Foucauldian approach operates in practice on the surface of thought: on what is said and on what is put into action. We are thus able to explore the third face of power by charting a language and behaviour. subject’s 6) Bourdieu, Foucault and the third face: Similarities and Differences We have argued that one can defend idea of a third face of power using either Lukes’ a Bourdieusian or a Foucauldian perspective. Here, we briefly discuss the similarities and differences between these approaches. In so doing we not only respond to Hay’s critique of Lukes, but also detail how both perspectives can help chart the construction of preferences. While Bourdieu and Foucault have different conceptualisations of power and approach the issue from different theoretical traditions, they share an understanding that preferences are shaped by processes of which they are not necessarily agents’ aware; what we have termed a pre-conscious, or a social unconscious, dimension. Such an approach does not undermine the autonomy of agency or the subject, which is main concern about third face of power, but, rather, acknowledges Hay’s Lukes’ the subtle, but crucial, way in which power operates to affect individuals. Moreover, Bourdieu and Foucault are both concerned with the same question: how does a social system, despite obvious inequality and disadvantage, survive without depending upon explicit forms of repression or physical coercion to maintain order? As such, both are interested in uncovering the hidden, and often unobservable, nature of power and agree that we should move away from the state-based notion of centralised power and control that was the concern of theorists such as Marx and Weber. If we focus first on what they share, here there is clearly methodological agreement. Both see the first task as isolating the operation of power within a population, a discipline or a particular social field, but, at the same time, see such a particular operation of power as reflecting the workings of power in society at large. Foucault, for example, explores the dynamics proper to a technology of power, charting the historical production of discourses on madness, so as to tell a larger story about Western civilization. Similarly, Bourdieu isolates communities in Algeria, for – example or particular social fields the educational field, the artistic field, the – –
Foucauldian approach operates in practice on the surface of thought: on what is said and on what is put into action. We are thus able to explore the third face of power by charting a subject’s language and behaviour. 6) Bourdieu, Foucault and the third face: Similarities and Differences We have argued that one can defend Lukes’ idea of a third face of power using either a Bourdieusian or a Foucauldian perspective. Here, we briefly discuss the similarities and differences between these approaches. In so doing we not only respond to Hay’s critique of Lukes, but also detail how both perspectives can help chart the construction of preferences. While Bourdieu and Foucault have different conceptualisations of power and approach the issue from different theoretical traditions, they share an understanding that agents’ preferences are shaped by processes of which they are not necessarily aware; what we have termed a pre-conscious, or a social unconscious, dimension. Such an approach does not undermine the autonomy of agency or the subject, which is Hay’s main concern about Lukes’ third face of power, but, rather, acknowledges the subtle, but crucial, way in which power operates to affect individuals. Moreover, Bourdieu and Foucault are both concerned with the same question: how does a social system, despite obvious inequality and disadvantage, survive without depending upon explicit forms of repression or physical coercion to maintain order? As such, both are interested in uncovering the hidden, and often unobservable, nature of power and agree that we should move away from the state-based notion of centralised power and control that was the concern of theorists such as Marx and Weber. If we focus first on what they share, here there is clearly methodological agreement. Both see the first task as isolating the operation of power within a population, a discipline or a particular social field, but, at the same time, see such a particular operation of power as reflecting the workings of power in society at large. Foucault, for example, explores the dynamics proper to a technology of power, charting the historical production of discourses on madness, so as to tell a larger story about Western civilization. Similarly, Bourdieu isolates communities – in Algeria, for example – or particular social fields – the educational field, the artistic field, the
12%20Aug%202015_Faces%20of%20Power%20-%20Submitted-with%20authors%20names%20(2-6-15).docx