society. Structures of inequality are embedded within the knowledge” in such a “obvious way that they appear to be off common interest (See Ibid). Within the European context, power struggles” have underlined the “symbolic emergence of specific systems of welfare: During the twentieth century extensive collective bargaining between different groups of interest i.e. labour movements, – agrarian parties, white collars and the (Catholic) churches has shaped the approaches – to public welfare in European nations rather differently (See for instance 1990:56-78). The emergence of national social systems could hence be said to have been dependent on how groups of interest have accessed the legitimating force of the symbolic power. This has also paved the way for rather distinct moral formulations. Three broadly different strategies or ways of addressing social issues distinguishes how Western capitalist democracies have come to view the relationship between the subject the citizen - and the state (Esping-Andersen 1990 and 2000). These welfare strategies – (or regimes) can be said to underline how the states have come to articulate social issues and how ideas about the ideal social order have become embedded in policies. Through the gaze of distinct political or philosophical lookouts, the states have developed their specific policies concerning phenomena such as minors”, care” “unaccompanied “child and the ideal way to deal with and comprehend such issues. Through such processes the welfare state has become the constructor of social categorisations, a structure of dissimilarity, an inclusive but yet also an excluding mechanism (See also Foucault xx). Governing does not just act on a pre-existing thought world with its natural divisions. To govern is to cut experience in certain ways, to bring new facets and forces, new intensities and relations into being. This is partly a matter of time (time as self-control) It is also a matter of space, of the making of governable spaces (Rose 1999/2008: 31) Governmentality studies aim at removing the character of how “taken-for-granted” things are done. Such analyses hence render practices of government problematic and
society. Structures of inequality are embedded within the “obvious knowledge” in such a way that they appear to be off common interest (See Ibid). Within the European context, “symbolic power struggles” have underlined the emergence of specific systems of welfare: During the twentieth century extensive collective bargaining between different groups of interest – i.e. labour movements, agrarian parties, white collars and the (Catholic) churches – has shaped the approaches to public welfare in European nations rather differently (See for instance 1990:56-78). The emergence of national social systems could hence be said to have been dependent on how groups of interest have accessed the legitimating force of the symbolic power. This has also paved the way for rather distinct moral formulations. Three broadly different strategies or ways of addressing social issues distinguishes how Western capitalist democracies have come to view the relationship between the subject – the citizen - and the state (Esping-Andersen 1990 and 2000). These welfare strategies (or regimes) can be said to underline how the states have come to articulate social issues and how ideas about the ideal social order have become embedded in policies. Through the gaze of distinct political or philosophical lookouts, the states have developed their specific policies concerning phenomena such as “unaccompanied minors”, “child care” and the ideal way to deal with and comprehend such issues. Through such processes the welfare state has become the constructor of social categorisations, a structure of dissimilarity, an inclusive but yet also an excluding mechanism (See also Foucault xx). Governing does not just act on a pre-existing thought world with its natural divisions. To govern is to cut experience in certain ways, to bring new facets and forces, new intensities and relations into being. This is partly a matter of time (time as self-control) It is also a matter of space, of the making of governable spaces (Rose 1999/2008: 31) Governmentality studies aim at removing the “taken-for-granted” character of how things are done. Such analyses hence render practices of government problematic and
1779155368_BifogadFil_Live%20Utdrag_ur_avhandlingsmanus_20121010.docx