Final Research Essay Aigul Murat Kyzy

Aigul Murat kyzy Final Assesment Essay Advanced Social Theory Jamilya Jeenbaeva

Essay question: When does the ‘archeology of knowledge’ or the questioning of the established discourses become important and unavoidable? What implications does this questioning of established knowledge have to phenomena of power? Discourse about knowledge and power, reproduction of knowledge and its dependency on powerful structures- is central topic in social theory. It is a theme that is partially touched upon in any writing of social theorists, be it ‘Time, Space Relations and Social Change’ of Giddens (1994), ‘Class and Classification’ of Bourdieu (1979), Foucault’s writing on panopticism, Bertilson’s (2001) analysis of advances in social thought, or Huysens (1984) description of post modernity. Each theorizer provided own scheme or model that explained social reality and order, relationship between individual and the structure, and the role knowledge and power in reproduction of the structure. Preserving the order and regulating individuals’ actions is done through creating rules, values, norms of behavior, and common beliefs. Reproduction of those beliefs ensures reproduction of the social structure. Eventually, individuals are aware about those rules, and this awareness is either shared, common or mutual knowledge, as Giddens (1994) described. However, at certain point of time, group of people come to the stage who are not satisfied with the way how the system works, and they question ‘common’ knowledge. They start questioning ‘established discourse’ or common knowledge, and provide alternative vision and explanation of social reality and act as agents of change. The goal of this paper is to present analysis of various theories of knowledge presented in the context of this course; describe the tension between powerful structures and ‘collectives’ in producing knowledge and emergence of ‘alternative’ views as a form of resistance against ‘established discourse’.

Literature Review: Goal of social theory is defining collective, or mutual, shared knowledge and putting it into the framework of agent/ structure interaction as in Giddens (1994) structurian theoretical perspective, or individual/ collective relation model, suggested by Bertilsson (2001). Knowledge is produced within the structure when agents- are those who interpret that knowledge and act accordingly as the structure requires- supposed to fit for institutional expectations and demands. Agents’ or holders of ‘mutual’ knowledge do not have similar or identical knowledge. Knowledge imposed from the structure is interpreted by individuals, and this produced differentiation of common knowledge as an outcome of social interaction. At the same time, not always individuals may have awareness about structure imposition on their thinking and behavior (Foucault, 1979). ‘Power relations embedded in structure aimed at disciplining individuals, correct their conduct and make them obedient, not too willful. Moreover, not all knowledge can be put into words, especially when it comes to sensible issues. Language, and articulation also played own role in power relations, and when power structures wanted to conceal some facts, they did not let masses to speak up about it (Lemert, 1999). Also, lack of experience, stress and pain associated with admitting some biographical facts did not allow empowered people to put their knowledge into words. Referring to Bourdieu , theory- is about ‘transferring common sense knowledge into theoretical one’, that explains current social order logically. The main goal of theory is obtaining knowledge of the social world, that is ‘individuals’ reflection of the social reality’. By saying that, Bourdieu (1979) implies that individuals’ knowledge is reflection or interpretation of ‘structure- imposed’ knowledge. He distinguishes ‘practical’ knowledge that is embodied in social structures, acquired from personal experience, and depends on individual’s position in the social space. ‘What we know’ is determined by ‘who we are’, Bourdieu said. Foucualt (1979) identified forces and powers embedded in the social structure as a form of social energy, and described mechanisms through which structures are reproduced, and knowledge is transmitted to individual from the structure. Power is defined as a form of energy embedded in the structure (Foucault, 1979). Relation of the individual with the structure is redefined, considering power relations. Legitimate,

powerful structures exercise the power over individuals and force them to correct own conduct, to fit for institutional expectations. Exercising power is expressed through keeping individuals under constant observation, controlling their behavior, defining roles for them. It produces disciplined individuals, behavior of whom corresponds to the norms, rules of the society. Moreover, defining the truth is prerogative of the powerful structures. Truth or verified knowledge is transmitted to individuals through training and education, and powerful institutions always had monopoly over education Habermass (1965) suggested theory of communicative action meaning that knowledge is transmitted to individuals from the structure through articulation, or experience. Disinterested knowledge refers to the ability of the knowledge producers to be reflexive to own experience and aware about limitations of own thinking. This produces emancipatory knowledge. At the same time, reproduction of knowledge is not freed from the influence of powerful structures, political values and other external factors. ‘Self reflexivity is determined by an emancipatory cognitive interest’, Habermas (1965: 310) said. This idea of self- reflexivity of science is a tool that allows production of ‘disinterested knowledge’, and emancipation of science. Self-reflectivity in science produces emancipatory knowledge. With the help of emancipatory knowledge, objective explanation of casual relation between evidences is possible. It all brings to narrative explanation of the history, outside of the interest (Habermas, 1965). Reflecting Huyssen (1984) the influence of art and literature is crucial in describing social life, and producing knowledge. Domination of western culture, and their project of cultural ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ imperialism had own effects in social, political and cultural spheres of other countries. Progressive and rampant modernization ensured this privileged position for western countries. However, starting from 1940s this process did not go ‘unchallenged’, either politically or economically, since other countries demonstrated ‘passive resistance’ towards totalizing influence of the western cultural project. Various social movements through the world, growing awareness about other cultures lead to dispersion and diversification in art, film, literature. Growing creativity and ‘otherness’ in form of art became obvious, and the notion of ‘high’ art, imposed from the west became not as important as before. All that contributed for emergence of the ‘local’, ‘specific’ knowledge, rather than universal one.

Research Essay: Questioning established discourse- shows that group of people from collectives are mature enough to fully comprehend the essence of ‘established discourse’ of knowledge and social interaction. That people criticize current order, suggest new form of knowledge, and new course of historical development. For the first time it happened during the Age of Enlightenment. Followers of this social movement believed in ‘Progress’ and ‘Truth’, and that free thinking individuals could make the world better (Lemert, 1999). Truth was not defined by external powers, such as God, or providence, but outcome of free thinking, liberated from prejudices, biases, and traditional beliefs. There was a shift from traditional to modern mode of thinking (Bertillson, 2001), and the assumption of ancient philosophers that the truth beloned to the realm of pure thought, and beyond of the range of human senses was questioned. Its goal was overcoming deterministic thinking, effective utilization of human capacity to work and think- to foster progress- and producing changes in the society. This was done through introducing mass education, overcoming ignorance and darkness. Constrains of liberty and free thinking, as traditional beliefs proved to be anachronism and obsolete. During Enlightenment period civil society become stronger, individual thinking, posing secular questions, searching for answers and doubting indisputable truth was welcomed. However, this form of thinking was practiced only among the limited group of people, usually urban intelligent (Lemert, 1999) . As Foucault noticed, ‘the Enlightenment which discovered liberties also created disciplines’ (1979: 211 in Bartolomey, 1999). The result of Enlightenment project was introduction of mass education. However, educational system is aimed at disciplining individuals through exerting power on them, to produce obedient, docile individuals who would not act against current order or resist. In this sense, their freedom was also restricted by disciplines. Thus, epoch of Enlightenment produced new discourse of established order, and free thinking individuals, but in a limited quantity. As for masses, disciplinary mechanisms imposed from educational institutions, workplace constrained their liberty. Changes in the society, industrial development, growing urbanizationcontributed for emergence of social theory as a discipline. Early classist of social thought criticized maladies of their times, provided theories on social reality, and

produced new discourses of social reality. Discourse here means that theorizers tried to analyze interaction between individual and structure in a new, changing world, and criticized social order of their times. Third wave, referring Lemert (1999) happened in 1960-70s- various social movements demanding for better life: feminist movement, antiracist movement; sexual revolution and rethinking gender roles of men and women contributed establishment of new discourse. In 1960s the flow in the social theory was opened up for oppressed ones. Limiting principles, imposed from the top, or Center were rejected, and minorities, oppressed groups could tell about the thing that bothered them freely (Lemert, 2002). It was a times when life stories replaced big stories (Bertilson, 1999). In generally, post modernity theories were mostly about resisting against dominant order, and traditional ways of doing things. There was a shift from macro level of analysis into micro level, and diversity, and multiplicity of knowledge was post modernist standpoint (Bertilson, 1999). Power structures try to preserve current order. It is achieved through minimizing people’s potential for rebel. That’s why their needs are satisfied, but only to a certain extent when ‘bearable’ and ‘tolerable’ life conditions are provided for normal life and work, but not fully satisfactory for individuals. Since major goal of the power structure is efficient and effective utilization of human capital, and other natural resources, or fictious commodities, their interest is progress and development of the structure-not individuals. For this purpose wholehearted work is required from the agents. Certain mechanism of power exercised to achieve this task. Exertion of power, keeping individuals under constant observation, disciplining them serve the wants of the powerful structure (Foucault, 1979). Through creating obstacles for communication, putting individuals under constant observation, or so called ‘panopticon’ system, when the one, who have more power can constantly observe, evaluate the work of those, under own authority and creating obstacles for communication hinder individuals from rebelling, or joining into conspiracy to overthrow the regime.

Reference:

Bertilson, Margareta(2001), From Aristotle to Modern Social Theory in Andersen, Heine and Kaspersen, Lars Bo (eds): Classical and Modern Social Theory, 2000 Foucault (1976), Power as Knowledge in Lemerts’, Charles (eds), Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings, 1999 Foucault, Michel, Panopticism (excerpt), Bartholomae, D., Petrovsky (1999), Ways of Reading- An Anthology for Writeters, 5th Edition, Bedford/ St Martins; Giddens (1994), Chapter 7- The prospects for Social Theory Today in Cetral Problems in Socai lTheory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis Huyson, Andreas (1984) Whither Postmodernism? (excerpt) in Lemer, Charles (eds), Social Theory, The Multicultural and Classic Reading, 1999 Habermas (1968), Emancipatory Knowledge in lemert, Charles (eds), Social Theory: Multicultural and Classic Readings, 1999 Lemert (1999), Modernity’s Classical Age 1848- 1919, Part 3: The Golden Moment: 1945- 1963, in Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings 1999