Reflective Log- Power, Freedom, Justice: Explorations in Political Subjectivity - Literature review Example

REFLECTIVE LOG- POWER, FREEDOM, JUSTICE: EXPLORATIONS IN POLITICAL IVITY Task Themes and Perspectives Why is Arendt’s conception of freedom political? According to Berkowitz Keenan and Katz (2009), Arendt perceives the political arm of society as the policy makers that govern countries. She is adamant that the political leaders are vesting power in few individuals who do not incorporate the interests of the masses. She asserts that an individual is autonomous when he is not subject to directives of a superior authority. The political dominion is significant since it is the realm of authority hence it can regulate the freedoms of various individuals and organizations through legislative forums (Berkowitz Keenan & Katz 2009). Therefore, this substantiates that the political realm has the capacity to alter the structure of authoritarian leadership on its constituents, but it is unwilling due to the benefits politicians experience as power brokers. What is Arendt’s notion of political subjectivity? Ardent considers the contemporary freedom as an illusion of a truly free world. The political realm is determinant of most actions that involve liberties of persons. According to Berkowitz Keenan and Katz (2009), this illustrates that individual actions have become subjective to the political considerations put forth. Political correct assumptions are acquiring recognition as the people’s resolution. A political subject is not only one who participates in political interventions but also one who endures the troubles of them (Berkowitz Keenan & Katz 2009). Ardent asserts that most of the actions and directives within government have political origins hence events such as evictions, healthcare and developmental aspirations have become political issues. This affirms that constituents within countries are political subjects since numerous governmental issues have taken the political dimension. Negative and Positive Freedom What is the political subjectivity of negative liberty? Liberty is a conventional term that can encompass various meanings. According to Ferrell (2008), negative liberty is proportional to political freedom, which essentially means the individual’s cannot freely indulge in activities. Deliberate restriction on persons from activities that they would otherwise have indulged in is oppression on the liberties of the person. It is where individuals are under duress to accomplish certain requirements to guarantee the peaceful existence of the individual (Ferrell 2008). Contemporary freedom is comparable to political freedom, which entails obstruction of lives of certain individuals. Therefore, this asserts that the social control of a person should not be submissive to a political restriction. Despotism in societal structures renders that the individual completely surrenders his freedoms to someone or a declaration as the constitution (Ferrell 2008). Since despotism demands that persons to regulate their experiences and associations, it can substantiate to political coercion. Political subjectivity is a resultant of a collective occurrence of negative liberties hence they have a positive correlation. What is the political subjectivity of positive liberty? Positive liberty entails an individual being the determinant of his own actions out of his own desire. Ferrell describes (2008) that an individual can accomplish personal objectives without coercion from an external authority. As such, one is not under any entitlement to submit to regulations and policies that are decided for him but rather establishing them in their capacity. The political subjectivity is non-existent in positive liberalism since the freedoms of an individual are subject to his conscience rather than that of another person (Ferrell 2008 p. 53). This relieves the subject of other unsatisfactory obligations that influence his daily living. Unlike in negative liberalism that is subjective to political subjectivity, positive liberalism is dependent on the individual perceptions. Embodied Subjectivity How does the recognition of embodiment change ideas of subjectivity? According to Coole (2007), embodiment is the self-realization of one’s existence and the immediate surroundings. This is the acknowledgement of the laws of causation and the effects of one’s actions. It entails the association of a person with the present and comprehending that he cannot conceive an experience without having the present body. We cannot have any earthly relation if we are deficient of its relation with the soul (Coole 2007). Realization of the existence and bodily capacities of an individual can enable him to estimate his capabilities. Therefore, this acknowledgement can give insight and possibly induce him to alter his capacities since the individual is conscious of the limitations. When an individual is conscious of his experiences, he can impulsively alter his standing according to impacts of his experiences (Coole 2007). Actualization of oneself can is capable of altering subjectivity since he has broadened his insights on possibilities that were previously alien to him. What is political about Merleau-Ponty and Fanon’s conceptions of freedom? Merleau Ponty perception of freedom is when a personal will and can be liberally chosen (Coole 2007). He believes that freedom emanates from a field or ounce of the possibility that can compel an individual to decide. One cannot attribute effort to what he perceives as not attainable. Fanon associates freedom to the manner of experiences and not personal decision. Fanon compares freedom as resulting from a consequence of realizing the immediate surroundings (Coole 2007). Fanon argues that after recognizing the elements that can influence lives then one shall make a conscious decision relating to that. For example, one can prefer to consume dangerous wild edibles to sustain his life. Decisions of individuals usually originate from a series of behavioral patterns. Therefore, Fanon believes that freedom can be restrained by one’s environment. Agency and Structure What does Marcuse mean by the great refusal? Is it possible? Is it desirable? According to Edward (2003), Herbert Marcuse explains that oppression in the contemporary society is the resultant of instrumental rationality. He defines the instrumental rationalism as an impediment to an individual’s autonomous nature. The political structure emphasizes its domination through policies and considerations it imprints unnecessary. He disputes this trend and suggests that if utilization of technology would be to emancipate individuals from this oppression it would be beneficial (Edwards 2003). He advocates for refusal of the limitations that capitalist and communist regimes place on us. It is not entirely achievable since the governmental policies ensure orderliness in people’s actions and mere refutation of these policies can instigate utter chaos (Edwards 2003). It is desirable since all individuals desire to be autonomous of political conviction. For Althusser how are individuals interpellated as subjects? Althusser states that if an individual was deficient of eyesight his guidance would probably be through descriptions and experiences of persons around him. He further asserts that a vast proportion of individuals are ignorant of the manipulative vigor that dominate numerous avenues of living. He describes this as subjectivity to an invincible authority to fulfill its requirements. He further affirms it is evident that the societal cultures compel individuals to think and respond in definite manners hence influencing their daily tribulations. According to Edward (2003), these repetitive practices that an individual comprehends as societal norms structure economic ideologies and additionally extend to political perceptions. These norms will habitually become the objective of a majority, hence, confirming subjectivity to predetermined decisions of society (Edwards 2003). The Subject and Power Why does Foucault distinguish between violence and power? Foucault’s perception of power is one that is insignificant. Foucault affirms that power cannot be relative to institution but rather personalities within the institutions or departments (Foucault 2007). He perceives modern power as dominating and oppressive and distinguishes this power as “negative power”. Foucault believes that power is indifferent from violence that is normally coercion. He describes violence emanating from the absence of power, which instigates fear in individuals. Violence instigates submissiveness of the inferior to the demands of the stronger one (Foucault 2007). He defines power as the direction of truths that share similar objectives hence creating orderliness. This power is attributable to adoption of these shared interests by the subjects. What is pastoral power? Can you identify examples of pastoral power in contemporary society? According to Rouse (2003), Pastoral power is the influence of Christianity on individual autonomies. It comprises of laws that refutes neither any constitutional laws nor other disciplines but rather insinuates prohibition of some actions it terms immoral. The Christian techniques tend to advocate for positivity in relations among individuals. According to Foucault (2007), pastoral power puts emphasis on the specificity of an individual and transformation of character. An example is evident in the salvation of persons through assurance of perpetual existence after one’s demise. However, this is only attainable after unreservedly incorporating Christian virtues (Rouse 2003). Pastoral power concentrates on the discipline of its enthusiasts and attributes its control on adoption of its values. Consequently, church leaders have an enormous influence on their followers and can sway them on various issues. Communicative Freedom What is the life-world? Corchia (2010) insinuates the life-world is the consciousness of individual’s and their environment, interactions with fellow humans and special experiences. It entails acknowledgement of humanity and the consciousness of persons as they undertake their daily dealings. The life-world ideology is predominantly inclusive of essential aspects such as the self-realization, embodiment and the intricateness of the structure of society (Corchia 2010). In the life-world, consciousness of an individual is imperative since it establishes his approach on diverse aspects that influence his existence. For example, realization of an individual bodily tendency enables him to attribute his subsequent actions to in relation to the experience. Can power relations be extrinsic to the life-world? No, power relations cannot be utterly extrinsic to the life-world. Corchia (2010), describes the persuasion and provocation by an individual or through other elements to submit to detailed requirements is not inclusive in the life-world. Fundamental aspects in life-world are the consciousness of ones environment and actions. It is not necessarily inclusive of power elements that can initiate alteration of decisions. However, recognition of individual surroundings can encompass elements such as cultural norms or societal perceptions (Corchia 2010). These perceptions can influence an individual’s outlook hence power relations are not entirely extrinsic to the life-world. Since the life-world involves acknowledgement of ones surroundings it cannot be deficient of the authority characteristics (Corchia 2010). Social Justice Are the goals of liberty and equality incompatible? Liberty is the capacity of an individual to conceive actions driven by his own thoughts and not persuasion or pressurization from an external element. Conversely, equality is the harmonious correlation of individuals within a definite setting. According to Mandle (2009), Equality entails the persons cognitive capability to constrain themselves from hampering the liberties of others. To ensure equality prevails in a society a proportion of their liberties have to be restricted. This will encompass identical distribution of civil liberties and responsibilities (Mandle 2009). Equality aims at the advancement of everyone’s situations to ensure tranquility in daily dealings. Therefore, extreme liberty is not compatible with equality since the latter involves taming of those liberties to accommodate the majority. Is the defense of property rights and individual liberty identical? No, property rights are not identical to individual liberties. Property rights entail shielding of ones estate by law from events such as trespass or forceful acquisition by an external element. According to Mandle (2009), property rights are not a preference but a regulation that restrains individuals from unconventionally acquiring possessions of which he has no title. Unlike property rights, individual liberties are insistent that an individual is not subjective to any predetermined decision but responds to his thoughts and experiences (Mandle 2009). In addition, individual liberty is dissimilar since consciousness of a person determines his subsequent actions. Justification of property rights is a response to prearranged regulations to assure the security of one’s possession. Justice in Plural Societies In plural societies, is social cohesion possible? According to Modood (2007), a plural society is a setting that incorporates contrasting cultures and ethnicities of people that reside in the same region. Plural societies are usually existent in successful civilizations since individuals emanating from the diverse regions converge in a similar locale to identify their niche. Social cohesion is possible in such a society but extends to the mutual social norms that are basic. The integration cannot further to cultural integration unless there is a significant and consistent integration of the personalities who are of dissimilar ethnicities (Modood 2007). However, numerous eventualities and policies in the region will favor the bulk of the group since ostensibly they are the dominant group. Do we require a thick or we can make due with a thin conception of subjectivity? According to Modood (2007), the conception of subjectivity is a vague term that does not appropriately ascertain the intensity of the word. Some philosophers do not appropriately identify the intensity of subjectivity and therefore their definition is insufficient to assert clarity of this vice to the audience. This is the thin conception of subjectivity. It is essential to include a thick conception of subjectivity detailing the various circumstances of subjectivity and their adverse consequences on society (Modood 2007). Evidently, this deep conception can enable individuals to establish the definite context of subjectivity that he is illustrating. Attributable to the numerous variations of subjectivity, it will be prudent to adopt the thick conception of it. Justice as a Larger Loyalty Are justice and loyalty identical? There is an insignificant disparity between justice and loyalty. Loyalty is a prejudicial devotion to a definite group, individual or ideology (Caney 2006). For example, a parent can conceal his children from authorities to assist them in evading apprehension on criminal charges. An enthusiastic constituent can have unwavering support for a particular leader due to his policies or ethnic affiliations. In political contests, loyalty is predominant as certain civilizations vote along ethnic blocks. Justice is not discriminatory as loyalty and entails fairness to individuals without regard of their relations. According to Caney (2006), justice is categorization of loyalty to a larger group and not a particular circle. Is reasonableness culturally neutral? Yes, the specificity of reasonableness is not bound to a definite culture since cognitive capabilities are randomly distributed. Reasonableness entails analysis of issues and derivation f appropriate decisions. For example, an educational institution, which is a setting that comprises of scholars from diverse cultures whose intellectual capabilities, arises from their individual diligence (Caney 2006). Different cultures have dissimilar approaches to various aspects but these practices do not advance the reasonableness of persons. Since other cultures entail elaborate mechanisms to deal with certain issues it is not necessarily representative of their reasonableness. Knowledge is consequential and since everyone has experiences, therefore reasonableness is culturally neutral and not discriminatory. List of References Berkowitz, R, keenan, T, & Katz, J eds 2009, Thinking in Dark Times: Hannah Arendt on Ethics and Politics, Fordham University Press. Caney, S 2006, Justice beyond borders: a global political theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford Coole, D 2007, Merleau-Ponty and Modern Politics After Anti-Humanism, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, California Corchia, L 2010, Jürgen Habermas: a bibliography: works and studies (1952-2010). Pisa, Italy, Il campano, Arnus University Books. Edwards, M 2003, Civil Society, Polity Press, Ontario Ferrell, J 2008, “The Alleged Relativism of Isaiah Berlin”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11:1, 41 – 56 Foucault, M 2007, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College De France 1977-1978, Palgrave Macmillan Viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698230701880497. Mandle, J 2009, Rawlss A theory of justice an introduction. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press Viewed at http://site.ebrary.com/id/10356359 Modood, T 2007, Multiculturalism Polity, Cambridge Rouse, J 2003, “Power/Knowledge” in The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (second edition), Gutting, G. (Ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Read More