Karl Marx And Engels 'Communist Manifesto'
GRAMSCI, ALTHUSSER, AND FOUCAULT MAKING THEIR MARXS
Introduction
Karl Marx is a key figure in theorizing power, and in some respects, his work is considered the foundation of social sciences. Marx and his associate Engels instantly became famous among scholars during the late 19th century, when they published The Communist Manifesto (1848). This important work became a reference point for many theorists because the document described in great detail the series of European revolutions initiated by capitalism. Capitalism, Marx and Engels argue, was an interesting 19th century phenomenon that radically changed everything, "All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind" (Marx and Engels 1848:12). More specifically, our immaterial institutions (culture, religion, ideology, etc), quickly became a reflection of material social relations of production; the spheres of the sacred and profane collide. However, in our contemporary society where we are removed from Marx by a more than a century and a …show more content…
half, we realize Marx 's conception of power and climax of a proletarian revolution never occurred. In specific, the argument can be made that in our 21st century Marxist notions of historical materialism and classless society have become a more distant reality since inception (Kingston 2000). In light of our current modern condition we have to ask ourselves, what changed? Where do the boundaries of material/immaterial forces begin and end? How do we conceptualize power today? In my essay, I will examine the work of three theorists that not only expand on the Marxist tradition, but also drastically reform how we think about the gap between immaterial (virtual) and material (actual) forces. First, I will discuss Antonio Gramsci 's macro perspectives in terms of a material hegemonic group and, immaterial counter-hegemony. Next, I will examine Louis Althusser 's micro view of the individual as it pertains to the actual interpellated self, and, virtual counter-actualization possibilities in Aleatory Materialism. I will follow this with the contrasting views of Michel Foucault, who instead opts for a positive facilitative view on power, capable of constructive transformative reform. Finally, I will conclude with a review of all the theories and propose how our contemporary world can move forward with a new apparatus, created by a synthesis of these three theoretical traditions. The concept of power for the majority of people has always been viewed with negative connotations. Typically manifested as, "...the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance" (Weber 1968:53). However, through vigorous theorizing and investigation we come to the startling revelation that power is actually a source of optimism that reveals hidden material (actual) relations of exploitation, and, serves as the starting point towards theorizing better immaterial (virtual) possibilities.
Gramscian Expansion of Marxist Theoretical Tradition
Antonio Gramsci is an important 20th century theorist that expanded the Marxist theoretical tradition with his concept of hegemony. Gramsci 's concept of hegemony in many academic circles have been widely praised for reinventing the classical Marxist examinations between immaterial phenomena (culture, religion, ideology, etc), and material social relations of production. For Gramsci, the immaterial and material divide can identify additional sources of power above "...the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange" (Marx and Engels 1848:5). That, acknowledging the formation of a historical bloc (ideological superstructure) was paramount because, "...man is not ruled by force alone, but also by ideas" (Bates 1975:351). This investigation within a Gramscian tradition is an important undertaking, because we begin to reveal more relevant contemporary matters. Matters that concern the current state of our material relationships between forces of power, politics and rule, as well as, the ability to radically change these relationships through a counter-hegemony towards immaterial virtual possibilities.
The Material ("Actual") Hegemonic Group
In our contemporary world, Gramsci would have classified the material forces of power, politics and rule, as being in the firm control of the top 1% ruling class1. This ruling class, according to Gramscian theory, is a group that has successfully made itself hegemonic through a contingent process, "...in which a given group moves beyond a position of corporate existence and defense of its economic position and aspires to a position of leadership in the political and social arena" (Gramsci 1971:20). In his influential work The Prison Notebooks (1971), Gramsci describes a total of three political stages of development in order for a dominant group to be hegemonic. The first stage was characterized as 'economic-corporative ', wherein "...there was no general agreement about how society was organized, no generally accepted world view harmonizing with economic and social reality" (Bates 1975:354-355). Here, the top 1% recognize the need to lobby together. However, their participation is often indirectly coerced through fear of being unable to reproduce themselves within society and ultimately becoming 'toast ' (Datta 2013), thus undermining the development of a true sense of solidarity. The second stage is where shared economic interests amongst the 1% creates solidarity, and, legal reforms to protect and maintain this wealth are attempted. Finally, in the third stage, these reforms can be cleverly disguised "...to instruct the masses [of the working class] as to their true interests and divert them from the perilous path of reformism [against the top 1% ruling class]" (Bates 1975:352). Gramsci used the example of the Bolshevik Revolution, also called the "Peasant 's Revolution," to illustrate this point.
The Possibility for an Immaterial ("Virtual") Counter-Hegemonic Group
Gramsci argues that the capacity for intervention in social realities isn 't a power exclusive to the ruling class, but, can also be influenced by proletarians. Gramsci suggests that we need to lay the groundwork for moral and intellectual terrain to form a new historical bloc, "...to the function of great intellectuals in the organic life and civil society or of the state, to the moment of hegemony and consensus as the necessary form of the concrete historical bloc" (Bates 1975:356). Gramsci understood that the constitution of an emergent immaterial "virtual" counter-hegemony was no simple task to undertake. Specifically, there is a considerable discrepancy between different marginalized groups in terms of experience, education, communication and world view. To overcome these differences, and in order for the proletariat to rise above the first political stage of its own economic-corporatist self-interests, the counter-hegemonic group needs to sacrifice it 's immediate economic goals in favor of a moral and intellectual unified front. In order to create a unified intellectual front, the group needs to establish permanency through educating future generations "These youth must then turn to the elders of the proletariat for guidance" (Bates 1975:361), and, demonstrate, on an international stage, that they are capable of achieving their goals. They ultimately need to inspire radical change and "...for the struggle to be effective, these individuals and groups must feel superior to what exists, capable of educating society, etc." (Tasca 1970). Power, according to this Gramscian theoretical tradition, is how the collective mass can identify disparities in the material "actual" forces. Furthermore, power can be wielded toward the realization of an immaterial "virtual" possibility, a collective effervescence of emancipatory change.
Althusser 's Material ("Actual") Practices and Rituals
Louis Althusser is another key 20th century theorist who expands on the Marxist tradition. In contrast to a Gramscian macro perspective, Althusser develops micro theoretical frameworks in his influential work, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (1971). In this investigation, Althusser points out that the primary method towards the creation of an 'always already ' subjugated individual is interpellation. More specifically, "...ideology 'acts ' or 'functions ' in such a way that it 'recruits ' subjects among individuals (it recruits them all), or 'transforms ' the individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) by the very precise operation which I called interpellation or hailing" (Althusser 1971:33-34). That, institutions such as the church reproduce power through repetitive material and ritualistic practices, "Kneel down, move your lips in prayer, and you will believe" (30). Furthermore, Althusser 's concept of interpellation does not only apply to religion, but as Jameson points out in the Political Unconscious (1981) at other levels as well, "...to have some deeper kinship with the allegorical systems described above: culture, ideology, the legal system, political superstructures and the state" (Jameson 1981:17). The most important aspect of interpellation is the individual 's voluntary material "actual" practiced consent, "...authority has no existence other than the collective beliefs sustaining it ...[and cannot be] explained outside the processes of socialization which create it" (Lacoix 1979:90). This consent and interpellation at different levels can be illustrated in our contemporary world as well. For example, the Edmonton Citadel season pass holders ritualistically watch a new performance every month (culture), which, is usually sponsored by 'the great folks ' at Suncor (economic base) (Weber 2013).
Althusser 's Aleatory Materialism: Possibilities of "Virtual" Counter-Actualizations
How can we break free from the material and ritualistic practices that interpellate us as concrete subjugated individuals? How can we move towards a new emancipatory immaterial virtual possibility? Althusser proposes that Aleatory Materialism is a contingent framework, wherein, transformative counter-actualizations of the self ("virtual") are possible when virtue and fortune meet. There were four major components of virtue: (1) Theorizing: the ability to explain things as they actually are, and, to deal with causes and conditions to understand unactualized potentials. (2) Organization: the capacity to think the impossible and offer an account that might be otherwise. (3) Courage to act: without any concrete action, there is no concrete result, and finally, (4) Popular support: to shift the balance of forces through massive popular support (Datta 2013). For example, Machiavelli 's The Prince (1532) was a work that theorized the many counter-actualization alternatives in contrast to the current aims of totalitarian princes. In this regard, although Althusser identifies religion as an institution that reproduces rule, there is the real possibility of an immaterial "virtual" counter-actualization. Put differently, the sacred in religion can be emergent from moments of collective effervescence, towards revolutionary and powerful transformative change (Tiryakian 1995). For Althusser, power becomes manifested in material practices and rituals, and if virtue and fortune meet, can be generated through immaterial virtual counter-actualization possibilities. Althusser 's revolutionary power has the potential of transforming the material 'actual ' into the immaterial 'virtual ', a process that can start by simply wanting a side order of toast (Five Easy Pieces 1970).
Foucauldian Expansion of the Marxist Theoretical Tradition
Michel Foucault is another vital figure in the 20th century and, the "Most significant contemporary reference point for theorising power" (Datta 2013). Foucault 's conception of power in Discipline and Punish (1975) is based on positive facilitative reform, rather than, a Marxian theoretical tradition which views power as exploitative within the relations of production. In terms of material state power, bureaucracy and bio-politics, Foucault "...[parts] company with Marx 's ultimately romantic rationalism and its sad echoes in the halls of socialist state bureaucracy" (O 'Neill 1986:43). This optimistic reimagining of power as facilitative became the central thesis behind Bentham 's Panopticon (1995) prison design, and, makes Foucault 's positive relationship with power worth investigating. The Material "Actual" and Immaterial "Virtual" in Foucault
Foucault presents an interesting discourse that creates a new way of thinking about Gramsci 's hegemony, "The concrete institutions and practices by which we produce knowledge of human beings (as individuals and as collectives/populations) generate targets of policy, aiming to change what people are and do" (Datta 2013).
In this sense, the immaterial virtuals can been seen as an unfiltered ocean of possibility, and the concrete institutions is a dam that channels flows of what bodies are doing (Datta 2013). Foucault believes that the institutions once deemed "exploitative" are what direct power relations towards a healthy, orderly, productive, predictable society. That, "To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of actions of others" (Foucault 1982:790); a new positive reformed apparatus of the material
"actual". Similar to Althusser 's Aleatory Materialism, Foucault identified the contingent combinations of three different rationalities towards creating a 'dispositif ' of government: (1) Pastoral model: the 'shepherd ' or government 's ability to lead the 'flock ' or masses to good pastures. (2) Police model: attempts to create knowledge of all facets of social life and, endeavors to expand it further. (3) Diplomatico-Military model: focuses on techniques for generating security; dealing with internal divisions and factions; creating treaties and alliances, similar to Gramsci 's incorporative-hegemony. Power, politics and rule, under a Foucauldian theoretical tradition are positive facilitative components towards the creation of an orderly and healthy civil society. Synthesis
In my essay, I began with introducing theorizing power in relation to immaterial and material dialectics, using the revolutionary work of Marx and Engels ' The Communist Manifesto (1848). I made the proposition that although Marx 's theories are considered the foundation of social sciences, they are ultimately far removed from our contemporary society. I followed this with an examination of three theorists that further complicate this immaterial/material divide and, are potentially more relevant in relation to the modern condition. First, I explored a macro Gramscian theoretical tradition with his concepts of a material ("actual") hegemonic group, and, the strategies towards an emancipatory immaterial ("virtual") counter-hegemony. Next, I investigated a micro theoretical tradition in Althusser, and explored the material interpellated 'self ', as well as, the four components of virtue towards a revolutionary immaterial ("virtual") counter-actualization. Finally, I juxtaposed the negative exploitative conceptions of power with a positive Foucauldian model, that views society as an unfiltered immaterial ocean and, attempts to use power towards the creation of a material orderly and facilitative dispositif of government. Gramsci, Althusser and Foucault all expand the Marxist tradition with their well written accounts of power in relation to the immaterial/material divide. Although each theoretical tradition has their limitations, after thorough investigation I found that an amalgam of the three could actually be an effective new apparatus. First, Gramscian tradition would create an ideal new hegemonic group via a macro perspective. Next, Althusser 's Aleatory Materialism could micro manage the dissenting opinions of marginalized groups; developing compelling reasons towards a potential counter-hegemony. Finally, Foucault 's dispositif of government can marriage these theories together in one holistic framework, using power positively towards the creation of an orderly and healthy civil society.
Conclusion
Theorizing power is a subject that is both challenging and important in our understanding of the sociological world around us. Power is a versatile concept that can be wielded in a variety of different ways, and subsequently, holds the capacity to shape how we correspondingly act in our daily lives. When the average person thinks of the word 'power ', they immediately develop a negative tyrannical image of oppression. However, after a meticulous investigation of Marx, Gramsci, Althusser and Foucault, I came to the startling revelation that power is actually a source of optimism that reveals hidden material (actual) relations of exploitation, and, serves as the starting point towards theorizing better immaterial (virtual) possibilities.
References
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation). Monthly Review Press: New York.
Bates T. (1975). Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony. University of Pennsylvania Press. Journal of the History of Ideas 36:351-366.
Bentham, J. (1995). The Panopticon Writings. Verso Books: London.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: January 31st, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: February 12th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: March 12th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: March 19th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish. Gallimard: France.
Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8:777-795.
Gautney H. (2011). Interview with International Business Times. International Business Times: New York.
Gramsci A. (1971). Selections From the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence & Wishart: London.
Jameson, F. (1981). The Political Unconscious. Cornell University Press: Ithaca.
Kingston, P. (2000). The classless society. Studies in social inequality. Stanford University Press: California.
Lacroix, B. (1979). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life as a Reflection On Power (Object Pouvoir). Critique of Anthropology 4:87-103.
Marx K., Engels F. (1848). Communist Manifesto. Socialist Labor Party of America: California.
Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince. Antonio Blado d 'Asola: Italy.
O 'Neill, J. (1986). The Disciplinary Society: From Weber to Foucault. The British Journal of Sociology 37:42-60.
Rafelson, B., Wechsler, R. (1970). Five Easy Pieces. Columbia Pictures: California.
Tasca, A. (1970). Fascism and the European Crisis of the Twentieth Century. Italy from the Risorgimento to Fascism: New York.
Weber, B. (2013). Sociology 333 Lecture: February 28th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: an Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Bedmmster Press: New York.
Introduction
Karl Marx is a key figure in theorizing power, and in some respects, his work is considered the foundation of social sciences. Marx and his associate Engels instantly became famous among scholars during the late 19th century, when they published The Communist Manifesto (1848). This important work became a reference point for many theorists because the document described in great detail the series of European revolutions initiated by capitalism. Capitalism, Marx and Engels argue, was an interesting 19th century phenomenon that radically changed everything, "All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind" (Marx and Engels 1848:12). More specifically, our immaterial institutions (culture, religion, ideology, etc), quickly became a reflection of material social relations of production; the spheres of the sacred and profane collide. However, in our contemporary society where we are removed from Marx by a more than a century and a …show more content…
half, we realize Marx 's conception of power and climax of a proletarian revolution never occurred. In specific, the argument can be made that in our 21st century Marxist notions of historical materialism and classless society have become a more distant reality since inception (Kingston 2000). In light of our current modern condition we have to ask ourselves, what changed? Where do the boundaries of material/immaterial forces begin and end? How do we conceptualize power today? In my essay, I will examine the work of three theorists that not only expand on the Marxist tradition, but also drastically reform how we think about the gap between immaterial (virtual) and material (actual) forces. First, I will discuss Antonio Gramsci 's macro perspectives in terms of a material hegemonic group and, immaterial counter-hegemony. Next, I will examine Louis Althusser 's micro view of the individual as it pertains to the actual interpellated self, and, virtual counter-actualization possibilities in Aleatory Materialism. I will follow this with the contrasting views of Michel Foucault, who instead opts for a positive facilitative view on power, capable of constructive transformative reform. Finally, I will conclude with a review of all the theories and propose how our contemporary world can move forward with a new apparatus, created by a synthesis of these three theoretical traditions. The concept of power for the majority of people has always been viewed with negative connotations. Typically manifested as, "...the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance" (Weber 1968:53). However, through vigorous theorizing and investigation we come to the startling revelation that power is actually a source of optimism that reveals hidden material (actual) relations of exploitation, and, serves as the starting point towards theorizing better immaterial (virtual) possibilities.
Gramscian Expansion of Marxist Theoretical Tradition
Antonio Gramsci is an important 20th century theorist that expanded the Marxist theoretical tradition with his concept of hegemony. Gramsci 's concept of hegemony in many academic circles have been widely praised for reinventing the classical Marxist examinations between immaterial phenomena (culture, religion, ideology, etc), and material social relations of production. For Gramsci, the immaterial and material divide can identify additional sources of power above "...the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange" (Marx and Engels 1848:5). That, acknowledging the formation of a historical bloc (ideological superstructure) was paramount because, "...man is not ruled by force alone, but also by ideas" (Bates 1975:351). This investigation within a Gramscian tradition is an important undertaking, because we begin to reveal more relevant contemporary matters. Matters that concern the current state of our material relationships between forces of power, politics and rule, as well as, the ability to radically change these relationships through a counter-hegemony towards immaterial virtual possibilities.
The Material ("Actual") Hegemonic Group
In our contemporary world, Gramsci would have classified the material forces of power, politics and rule, as being in the firm control of the top 1% ruling class1. This ruling class, according to Gramscian theory, is a group that has successfully made itself hegemonic through a contingent process, "...in which a given group moves beyond a position of corporate existence and defense of its economic position and aspires to a position of leadership in the political and social arena" (Gramsci 1971:20). In his influential work The Prison Notebooks (1971), Gramsci describes a total of three political stages of development in order for a dominant group to be hegemonic. The first stage was characterized as 'economic-corporative ', wherein "...there was no general agreement about how society was organized, no generally accepted world view harmonizing with economic and social reality" (Bates 1975:354-355). Here, the top 1% recognize the need to lobby together. However, their participation is often indirectly coerced through fear of being unable to reproduce themselves within society and ultimately becoming 'toast ' (Datta 2013), thus undermining the development of a true sense of solidarity. The second stage is where shared economic interests amongst the 1% creates solidarity, and, legal reforms to protect and maintain this wealth are attempted. Finally, in the third stage, these reforms can be cleverly disguised "...to instruct the masses [of the working class] as to their true interests and divert them from the perilous path of reformism [against the top 1% ruling class]" (Bates 1975:352). Gramsci used the example of the Bolshevik Revolution, also called the "Peasant 's Revolution," to illustrate this point.
The Possibility for an Immaterial ("Virtual") Counter-Hegemonic Group
Gramsci argues that the capacity for intervention in social realities isn 't a power exclusive to the ruling class, but, can also be influenced by proletarians. Gramsci suggests that we need to lay the groundwork for moral and intellectual terrain to form a new historical bloc, "...to the function of great intellectuals in the organic life and civil society or of the state, to the moment of hegemony and consensus as the necessary form of the concrete historical bloc" (Bates 1975:356). Gramsci understood that the constitution of an emergent immaterial "virtual" counter-hegemony was no simple task to undertake. Specifically, there is a considerable discrepancy between different marginalized groups in terms of experience, education, communication and world view. To overcome these differences, and in order for the proletariat to rise above the first political stage of its own economic-corporatist self-interests, the counter-hegemonic group needs to sacrifice it 's immediate economic goals in favor of a moral and intellectual unified front. In order to create a unified intellectual front, the group needs to establish permanency through educating future generations "These youth must then turn to the elders of the proletariat for guidance" (Bates 1975:361), and, demonstrate, on an international stage, that they are capable of achieving their goals. They ultimately need to inspire radical change and "...for the struggle to be effective, these individuals and groups must feel superior to what exists, capable of educating society, etc." (Tasca 1970). Power, according to this Gramscian theoretical tradition, is how the collective mass can identify disparities in the material "actual" forces. Furthermore, power can be wielded toward the realization of an immaterial "virtual" possibility, a collective effervescence of emancipatory change.
Althusser 's Material ("Actual") Practices and Rituals
Louis Althusser is another key 20th century theorist who expands on the Marxist tradition. In contrast to a Gramscian macro perspective, Althusser develops micro theoretical frameworks in his influential work, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (1971). In this investigation, Althusser points out that the primary method towards the creation of an 'always already ' subjugated individual is interpellation. More specifically, "...ideology 'acts ' or 'functions ' in such a way that it 'recruits ' subjects among individuals (it recruits them all), or 'transforms ' the individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) by the very precise operation which I called interpellation or hailing" (Althusser 1971:33-34). That, institutions such as the church reproduce power through repetitive material and ritualistic practices, "Kneel down, move your lips in prayer, and you will believe" (30). Furthermore, Althusser 's concept of interpellation does not only apply to religion, but as Jameson points out in the Political Unconscious (1981) at other levels as well, "...to have some deeper kinship with the allegorical systems described above: culture, ideology, the legal system, political superstructures and the state" (Jameson 1981:17). The most important aspect of interpellation is the individual 's voluntary material "actual" practiced consent, "...authority has no existence other than the collective beliefs sustaining it ...[and cannot be] explained outside the processes of socialization which create it" (Lacoix 1979:90). This consent and interpellation at different levels can be illustrated in our contemporary world as well. For example, the Edmonton Citadel season pass holders ritualistically watch a new performance every month (culture), which, is usually sponsored by 'the great folks ' at Suncor (economic base) (Weber 2013).
Althusser 's Aleatory Materialism: Possibilities of "Virtual" Counter-Actualizations
How can we break free from the material and ritualistic practices that interpellate us as concrete subjugated individuals? How can we move towards a new emancipatory immaterial virtual possibility? Althusser proposes that Aleatory Materialism is a contingent framework, wherein, transformative counter-actualizations of the self ("virtual") are possible when virtue and fortune meet. There were four major components of virtue: (1) Theorizing: the ability to explain things as they actually are, and, to deal with causes and conditions to understand unactualized potentials. (2) Organization: the capacity to think the impossible and offer an account that might be otherwise. (3) Courage to act: without any concrete action, there is no concrete result, and finally, (4) Popular support: to shift the balance of forces through massive popular support (Datta 2013). For example, Machiavelli 's The Prince (1532) was a work that theorized the many counter-actualization alternatives in contrast to the current aims of totalitarian princes. In this regard, although Althusser identifies religion as an institution that reproduces rule, there is the real possibility of an immaterial "virtual" counter-actualization. Put differently, the sacred in religion can be emergent from moments of collective effervescence, towards revolutionary and powerful transformative change (Tiryakian 1995). For Althusser, power becomes manifested in material practices and rituals, and if virtue and fortune meet, can be generated through immaterial virtual counter-actualization possibilities. Althusser 's revolutionary power has the potential of transforming the material 'actual ' into the immaterial 'virtual ', a process that can start by simply wanting a side order of toast (Five Easy Pieces 1970).
Foucauldian Expansion of the Marxist Theoretical Tradition
Michel Foucault is another vital figure in the 20th century and, the "Most significant contemporary reference point for theorising power" (Datta 2013). Foucault 's conception of power in Discipline and Punish (1975) is based on positive facilitative reform, rather than, a Marxian theoretical tradition which views power as exploitative within the relations of production. In terms of material state power, bureaucracy and bio-politics, Foucault "...[parts] company with Marx 's ultimately romantic rationalism and its sad echoes in the halls of socialist state bureaucracy" (O 'Neill 1986:43). This optimistic reimagining of power as facilitative became the central thesis behind Bentham 's Panopticon (1995) prison design, and, makes Foucault 's positive relationship with power worth investigating. The Material "Actual" and Immaterial "Virtual" in Foucault
Foucault presents an interesting discourse that creates a new way of thinking about Gramsci 's hegemony, "The concrete institutions and practices by which we produce knowledge of human beings (as individuals and as collectives/populations) generate targets of policy, aiming to change what people are and do" (Datta 2013).
In this sense, the immaterial virtuals can been seen as an unfiltered ocean of possibility, and the concrete institutions is a dam that channels flows of what bodies are doing (Datta 2013). Foucault believes that the institutions once deemed "exploitative" are what direct power relations towards a healthy, orderly, productive, predictable society. That, "To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of actions of others" (Foucault 1982:790); a new positive reformed apparatus of the material
"actual". Similar to Althusser 's Aleatory Materialism, Foucault identified the contingent combinations of three different rationalities towards creating a 'dispositif ' of government: (1) Pastoral model: the 'shepherd ' or government 's ability to lead the 'flock ' or masses to good pastures. (2) Police model: attempts to create knowledge of all facets of social life and, endeavors to expand it further. (3) Diplomatico-Military model: focuses on techniques for generating security; dealing with internal divisions and factions; creating treaties and alliances, similar to Gramsci 's incorporative-hegemony. Power, politics and rule, under a Foucauldian theoretical tradition are positive facilitative components towards the creation of an orderly and healthy civil society. Synthesis
In my essay, I began with introducing theorizing power in relation to immaterial and material dialectics, using the revolutionary work of Marx and Engels ' The Communist Manifesto (1848). I made the proposition that although Marx 's theories are considered the foundation of social sciences, they are ultimately far removed from our contemporary society. I followed this with an examination of three theorists that further complicate this immaterial/material divide and, are potentially more relevant in relation to the modern condition. First, I explored a macro Gramscian theoretical tradition with his concepts of a material ("actual") hegemonic group, and, the strategies towards an emancipatory immaterial ("virtual") counter-hegemony. Next, I investigated a micro theoretical tradition in Althusser, and explored the material interpellated 'self ', as well as, the four components of virtue towards a revolutionary immaterial ("virtual") counter-actualization. Finally, I juxtaposed the negative exploitative conceptions of power with a positive Foucauldian model, that views society as an unfiltered immaterial ocean and, attempts to use power towards the creation of a material orderly and facilitative dispositif of government. Gramsci, Althusser and Foucault all expand the Marxist tradition with their well written accounts of power in relation to the immaterial/material divide. Although each theoretical tradition has their limitations, after thorough investigation I found that an amalgam of the three could actually be an effective new apparatus. First, Gramscian tradition would create an ideal new hegemonic group via a macro perspective. Next, Althusser 's Aleatory Materialism could micro manage the dissenting opinions of marginalized groups; developing compelling reasons towards a potential counter-hegemony. Finally, Foucault 's dispositif of government can marriage these theories together in one holistic framework, using power positively towards the creation of an orderly and healthy civil society.
Conclusion
Theorizing power is a subject that is both challenging and important in our understanding of the sociological world around us. Power is a versatile concept that can be wielded in a variety of different ways, and subsequently, holds the capacity to shape how we correspondingly act in our daily lives. When the average person thinks of the word 'power ', they immediately develop a negative tyrannical image of oppression. However, after a meticulous investigation of Marx, Gramsci, Althusser and Foucault, I came to the startling revelation that power is actually a source of optimism that reveals hidden material (actual) relations of exploitation, and, serves as the starting point towards theorizing better immaterial (virtual) possibilities.
References
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation). Monthly Review Press: New York.
Bates T. (1975). Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony. University of Pennsylvania Press. Journal of the History of Ideas 36:351-366.
Bentham, J. (1995). The Panopticon Writings. Verso Books: London.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: January 31st, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: February 12th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: March 12th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Datta R. (2013). Sociology 334 Lecture: March 19th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish. Gallimard: France.
Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8:777-795.
Gautney H. (2011). Interview with International Business Times. International Business Times: New York.
Gramsci A. (1971). Selections From the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence & Wishart: London.
Jameson, F. (1981). The Political Unconscious. Cornell University Press: Ithaca.
Kingston, P. (2000). The classless society. Studies in social inequality. Stanford University Press: California.
Lacroix, B. (1979). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life as a Reflection On Power (Object Pouvoir). Critique of Anthropology 4:87-103.
Marx K., Engels F. (1848). Communist Manifesto. Socialist Labor Party of America: California.
Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince. Antonio Blado d 'Asola: Italy.
O 'Neill, J. (1986). The Disciplinary Society: From Weber to Foucault. The British Journal of Sociology 37:42-60.
Rafelson, B., Wechsler, R. (1970). Five Easy Pieces. Columbia Pictures: California.
Tasca, A. (1970). Fascism and the European Crisis of the Twentieth Century. Italy from the Risorgimento to Fascism: New York.
Weber, B. (2013). Sociology 333 Lecture: February 28th, 2013. University of Alberta: Edmonton.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: an Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Bedmmster Press: New York.