For this reason, sociological studies require theory and multilateral analysis and cannot restrain itself on the mathematical verification. Taste, as a set of “manifested preferences” (Bourdieu, 1984/2010: 49) and “class culture turned into nature” (1984/2010:188) works as a field of antagonistic relations of the dominant class and cultural production, serving as a source of discernment and denial of the social. According to Bourdieu, society can be divided based on the composition of capital (educational - cultural, social and economic) and the social origin of its members, resulting in three main groups: the bourgeois, who owns legitimate taste, petit bourgeois/middle brow taste, and the working class, who reproduces popular
Robert Bierstadt’s ‘An Analysis of Social Power’ is written to “clarify the meaning of the concept … and seek the sources of social power itself.” His first point is to separate power from dominance. Observation “power is a sociological, dominance a psychological concept” reveals that Bierstadt believes power is in social interactions whereas dominance is a mental belief that someone holds power over you. Also, opinion “power is not force” but “power itself is the predisposition of or prior capacity which makes the application of force possible… power is the ability to employ force” his example “your money or your life” exposes that force is different from power and it is the threat of the use of force that is power not force itself. Leading
C. Wright Mills puts forth in Ch. 1 “The Promise” that the discipline of sociology is focused primarily on the ability to distinguish between an individuals “personal troubles” and the “public issues” of one’s social structure. In the context of a contemporary society, he argues that such issues can be applied by reappraising what are products of an individual’s milieu and what are caused by the fabric of a society. The importance of this in a contemporary society is that it establishes the dichotomy that exists between an individual’s milieu and the structure of their very society. Mill’s argues that to be able to distinguish between “personal troubles” and “public issues”, one must possess a sociological imagination.
Whether through art or language, representations of identity ensue from processes that communicate what manners of being are considered culturally valid within a society. The expression of these expected conditions of existence depends on normative forms of social conditioning, and it is from within this fixed set of self-reproducing actions that hegemonic apparatuses possess power over people. Owing to an ideological foundation situated among various terms pioneered by Gloria Anzaldúa in her piece titled Borderlands/La Frontera, José Esteban Muñoz develops an ability to comprehend how the performance of intersubjective queerness disturbs essences of normativity, and comforts those who disidentify with mainstream perception. The following concepts
In his Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick describes an interesting and unique theory of justice which focuses not on the person and his rights, but instead considers each person to be a piece of property owned by him or herself. He then describes the rights of this property. In his entitlement theory of justice, Nozick described three principles which outline how one may come to hold property, how property can be justly transferred from one person to another, and how to rectify injustices. According to Nozick, these principles form the basis for identifying injustices. This serves to minimize the power of the state.
According to Connolly, agonistic democracy is “a practice that affirms the indispensability of identity to life, disturbs the dogmatization of identity, and folds care for the protean diversity of human life into the strife and interdependence of identity\difference” (Connolly: x). Agonistic democracy acknowledges that people and groups must form identities, and thereby create defining differences. What is different about agonistic democracy, however, is that it turns away from normalizing one group to the disadvantage of the other, and endeavors instead to work with the multiple identities while allowing for “reciprocal respect across difference” (Connolly:
In the text, Morgenthau claims that the realism is based on unchanging human nature, creating “a world of conflicting interests” and conflicts. Morgenthau also believes that we can find the desire to dominate in all kinds of human associations (family, organizations, state …). In addition if some state would be freed from desire for power it would be destructive for it – it would fell victim to the powers of others. Therefore the struggle for power is not only permanent but it is also necessary. Morgenthau closely examines the definition of the concept of power.
This leads the concepts of power to shift away from theories that associate power with just the economy and the state. It thus moves towards an ideal beneath which power functions at the most micro level of social relations (Gaventa, 2003). This is a pro because instead of ignoring the power hierarchies between individuals and the various power dynamics within society, Foucault essentially focuses on them. Other critiques have failed to mention historical contextualisation and have been inclined to occur in isolation from questions that regard the broader production of knowledge (Hook, 2004). This helps us to understand power relations and hierarchies better within society.
In Did Habermas Cede Nature to the Positivists?, Gordon Mitchell creates a philosophical discussion concerning the validity of Jürgen Habermas’s “colonization of the lifeworld” thesis. Habermas’s thesis sought to elucidate the implications of society’s propensity for “converting social issues into technical problems” that require resolutions based off a “scientific mode of decision-making” (Mitchell, 1). This mechanical mode of thinking stems from the idea that science is objective in nature, in which there is always a right way and a wrong way. However, Habermas argues that “joint communicative action by deliberating citizens would yield more appropriate and legitimate judgments” in the field of social sciences (Mitchell, 1). Although many