traditional perspective of power, especially the juridical model of power comprised of the Ruling Class that provides the laws. He supports the concept of general matrix, which he defines as “binary and all-encompassing opposition between rulers and ruled, for all power relations” (Caffentzis, 2002) This he observed required relationships of force that are necessary in machinery of production, present in families, groups, institutions and are expected to create different effects for the society. He further rejects the assumption that power operates mostly on a structure of prohibitions and instead proposed a concept of productive character.
Foucault’s concepts and support for social revolution can be noted through his support for the Iranian revolution that he considers as ‘the birth of ideas where the intellectuals will work with the journalist to document where ideas and events intersect (Foucault, 1990)” He celebrated the revolution and commended the Iranians for the introduction of a spiritual dimension the political life. His optimism however dwindled when he realized that the religious regime that had taken over Iran was oppressive and brutal (Alshaibi, 2015).
Bourdieu’s work mainly focuses on social reproduction where he discussed the dynamics of power in the society especially the methods through which the power is transferred and social order established within and across generations. Bourdieu was convinced that total revolution was not achievable. For this reason, Bourdieu concentrated on an approach that would offer enough weight to the power of social reproduction without just simply affirming it (Calhoun, 2006). In his works covering cultural sociology, Bourdieu discusses how individual actions contribute to the reproduction of the large structures of social inequality. In his other works such as The Field of Cultural Production and The Ruled of Art, Bourdieu mainly discusses the concepts of social consumption and creation. Bourdieu is viewed by some as a reproductionist and determinist who was unable to describe social change mainly due to his focus on the elements of power and domination that were elements of social movement (Husu, 2013).
Comparison on Power
Foucault views power as a productive force that enhances social movement (Foucault, 1990). He noted that power cannot easily be identified specifically to certain actors and institutions. Social movements represent the actors that challenges the power. He argues that power is not concentrated but rather diffuse where it can be embodied and enacted but never possessed. He believed that power is everywhere. Foucault’s concept of power in critical to his studies of discourse and governmentality (Husu, 2013). Power according to Foucault is a function of knowledge. He views power and knowledge, not as different terms but as inter-connected to each other where knowledge is an exercise of power and power is a function of knowledge. He further indicates that this power is regulated through a mechanism referred to as discipline that guides the thoughts and behavior of social actors through subtle means. He introduces a concept of bio-power that indicates how physical bodies become subjugated and forced to act in a certain manner thereby instilling social control to the larger population. Foucault’s perspective on power goes above politics and considers it as an everyday, socialized and embodied phenomenon. It is because of this reason that state-centric power struggles such as revolutions do not always yield to social order.
On the other hand, Bourdieu makes attempts to specify the processes in different societies where order and social restraint are produced by indirect and cultural factors as opposed to direct and coercive social control. He defines “symbolic power as a power of constructing reality.” (Geciene, 2002)This power is regarded as invisible power that can be exercised on with the complicity of individual who are not eager to know that they are part of it and that they even exercise it. It is said to represent a subordinate power that can be easily transformed to take other forms. Bourdieu notes that power is something that can be possessed. It represents an instrument that can be used to “imply a certain claim to symbolic authority as the socially recognized power to impose on a particular social world.” Bourdieu put emphasis on the importance of knowledge in the social construction. Bourdieu views the social systems as symbolic systems of mental structures, classification, and principles of hierarchization. It is through these systems that the function of political function is attained where one class dominates the other (Geciene, 2002).
Similarities of Foucault’s and Bourdieu’s Work
The two theorists have similar ideas in reference to the structure of social reproduction. Their arguments converge to indicate that people act on universal rules. This can be established by reviewing Foucault’s concept on governmentality and Bourdieu’s concept of Symbolic violence. Governmentality is described as a reasoning way of how to govern best through tolerance and wisdom (Foucault, 1990). Symbolic violence on the other hand refers to the undetected or unnoticed power by people through the socially constructed rules and regulations on the manner in which people perceive the natural order. In this perspective, the two theorists are found revealing that the structure helped determine individual life’s and how governance is advanced in the society. Both Foucault and Bourdieu argue that human beings are historically structured agents. Through their existence in the world, people have also been found to structure the world back.
Foucault and Bourdieu have been accused on concentrating their works more on social reproduction as opposed to social revolution. The discussion has provided some elements of the works of these theorists that makes me agree with the accusation against them. Foucault work’s mostly deals with the emergence of new regimes of power or social reproduction. On the other hand, Bourdieu’s work mainly focuses on social reproductions where he discussed the dynamics of power in the society especially the methods through which the power is transferred and social order established in the within and across generations. The two theorists hold very different ideas in terms of power in the society. The similarity in their works has ben noted to be exist on the structure of the social reproduction.
Alshaibi, W. (2015). The Intellectual Destroyer: Michael Foucault and The Iranian Revolution . CU Scholar.
Caffentzis, G. (2002). On the Notion of a Crisis of Social Reproduction : A Theoretical Review . The Commoner.
Calhoun, C. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu and Social Transformation: Lessons from Algeria . Development and Change, 1403-1415.
Foucault, M. (1978). 1990. The history of sexuality, 1, 16-49.
Geciene, I. (2002). The Notion of Power in the Theories of Bourdie, Foucault and Baudrillard. Nudienos Socialianes Teorijos.Husu, H.-M. (2013). Social Movements and Bourdieu: Class. Embodiment, and the Politics of Identity. Jyvaskyla Studies in Education, Psychology, and Social Research .
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more