FINAL EXAM
The final exam will be held on Monday, March 13th at 10:30 to 12:20. You will be asked to write two essays. Each essay will be selected from two options.The first essay will cover the concept of power as developed by Michel Foucault, and it's potential applications for research.
The second essay will be a more comprehensive essay that will ask you to trace themes from the course as a whole. In other words, this essay will ask you to draw on some theories and ideas from the first half of the course, but it will allow you some leeway in determining what theories and theorists will choose.
A key to this exam will be to identify themes and points of comparison between theorists--themes such as "freedom and power," "power over and power to" and so on.
Here are some sample questions from exams past. This should give you an idea of how I construct questions:
I will include questions on the final of similar content to these. 2/3 for you to answer.
1)What does Foucault seek to replace the juridico-discurvise theory of power with? Does his alternative better explain the relationship between power and human sexuality? Explain.
2)How does Young use the insights of power theorists to construct a theory of justice. Discuss at least on strength and one weakness to her use of these theories.
3)How does the power without a face contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of 4th grade classrooms?
4)In light of all the criticisms of his approach, how useful is Dahl's definition of power?
5) What is the best way to understand the relationship between power and freedom? Does Foucault help us better understand this relationship?
posted by djw @ 9:05 PM
8 Comments:
if anyone wants to share notes I have notes on almost all the authors, still working on Hayward also I thought if people wanted to post ideas of common themes in the class, I'll start with
Contested Concepts: Gallie and Connoly, think we all know. ideas, concepts that have no agreed upon definition.
Normative thorist: evaluates norms- social rules and taboos
Distributive thorist: focus on distribution of wealth, goods, and respect (instead of power according to Young, power is a relation not a thing., ignores structual aspects and assumes power is top-down)
Behaviorlist: assumes that science is about explaining and predicting types of events (3 faces of power)
Realist: assumes science is about figuring out the essential nature of things rather than predicting events (issac, arendt)
Power over: relationship between actors. Generally A has power over B to influence the thoughts or acts or B, even if it is against B's self interests.
Power to: indicates a capacity, facility or ability.
Dichotomy between freedom and power
Freedom: created by power, as a feeling rather then as a state. Feeling free is an artifact of power.
Power: takes many forms. (could use help here)
power: takes many forms which varies between the actors and the circumstances. It would be impossible to evaluate all of the different dimensions of power, there are too many forms that are unidentifiable along with the fact that power relations can and often change, both by active and passive individuals. Coersion, influence, social traditions, expectations, assumptions, etc all play a part in power and power relations, it does not simply go back and forth between actors but is "multi-dimensional."
addressing #5
i think what it comes down to, with respect to foucault, is that even though some individual or [formal]INSTITUTION/bureaucracy may have some power or authority 'over' that may some how shape some person or group; what it comes down to is that no one is 'free'. neither the individual [for obvious reasons] but, also the institutions or social groups (w/respect to Young).
i am trying to digest this right now but, i dont find this perspective hard or intimitating to comprehend b/c 'power and freedom' is just a game of cat and mouse. with respect to 'freedom', even though the mouse for obvious reasons has power...just b/c it has the ability to exercise power, does not mean they are free themselves. in regards to our assigned readings...it's sort of like Haywards 4th grade class example. one assumes northend to be the one who experiences less freedom, however it is in fact fairview. hopefully, for reasons that i shall explain in the final exam [if this one essay question to be addressed] i shall further my explanation as to why.
I agree that there isn't one specific way to describe power. It comes in many different forms and examples and is different for certain circumstances. The three faces of power all do a good job of explaining a certain aspect of power, as does the realist (isaac's) approach. I think that certain definitions are more suitable for certain situations, especially Dahl's, being so narrowly focused.
Young believes that justice is not simply a matter of economic distribution, that is; that it is a measure of quantitative differences between individuals, groups, etc. Instead, he believes that this theory is too limited in scope because it fails to address the larger scope of the societal structure. Justice is more accurately a measure of power between groups and people in the sense that if symbols, biases, etc are controlled by one group, then the society is unjust. A society can be unjust not only if measurable things such as wealth and jobs are not evenly distributed, but also if quality jobs are give to one single group over another group.
Furthermore, if minorities or groups of people are oppressed, then they are living in an unjust society, even though this oppression is not directly measurable such as wealth, jobs, etc. The five faces of oppression are violence, powerlessness, marginalization, cultural imperialism, and explotation. An example of violence is that minority groups must fear violent outbursts against their communities at random and usually while unprovoked. Because they live in fear of these random attacks, they are living in an unjust society. Marginalization would include the elderly and young, and their inability to work as much as middle aged persons. Because they are marginalized from the work force, they do not have the same opportunities as the majority of society...this again, is another form of injustice in society.
I would not say Foucault gives any more of a clear explanation of power and freedom but, like the rest of the theorists we've studied he gives another angle. I personally find his thoughts to be interesting but not something I would fully agree with.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think Dahl's definition of power to be useful. Even though it's narrow, I can see where he's coming from. For example, the law on banning smoking in indoor restaurants, bars, etc. In this democratic country, the citizens of Washington have voted on the issue and it turns out the majority voted to ban smoking in indoor arenas. On that notion, those who voted against it, assuming most of them are smokers, are now being force to smoke outdoor that is 20 so ft. away from the door. I feel this touch on Arendt, in how a group of people have the power. In this case, it was the majority who voted on banning smoking indoor because it is in their interest to have a smoke free environment.
Post a Comment
<< Home