Welcome to the 24 th lecture of the course
on sociological perspectives on modernity,
we are in the 6th module of this course and
in the 6th module we are discussing deconstruction
of modernity through the lens of, through
the lenses of 3 important perspectives namely,
feminism, cultural studies and post modernism
and we have already discussed feminist challenge
to discuss the feminist challenge to critical
modernist paradigm in sociology, what are
those central pillars of modernity, that we
have already discussed holism or totality,
the reflexivity, rationality and social movements
.
We have already discussed the feminist challenge
to critical modernist paradigm in sociology
and now we are trying to we are discussing
bigger structure of modernity through the
lens of cultural studies, in cultural studies,
within cultural studies we are discussing
we have. In fact, we have already discussed
the socialist humanist perspective on cultural
studies response to critical modernist paradigm
in sociology through the works of E P Thompson
and Raymond Williams and the other strand
the other theoretical strand the other philosophical
standpoint that radical post structuralism.
That we are in this lecture we are going to
cover this portion that radical post structuralism
through the works of Michel Foucault. If you
look at E P Thompson and Raymond Williams
reflexes, you will find that their starting
point to bring about critique to modernity
quench Marxism in the case of Foucault or
in the case of Foucault reflections it developed
from the structuralist tradition contrary
to E P Thompson and Raymond Williams starting
point of as Marxism, but again Foucault is
pretty unusual among post structuralists in
retention of analysis of power institutions
and so on.
As against purely literary or philosophical
approach for Foucault I mean the way Foucault
tried to operate I mean multiplicity of theories
rather than single coherent theory both Jay
and Habermas treat dialogue between Foucault
and critical modernism as a central one, Foucault
shares with E P Thompson as well as Raymond
Williams. So, far as the dissolution of isolation
of separate levels of society is concerned
for Foucault these separate levels of levels
of society can be analyzed through the analysis
of power.
For I mean what are the models of power, what
is power, the traditional models of power
I mean which includes liberal theories as
well as Marxist theories , but for Foucault
power is possessed by someone power is derived
from a central source and power is primarily
repressive in nature. I mean how power is
repressive, power is derived from a central
source power is possessed by someone, there
are many many things reflected on.
I mean he took the example of suppose prison,
jail, school, that house in prison or school
or mental hospital, how power is exercised?
Power is exercised to further the ideology
of the state in the furtherance of states
ideology. Power is found everywhere if you
look at the over right here the works of I
mean Foucault why I said you developed from
the structuralist tradition in contradistinction
with E P Thompson and Raymond Williams stating
points as Marxism Foucault. In fact, his fast
work discipline and punish this is a structuralist
move within social and political theory.
But later on, he moved away from these this
structuralist's standpoint when he reflected
on in fact, the order of things the history
of sexuality. The order of things in fact,
is one of the most important contributions
of the twentieth century not simply by Foucault,
but, but I mean if you look at social and
political theory as such the order of things
is very important how a particular concept
is not static it they vary, according to the
changes in modes of production changes in
our intellectual and political consciousness
and so, on. I was suppose for example, in
the order of things Foucault tries to dwell
upon a particular concept suppose madness.
If you look at in fact, madness and civilization
is a structuralist more structuralist move,
but if you look at the order of things where
he tries to look at madness, suppose how was
madness considered during the renaissance,
during the reformation and during the enlightened,
madness was considered a divine creation during
the phase of renaissance, madness was considered
a criminal trait during the period of deformation
and during the enlightenment phase, madness
was considered a medical condition.
That is where whatever which wherever you
find mental hospitals in the world there are
mental hospitals were created in the post
enlightenment phase because earlier mentally
challenged people I mean they were not considered
it was not considered a medical condition
rather it was considered a divine creation
in the phase of renaissance and criminal rate
during the reformation I mean that is of power
is exercised I mean how is exercised.
We will see how power is primarily repressive
for Foucault, for Foucault "power is exercised"
as what now power is exercised for Foucault
because it is a relation because somebody
exercises her or his power over me because
there is a relation that relation is not simply
a relation of domination and subordination
or subjugated, but the relation of exploitation
this is derived from structuralist relationalsim
and versus subject orientation of western
Marxism.
Secondly for Foucault "power is analyzed as
coming from the bottom up". I mean post -structuralist
refusal of single unified totality namely
state ideology economy and so on. I mean instead
multiplicity of power relations and no distinction
between "levels" he also emphasized I mean
he also was one with E P Thompson as well
as Raymond Williams on this that single unified
totality there is nothing called single unified
totality or holism maybe the state ideology,
economy and so, on.
They must be examined in terms of that intersectionality,
that is why such intersectionality limps Foucault
to examine multiplicity of power relations
and it also enables Foucault to suggest that
there is no distinction between the levels
in the society they are separated levels in
the society, you just cannot say that you
know this is economy, this is social, this
is political, this is cultural no to. One
must examine the whole array of economies,
social, political, cultural, institutional,
ideological, legal, ethical and so, on in
their totality I mean one must examine these
categories together not in an isolated man
.
Please note here that for Foucault there is
no escape from power relations because whatever
institutions that we have created these institutions
are mostly created by the state a private
property family. These institutions they also
they try to create hierarchy, they try to
create power and they try to exercise unfettered
power over others, over the marginal intersections
of the society, over even in family you will
find there is power relation in private property
that is there is power relation in state,
in the state also there is powerless.
When he did that I mean that this was a challenge
to have a messages ideal speech situation
that when he said there is no escape from
power relations I mean human relations are
always involved with coercive power. When
power is related to certain coercive majors,
coercive this is not a legal, this is not
a liberal pluralist perspective I mean, but
an all encompassing multiplicity.
When power is exercised everywhere where when
power is held by only one person or when power
is possessed by someone or some institution,
when power is derived from a central source,
when power is primarily repressive in nature
it becomes coercive power that is why human
relations are always involved with coercive
power. Hence this is not a liberal pluralism
with private retreats, but an all encompassing
multiplicity this is a part of holism or totality.
When he comes to social movements Foucault
mentions that power includes the possibility
of resistance and struggle against such power
relations, but it is never totally one dimension.
I mean if there is represent if there is exploitation
there must be resistance and struggle against
the powers that be, but it is never totally
one dimension, you may find power is exercised
somewhere I am a exercise power I mean power
may be exercised on me, by somebody and I
may not be able to exercise my power over
that person, but I can exercise I am and I
am trying to exercise my power over another
person that is where power is exercised everywhere
because it is a relation.
Then when Foucault said, that power is as
constitutive of subjectivity because it is
not absolutely objectively ordained, but subjectively
coordinated through power knowledge, distinction
knowledge is power.
I mean we generally do not tend to look at
knowledge for the sake of knowledge for it
is own sake, but knowledge the weight it has
it creates power structures. Please note that
that contrast to Raymond Williams use your
Frankfurt school model of dominative or exploitative
approach I mean that instrumental rationality
I mean goal oriented social action I mean
weberian version which assumes original human
nature in terms of Marxist philosophical anthropology.
There are shifting types of power for Foucault,
if you look at his work on I mean or discipline
and punish I mean from dramatic spectacle
I mean public mutilation or execution to micro
level, but all present intervention I mean
prison I means when I say prison I mean surveillance
interventions to reform prisoners. These sifting
types of power then there must be a link between
knowledge and power in prison system relates
to ability to view or here prisoners and to
know them as individuals constituted.
For example, Via a psychological history I
mean case it held by psychologists who makes
recommendations as to treatment I mean sick
in the field of psychology criminology and
so, on then there is spread towards spread
outwards via as such as examination of pedagogical
knowledge, I mean surveys in social sciences.
Hence human sciences are bound up with the
spread of surveillance as discipline or disciplines.
This suggests of characterization of modernity
as "disciplinary society" but Foucault refuses
this kind of total analysis the reasons for
it spread are seen as contingent. This is
very important if you look at such analysis
you if you start with madness and civilization
which is your structuralist move within social
and political theory of Foucault and then
you get into the order of things discipline
and punish the history of sexuality and so
on.
You will find that that Foucault refutes some
kind of kind of a total analysis I mean the
characterization of modernity as disciplinary
society refutes I mean that Ditto sexuality
I mean Victorian era such as not one of repression
of sexuality. So, much as of it is creation
via spread of knowledge about sex when I say
spread of knowledge about sex I mean Foucault
referred to psychological, social, scientific,
pedagogical, criminological and so, on.
Foucault as an activist he tried to bring
upon the issue of homosexuality I mean peoples
people self identification with their sexuality
as a central element of personality that relates
to this form of knowledge this is very important
and perhaps for this reason and Foucault also
has to be examined not simply as a theorist,
but also as an activist. The way he tried
to hold aloft the banner of dissenting voices
across borders and soul and Foucault is deep
analysis of these elements makes him not simply
a theorist, but also great champion of for
social and political contents.
Hence Foucault offers radical critique of
rationality as mode of domination he offers
not so much as an alternative as a greater
awareness of the ambiguous nature of rationality,
it is not really possible to stand outside
it, for Foucault reflexivity consists in distancing
ourselves from it and criticizing it, being
aware of it is dangers. As against the model
of 'global intellectuality' for example, some
meta - theory that Foucault offers situated
and specific intellectual and political interventions.
Now, we have come to a point where we can
see that radical post structuralist standpoint
that Foucault represents, that radical post
structuralism as well as socialist humanism
they constitute or their constitutive of the
intellectual trajectory of cultural studies.
Now, how we are going to now wrap it up, we
started this module I mean that module on
deconstructing modernity we have already discussed
the feminist challenge to a critical modernist
paradigm in sociology.
Now, we are discussing cultural studies response
to critical modernity we started with very
brief background to cultural studies, how
cultural studies joins feminism in the attempt
to broaden the categories used, cultural studies
also joins feminism in the attempt to include
culture without reductionism and thus cultural
studies attempts to generate of more adequate
holism along with energy.
We also I mean we discussed there are 2 influential
sources for cultural studies one socialist
humanism, the other radical post structuralism
they are very different accounts, but surprising
similarities may be found because a marginal
status has been accorded to both socialist
humanism as well as pushed radical post structuralism
in within the ambit of social and political
theory.
Precisely because both socialist humanism
as well as radical post structuralism emphasize
more on perspectives than theories they have
not founded coherent schools, but both socialist
humanism as well as radical post structuralism
have dot people to think and work in new ways.
Within socialist humanism we have included
the works of E P Thompson and Raymond Williams
and within radical post structuralism we have
included the works of Michel Foucault and
we have discussed how Thompson and Williams
they in their attempt to refute the base superstructure
model, how E P Thomson is us suggested that
no politics and economics and also cultural
whereas, Raymond Williams suggested that no
culture is material I mean that mode of production
mode of domination has been replaced by whole
way of life and whole way of struggle for
Raymond Williams.
We have discussed ah E P Thompson and Raymond
Williams reflections on culture. I mean as
a part of social movements holism or totality
reflexivity and rationality. I mean the way
E P Thompson dwelt upon dialectic rationality
and Raymond Williams to dwelt upon synthetic
rationality.
And then we have also seen how Michel Foucault
offers a radical critique of rationality as
mode of domination we must have we must create
different forms of rationality different types
of rationality we cannot have only one way
to look at rationality and then we have discussed
Michel Foucault's reflections on power relations
I mean how power is possessed by someone,
power is derived from a central source, how
power is primarily repressive.
And then we have discussed how Foucault suggested
that you know power is exercised, it is a
relation this is derived from structuralist
relationalism versus subject orientation of
western Marxism and how power is analyzed
as coming from bottom up I mean there is no
escape from power relations for Foucault and
power also includes the possibility of resistance
and struggle, but it is never totally one
dimensional power as constitutive of subjectivity
and so, on.
Then we have also discussed Foucault refusal
of for kind of total analysis I mean the characterization
of modernity as disciplinary society and so
on and how Foucault offers a critique of radical
critique of rationality as mode of domination
he offers not. So, much as an alternative
as a as a greater awareness of the ambiguous
nature of rationality it is not possible to
stand outside it for Foucault, reflexivity
for Foucault is very important that consists
in distancing ourselves from it and criticizing
it being aware of it is dangers as against
the model of global intellectuality for example,
some meta theory Foucault offers situated
or specific intellectual and political interventions
.
There are certain common point's communalities
that we that we tend to find so, far as E
P Thompson Raymond Williams and Michel Foucault
are concerned. In the sectional cultural studies
response to critical modernist paradigm in
sociology what are those common points they
are all these 3 I mean all the 3 whether E
P Thompson or Raymond Williams or Michel Foucault,
all 3 they refute they made they made a refusal
of separate levels in the society maybe political,
economic, cultural, I mean separate levels
of analysis.
Culture is not residual or reduced to economic
or political ideology, but key and only present
mediating term that they all 3 of them they
made a refusal of best super structure model
they made a refusal of separate levels of
analysis, that economy, polity, culture, language,
religion, region put ideology cannot be examined
in isolation, culture the way I tend to examine
culture cannot be reduced to only political
ideology cannot be only reduced to economics.
But culture is a key and omnipresent meditative
term culture always attempts to mediate between
economical quality ideology religion region
and so on, please note that there is a need
to distinguish the analysis of political,
economic, cultural, institutions from political
economic, cultural, relations most social
relations and institutions involve a mix of
power value and meaning be it polity be it
economy or culture all 3 they made a rejection
of inductive concepts like for example, like
structuralist type theory foreground of thinking
loser categories and so on and their refusal
of only one type of rationality as mode of
domination, but for them there is no alternative
and when they say that they are skeptic about
rationality as mode of domination or mode
of subordination mode of subjugation mode
of exploitation through power relations or
there is no alternative to this.
I mean there is no way out and the radicalization
of this position leads to the post modernist
challenge to critical modernist paradigm in
sociology and what we will do in the next
lecture that, we are going to make a case
in point that feminist cultural studies and
post modernism they make an attempt to respond
to or they try to make an attempt to bring
about the critique to the central pillars
of critical modernist paradigm a sociology
and in such radicalization of this position
which leads to the postmodernist challenge
to the critical modernist paradigm in sociology.
There we are going to discuss in fact, Michel
Foucault more than we have discussed till
now and with the post modernist challenge
to critical modernist paradigm in sociology
we will end this module on deconstruction
of modernity and then we will move on to our
last module of this course that is a new totality.
Thank you
