In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari, to some extent following Gabriel Tarde, famously claim that 'every politics is simultaneously a macropolitics and a micropolitics' (Deleuze & Guattari 1987, 213). This point is, of course, inscribed in their complex philosophical oeuvre, but, in my opinion, several remarks on it would suffice to prove its relevance for the present research. For Deleuze and Guattari, the social nowadays is characterized by two types of segmentation, namely, supple and rigid. The most perfect example of rigid segmentation is the modern hierarchically organized state, while supple segmentation can be related to all kinds of "microscopic relations" which already existed in the primitive societies. These two type of segmentation cannot be separated from each other and are necessarily entangled. As they go on to argue, 'every society, and every individual, are thus plied by both segmentarities simultaneously: one molar, the other molecular' (Deleuze & Guattari 1987, 213). So, for instance, the proletariat is, so to speak, a molar unit which belongs to the macropolitical dimension. But it is crucial that any class emerges from within the molecular masses. As Deleuze and Guattari argue, 'the …show more content…
While affect is a singular and autonomous event which allows "me" (strictly speaking, in the instant of an affective hit there is no "me" as subjectivity) to feel bodily intensity and developing movement, affective tonality signifies what Massumi calls the 'generic quality' of affect and 'the qualitative self-grouping of events' (Massumi 2011, 113). To put it differently, affective tonality refers to the feeling of events as resembling each other, as belonging to the same "form of life". Every form of life is singular-generic in the sense that it hinges on this specific relationship between affect as species and affective tonality as
"We are presently confronted by fundamental questions concerning the nature of order and authority in a traditional society, and these questions have been given added point by researches into the ideological transformations wrought by adaptation to growth and ex...
The road taken by Warren, that emotionality requires self-observation and integration, is far too polar in that it completely negates the hormonal influence on emotionality. Emotionality ought not be defined in either of these ways because when doing so one wrongly restricts different form of emotionality. This would be the equivalent to defining a dog as a four legged animal, or a domesticated carnivorous animal with four legs, long snout, fur, canine teeth, and a tendency to bark or whine. The former definition sets the bar too low in that every four legged animal can qualify as a dog whereas the latter sets the bar too high in that some dogs may not actually qualify as dogs using that definition. For this reason the definition of a dog has to be somewhere in the middle. Thus when extending this example to emotionality it becomes clear one should take an Aristotelian approach in defining emotion because it would not be polarizing. The emotions we feel (happy, sad, angry, etc) is partly influenced by hormones such as dopamine and partly influenced by our own self-observation of markers. Integrating hormones and self-observation ensures we cover the spectrum of emotionality. This further ensures that the capability of
Gramsci’s notion of hegemony is a useful tool in understanding power dynamics. Gramsci makes power movable with his insight that all social systems of inequality have hegemony. Hegemony can even absorb movements initially hostile to the power system. The protests in Brazil illustrate the ability of the hegemony to absorb the counter movement into the capitalist hegemonic system. The groups’ rebellious demands of transport fare reduction, better health and education were funneled into the capitalist hegemon. This example of how full-flown protests and its demands can be made structure friendly to the system shows how pervasive hegemony can be.
Post World War Two political sociology theory assumed that the election, legislation, and social and foreign policy outcomes of states were shaped by social cleavages and interest groups. A large focus was put on power structure research and pluralism as well as value consensus and functionalist equilibrium. Then, later in the 1970s and 1980s, much of critical theory shifted toward culture and things like advertising, gender, and the media. These new approaches to political culture were met with severe criticism for their static nature and stereotyping of groups of people. However, Michel Foucalt was able to change critics’ viewpoint to see that cultural processes cause material outcomes. The authors explain that, “Foucault removed the critical aspect of determinism from his theories by talking about ‘what was possible’ in various social contexts between groups and people with varying levels of power/knowledge.” (CITE) The problem they see with this new cultural turn is that it leads from positivistic universalism into institutional and historical specification of theoretical domains and then into somewhere that theory serves only to regulate interpretation of certain events. The authors believe that the middle-range theory provides an appropriate middle point in this slippery slope. They also believe sociologists need to avoid cultural theorizing into particularism. Three different approaches are provided for new cultural sociology. The first of these is provided by Robert Wuthnow’s Communities of Discourse (CITE). He looks to environmental conditions, institutional contexts, and action sequences to show the way ideologies of change are produced. He then examines how subgroups of these ideologies are chosen for institutionalization into roles of world historic importance. Wuthnow’s main focus is on ideologies as change promoting
Recognized as the originator of scientific socialism, and a revolutionary critic (Beiharz, 2005), Karl Marx’s theory was one that was based on the ideology that social class differences produces inequality which is the premise of continual conflict making it inevitable (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2012). Through the lens of Marx, the existing society was divided between two classes being referenced as dominant, however, is inclusive of capitalist and workers describe as the bourgeoisie and proletariat (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2012). In the first place, according to Marx, historically, society has always been viewed as having a struggle over resources which was ultimately initiated by capitalism thus,
Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the relationship between society and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived such a relationship and what it means for the nature of social reality.
In society, it can be agreed that there are two main types of power, proximal relations of power and distal relations of power. Proximal relations of power deals within the personal relationships in society, whereas distal relations of power are related to society in a more abstract way that affects it as a
“A response of the whole organism, involving physical arousal, expressive behaviors and conscious experiences are known as emotions” (David Myers, 2007).
There are three main theories of sociology; functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. This paper will focus on two of those theories, functionalism and conflict theory. The objective is to delineate the assumptions of two out of the three theoretical perspectives and apply these assumptions to an analysis of social stratification. How this will be accomplished will be by comparing and contrasting their assumptions and by analyzing the two theories affect on social stratification. Then I will state my opinion on which of the two better fits my personal sociological views. Functionalism is many people's way to view the world sociologically. It states clearly that the objectivity of the researcher is necessary and can be accomplished. There are three main points, which make up a functionalist theory on sociological expression. The first point is that culture is made up of interacting, interdependent parts. Each of these parts has a function in maintaining the society as a system on the whole. The second point states that shared values and expectations(or beliefs) among the members of the society help hold the society together. The third point states that these systems have a need for stability and a need to try to keep all the parts working together congruously in a sort of system. Social change in this system is uncommon, and when it does happen, it is a very gradual change. Conflict theory is centered on the tension, or struggle that goes on in everyday life. There are many different parts, which make up the conflict theorist's view on the sociological perspective. The first main part is that society promotes general differences in wealth, power, and prestige. Wealth...
“Politics as a Vocation” is a lecture written by Max Weber, a German political economist whose beliefs and ideas on politics influenced many. The universe of his writing is focused around the nature of politics, and the way people were involved and influenced by politics, which was eventually molded into the modern politics, as we know it today. Weber explains that the focus of his lecture is surrounded between two beliefs of politics, that being leadership and relation of a state. Weber mentions that “every state is founded on force” (25) and how that force coexists with the idea of violence, and if without it that there wouldn’t be a state. “Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (32-4). Weber also mentions that territory is another description of a state, being described in a physical force, as the one and only right of the use violence. “Hence, ‘politics’ for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state” (37-9). This quote explains politics as either in a leadership form in self-seeking power for there own prestige, or for the sake of others.
The hypothesis does not make a difference to all advanced social orders, yet rather to the most divided and decentralized political economies. These social orders are most powerless against getting to be distinctly mass social orders since they contain vacuums made by declining investment in religious associations, unions, political gatherings, and willful affiliations. Without such mutual affiliations, the broad communications, which gives both correspondence and amusement, ventures into fill the void (Kreisler,
Marx’s description of European society as driven by economics and divided by class lines is correct. However he fails to see the great influence of nationalism and he does not entertain the idea of compromise between the classes, because of this he wrongly predicts the destruction of the capitalist system and the bourgeoisies by the proletariat.
Society is highly stratified when considering social classes i.e. - upper class, middle class, lower class, and working class citizens. That being said, not everyone has the same access to the superstructure; thus creating tension. The largest problem when considering structure and agency is the constant struggle and negotiation of power inequality. Among the asymmetry of power are two major disparities; class and gender. Thinking as a critical theorist, one must consider the individual’s participation in the public sphere; “The word means a false view of the world that is in the interests of the powerful citizens in order to keep the subordinate classes oppressed” (Habermas, 10). Though the public sphere is virtually a democratic sphere where ideas can circulate and opinions are formed there are certain restrictions when referring to lower classes and women and thus how their agencies as individuals are limited.
From the beginning of ancient history the main question for political philosophy is how a human being exists in society, who should govern the society, how should the society be governed, who are the best rulers and how should they behave themselves, what is just and what is unjust, is better to be governed through just or not, how should the states be structured? These are main questions in political philosophy, that until today are strictly discussed. The major tasks of political philosophers are to analyze the nature of human being and to evaluate the ways in which an individual relates with society he lives in. The study of human nature is one of the most important aspects of political science and philosophy. In the process of creating a form of governance it is essential to understand the innate characteristics of human nature in order to avoid a bad government for all society and to achieve the ways how people should be governed most effectively. From the ancient time the roots of justification of political power were tied to sights of human nature.
Emotions are defined as "stereotypic patterns of the body, which are triggered by the central nervous system in response to distinct external environmental situations or to the recollection of memories related to such situations." (2) In other words, this means the emotions are the way the nervous system reacts to different situations one might find themselves in. In order to survive, emotional responses must be present. (2) "Whenever an emotion is triggered, a network of brain regions (traditionally referred to as the limbic system) generates a pattern of stereotypic outputs, which ultimately induce a biological response of the body." (2) These stereotypic outputs are what humans call emotions. They are predictable responses to certain situations, for instance when a person is in a sad situation, they will cry and feel depressed or if a person is in a happy situation, they will laugh and smile. These responses are because "specific circuits of the emotional motor system have evolved to both generate this stereotypic emotional facial response, as well as instantaneously recognize it when it occurs in somebody else." (2) This holds true for people in love, when you see someone in love you can tell because their face tells all.