Challenge to Western Discourses of Power
Introduction
Undeniably, the concept of power appears to be inherent practically in political and social relationships. Many scholars with different schools of thought also agree with the observation of Gene Sharp concerning this aspect and the control of power being a cornerstone in the theory of politics (Breen, 2007, p.343). In a similar situation, several previous academic observers have expressed their confession to power’s theoretical stagnation that needs to be energized to ensure a better progress, which never existed in the past. A person may be tempted to shift blame on the old issue involving the insufficiency of interdisciplinary relation. As a result, there has been overspecialization, isolation, and alienation in the field of social sciences, as well as in the social and political theory. For the purpose of this paper, the issues discussed will revolve around two thinkers, including Mary Kaldor and John Keane, and particularly in the last decade based on arguments by Manfred B. Steger. Kaldor and Keane prominently contribute to the subject explanation for today’s malaise of the studies on power, which seems to appear in its limited technique to the issue of violence (De Moll, 2010, p.22). The reasoning emanated from the activities of terrorism, genocide, and the international war on terror, which are the manifestations of violence (Couto, 2010, p.63). Therefore, the narrative will provide a discussion of challenges to the western discourse of power.
Scope
The scope of this narrative will entail the focus on the two main thinkers, Keane and Kaldor based on their perception concerning the issues of power in different civilizations in the western discourse. It will also be necessary to consider other thinkers in the story to provide a better understanding of the current challenges that the political and social entities face. In this discussion, it will be important to acknowledge the role of Gandhi Michel Foucault’s schools of thought.
Justification
The choice of this topic is important to the students of politics because it provides insights on the political issues affecting many nations around the world today. Additionally, this narrative serves as a response to a critical challenge that offers a reflection on the association of violence and power as disclosed by some other thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead (Steger, 2006, p. 334). North supports the reasoning depicted by Keane and Kaldor concerning the discourse of power, which has been neglected in many occasions and yet important in every political and social sphere. This point carries some truth since negligence of the highest level of the abstraction occurs where power emerges as a sociological phenomenon that is complex, taken only in its exemplification of the preconceived classes of thoughts (Karlberg, 2005, p.1). Therefore, this topic is important as it will provide an understanding of the various approaches that have been put in place to solve political problems that are complex.
Summary of Author’s Overall Points
In this textbook, Steger starts by presenting his problematic aspects associated with power in the context of political and social aspects. Most importantly, Steger gives his explanation of the issue based on different scholars, such as Kaldor and Keane, who are the key characters in this essay. For instance, the basis of this essay is Keane’s question that the long genocidal wars, ethnic hatred, and the concentration of camps in the 20th century resulted in a very little imaginative reflection of this discourse (Steger, 2006, p. 334). Such a reflection intends to explicitly explain the causes, effects, and meaning, as well as the ethical-political significance of the concept of violence and its options. At this point, the author introduces the relationship between power and violence and the instructive alternative that Gandhi provides being a remedy to such complex issues of the political power in the western point of view (Eribon, 2011, p. 10).
The author provides a liberal, the Marxist, and the post-structural perspective of the concept of power and violence. In the liberal point of view, Steger compares the thinking of Keane and Kaldor with the perspectives of other political and social scholars concerning the issue of political power (Steger, 2006, p. 334). In this case, the liberal concept stems from the fact that the studies regarding political science in America started with the response of Robert Dahl to the power’s elite theorists (Steger, 2006, p.334). In his definition of the liberal elements, Dahl presents his “agency model of power” emanating from the primary philosophical assumptions, which John Locke and Thomas Hobbes among other contemporary thinkers came up with.
An understanding of the terms as applied in this paper is very important. In the first place, the term politics refers to the decision-making process involving all the members of every group in the society (Prozorov, 2006, p. 75). In most cases, the concept of politics appears to a certain way of conflict resolution. This aspect occurs by negotiation and compromise instead of using naked power and force. Secondly, Dahl described power as an association between two social actors, whereby one actor induces or influences another to perform a particular activity based on the preference of the former when the second one cannot do otherwise (Guinote, 2008, p.237). Besides, the concept of law or rule or enforcement refers to the inducement of members of the collectivity to accept the allocations of resources as binding.
Also, there is an uncritical thinking connecting the legitimate punishment mechanisms as well as the social control to the society of civilization and the emergence of the centralized modern structure that has limited governments. In the point of view of the Marxist theory, the author points out the superficial acquaintance that a person needs to have in attempts to systematically critique Newton’s liberal world. On the other hand, the poststructure viewpoint encompasses the theorists of “radical democracy” such as Mouffe and Laclau, which depended deeply on the increasing tide of the famously known “poststructuralism” or “postmodernism” (Chopra, 2014, p.19) This ideology has been determined by the generalization of the distrust of the total discourses of the universal truth and reason. Lastly, the author seeks to unearth the nonviolent search for the truth of Mahatma Gandhi by expressing interest in Asian philosophical traditions.
Methodology
The manner in which Steger has written is work depicts various aspects of the methodology that will help in the development of this paper. The first technique to investigate is the language that the thinkers in Steger’s book use while presenting their points of view concerning the concept of political power. In this case, some translations issues have occurred where some words, especially those in Indian origin, need triangulation. By definition, the term ‘triangulation’ refers to the reading of more than two translations of a similar piece that makes it possible for a person to check the robustness of the meaning. For instance, the author used phrases such as ‘search for satya”, which can be interpreted as truth. Another word the author uses and provides an extra meaning is ‘ahimsa’, meaning nonviolence or renouncing the will to damage or kill. Such phrases, among others, have been used since they have complex meanings, which cannot be covered in a simple direct translation, making sure the discussion of the vital terms and concepts crucial (Taylor, 2011, p. 2). This method also allows the reflection of the ambiguity and multiplicity of the definitions.
It is an indisputable fact that the author utilized the method of historicism where he depicts what appeared to be possible and what is happening today in matters of political power. The historical context of the challenges of the Western discourse of power is relevant to the discussion because it depicts challenges government have been facing since time immemorial, attempts to resolve such issues, and the need for improvement (Stoddart, 2007, p.191). This idea is evident in the fact that most of the models the current political thinkers use are mere responses to the past and current complex issues of the social and political theory. Additionally, thinkers support this concept by expressing the concern on the reification of violence as natural and an inevitable character of the human condition that remains a broad assumption among the famous realists. Furthermore, the challenge of Gandhi to the Western discourse of power is a source of inspiration to the 20th century nonviolence voices like Petra Kelly, Martin Luther King Jr., and Vaclav Havel, among others (Steger, 2006, p. 348). Nevertheless, historicism has a disadvantage that there is a contrast between love and power, which occur as polar opposites. Conversely, the identification of love is based on the resignation of power, while on the other side of power is identified as the denial of love.
Moreover, there is an evidence of the use of universalism where political thinkers argue that there have been attempts to have universal laws of politics that drive their views on the issues of political power. Even though this aspect is not mentioned in their arguments, the suggestions they give is an indication of the need for a universal rule that would govern the political power (Munck, 2008, p.3). The laws will seek to resolve the varied issues in different parts of the world. An illustration is derived from the Gandhi’s emphasis on the possibility of conquering fear by self-rule (swaraj) in both moral and political sense. In this case, the rule aims at addressing the issues of violence and creating a nonviolent in the global politics. As a result, there will be the cultivation of the capacity for an elevated sacrifice to ensure people live fear-free lives across the world.
Metaphysics, Logic, and Ethics
In the metaphysical or logical perspective, the thinkers have expressed their moral and ethical considerations for the human relationships based on political power. For instance, Gandhi reveals through this through his argument of “strengthening reason through suffering” (Steger, 2006, p.334). He notes that it is crucial to shun pain and suffering using all means; for instance, during occasions when there is exposure to civility, the naked self-preservations exist. Furthermore, the thinkers have a similar perception where they condemn the acts of violence that result from political influence or any other social and political aspects (Buffachi, 2005, p.193). This ideology is logical since such activities are violations of the rights of humanity that every political leader needs to uphold for a healthy relationship between the social beings and political power. Additionally, their concern for the human rights of the people raise the ethical issues that most political powers have failed to address in the contemporary society (Davidson, 2005, 128). In general, the political thinkers need to be willing to consider the fact that the legitimate violence is against their political and moral morals, thereby focusing on human dignity and improvement of life.
On the other hand, these superficial similarities cannot dismiss the fact that political powers have the greatest contributors of violence ever in the past and modern society. Gandhi looks at this political discourse based on the supposed religious authority (Kuklick, 2006, p. 46). Through this concept, he puts emphasis on the need for the political systems to try to avoid the suffering and pains they cause to people at all costs since it is religiously unacceptable. In support of this difference, the Marxist and liberal power models have provided “commonsensical” guidelines that are practical as a framework to get rid of the human sufferings that arbitrary acts of daily violence causes. Additionally, the “appeal to heaven” concept of Locke has been applicable for many thinkers in the establishment of the order of violence that is not only more economical, but also rational.
Reading this text may also bring an aspect of reflexivity to the Western or modern reader based the prejudgments that they have concerning the subject. Gandhi’s reasoning seems to share the postmodern suspicion whose pervasiveness of the total claims of truth in a certain culture is indicative of a high level of social dominance. Nevertheless, interpreting the passionate indictment of Gandhi of the Western stories of utility and modernization as a rejection of all kinds of rationality can be a big mistake. Additionally, Gandhi’s perception plays a role in one’s process of checking the truth in the relative claims, the provision of a moral-legal structure, and the grievance adjudication. Thus, the theoretical approach that one could get from Gandhi’s reasoning is his subscription to the principle of reciprocity whose embodiment is a subject of the rational debate, which is a precondition requirement for the social conflicts’ resolution. Therefore, a reader gets insights on the social ethics that are compromised in the events of violence in the modern or Western discourse of political power.
In the textbook, the author tries to argue that the imaginative reflection’s paucity on the association between power and violence depicts the neglect of the abstraction of the highest level. This scenario is evident where power seems to be a complex phenomenon of socio-politics exemplified in the preconceived thoughts. Further, he offers a critical analysis of the Western or modern of the power representation based on the various forms of violence (Coleman, 2000, p.108). He points out that, most political thinkers have sought to present the concept of violence as both inevitable and natural feature of the human condition, which has been widely assumed.
In the liberal perspective of the concept of power and violence, Steger discusses the consequences of criticism culminated in the debates of the different phases of power. In his argument, he utilizes the features of the conceptual universe Dahl imperative to his topic. He also builds his argument on the basis of the link that the commentators have stressed between the Western behaviorist’s power conceptions and Galilean mechanism, Humean causalism, and Hobbesian atomism. This idea is an intellectual constellation which has justified and also expressed a latest appearance where human beings started to see themselves as the world’s autonomous makers. At the same time, the political power emerges as generalized capacity acting with the resources or properties that are quantifiable in the causal associations between discrete people, such as male. Such individuals were believed to have their bodies interacting with one another and their outer surrounding of the mechanical fashion. Another aspect that makes Steger’s argument applicable in the modern discourse of power is his thinking that the Western civilization has derived its strength from the politics of what he calls the “pacifying society” (Steger, 2006, p.334). Further, he suggests that the metaphysical and epistemological dualism from the concept of rationalism has been an inspiration to the moral and political imaginations of the liberal “self.” This idea has been considered as an entity that is ontological independent whose key driver is the unsatisfied desires and passion, which then inhabits a world form of civility that is hostile and violent, companionship, and friendship.
Moreover, he uses some other examples of the popular liberal model promoters. such as Martin Luther King Jr., who agrees with the political theory of John Keane. The point that the author brings out in their similarity is that political theory freezes the political imagination concerning power and violence and its resulting noticeable silence concerning nonviolence (Gier, 2004, p.222). This scenario stems from the concept of the “confused and confusing mélange of unspoken prejudices and significant assumptions” the dominating liberal paradigm (Steger, 2006, p. 336). Thus, the presence of modernity’s civility cannot mean that there will be no violence. The reason for this argument is that the liberal law comes with the death and pain of the body of peace crushing and killing it steadfastly similar to violence that is undisciplined by legitimacy.
In the context of the Marxist model of violence and power, the author points out the difference that thinkers like Marx and Engel depicted from others regarding the alternative of a rational and transformational social ontology. These thinkers showed neglected the dualism of empiricist to promote a class struggle theory in the society of capitalism in which the distribution and reproduction of the structural power are across and within such relations of classes. For instance, Marx and Engel disagreed with a Cartesian rationalism, which almost leads to the separation of the essence and existence; object and subject; and nature and human. This difference is evident in their attempt to embrace Hegelian belief of the self as the potentiality that is independent and unfolding in the history of political power. Further, Steger noted the general assumptions of the thinkers concerning the persistent and violent social strife that exists within the framework of the technology of scientific socialism (Harrington, 2006, p.37). He believes that this scenario has led to the addition of a new dialectal wrinkle to the agenda of modernity by Marx and Engel regarding the invention of the latest scientific approach to political power. The basis of such advancements is the exact rational groups of causal force, violence, and relations.
Still, in the Marxist perspective, Steger presents the school of thought such Frankfurt Institute of Social Research which brought about the rise of fascism through which the Marxist intellectuals expanded their argument on power (Steger, 2006, p.336). Through this concept, they intended to turn to an ideological, authoritarianism, and cultural discussion that was systematic. His narrative derives much from the work of Marx that focused on tackling the various vital aspects such as the environment, the state, and the civil society, as well as the relationship between violence and power which still needs to be explored (Jessop, 2012, p.3). His narrative starts taking a different course when a new generation of the radical social theorists started to weave Weberian, Marxian, and Gramscian groups into the social theory and consciousness that are more comprehensive (Halliburton, 2004, p.793). This aspect has been by putting the focus on the function of the interests, culture, and intent and the association between the structure and agency.
Steger’s narrative on power and violence is based on the post-structural perspective. In this context, he develops his story using the views of the radical democracy theorists like Laclau and Mouffe who were deeply affected by the increased concern on the concept of poststructuralism or postmodernism. A general distrust of totalizing the reason and universal truth discourses. In his work, Steger concentrates on Foucault as a key representation of the poststructuralist view of power. In his thinking, Foucault considers power as a force relations multiplicity which has posed a challenge to the models of the power of the agency and also confronting the structural determinism of Marx.
In a similar manner, James Miller is another political thinker who notes the thought of Foucault and agrees with the contemporary tradition of the modern political theory (Urbinati, 2007, p. 101). This observation is in its strong tendency of conducting a thorough investigation of the reified connection between violence and power, showing an astonishing continuity between modernist and poststructuralist power discourses (Finlay, 2006, p.373). In this case, Steger’s view on this concept of postmodernism is based on any discursive practice considered as both limiting and liberal mode of being depictive the narrative of power. Nonetheless, Foucault’s thought seems to have a strong ontological bias promoting open semiosis which provides an explanation of his neglect of the sustained story (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2008, p.91). Thus, it is hard to ignore the fact that these sustained narratives have depicted the existence of cruelty in the modern civilizations which need to be addressed.
Another aspect that the author points out in this narrative is the nonviolent search for Truth by Mahatma Gandhi, depicting the genre of works concerning the non-Western that has been taken as a non-political thought. While expressing some interests in the philosophical traditions of Asia, Foucault did not give a systematic interest on the theme of non-Western politics. In spite of the fact that he only talks about Gandhi hardly more than twice in his argument, there seems to be a remarkable similarity in the political power analyses of these two scholars. In the first place, their similarity is based on modern being ubiquitous, circulating, and diffuse. Secondly, their perception of a radical impulse toward pluralism and decentralization, which at times borders the anarchy, is a basis for their striking difference (Jessop, Brenner, & Jones, 2008, p.389). Thirdly, they both depict present their views that aim at attacking the vital dichotomies of the modern culture. Their standpoints are also focused on the conviction of the Democrats that political power exercise mostly relies on the obedience as well as the cooperation of the subjects (Kalyvas, 2008, p.254). Additionally, both Gandhi and Foucault base their arguments of the distance of the anarchists for hierarchy, which involves the rejection of the skeptic of the traditional metaphysics (Blencowe, 2010, p. 113). Finally, the two thinkers emphasize on the enlargement of knowledge and power that is indissoluble and thus leading to the development of the power narrative, in a broader context.
In contrast to these similarities, the political theory of Gandhi is a representation of an affair that is less cognitive as opposed to the problem-centered one. This ideology is theoretical extension of the solid experiences of resistance as well as dominance at the daily existence level. The author cites an illustration of racism of a conceptual issue, embodied by a colonial policeman who was seen throwing a young lawyer of the Indian origin from the first-class cabin of a train for a mere Maritzburg. Another incidence is that involving an English lawyer based in Pretoria who turned down cutting the hair of a “bloody coolie” (Steger, 2006, p.342). Therefore, these similarities make it possible for one to know how different political addressed the issues of Western power based on the Gandhi’s scope.
The Legacy of Thinkers
The legacy of the thinkers is an aspect that cannot be ignored since it tremendously contributes to the development of the narrative based on their achievements of addressing the issues resulting from political power. Over a long time, Gandhi’s thoughts have been taken seriously in the school of thoughts and students of politics because of the political issues are increasingly eating into the modern society. Undeniably, his perspective concerning nonviolent political theory has drawn the attention of many scholars who have also suggested defense of radical political actions that oppose oppressive traditions and rules (Jackson, 2014, p. 49). Such actions correspond to Gandhi’s preference for a theory’s critical conception as a critique that is rational, expecting the systems of the modern Western politics as well as their institutions not be violent with their stated principles. Additionally, Gandhi still appears as an essential enlightenment thinker supporting an emancipator political project based on the quest for the truth that is ethical-motivated (Nazaretyan, 2007, p.127). In this case, he gets credit because his nonviolent direct action has been an effective approach to counter the power networks that lack accountability via popular obedience transformation (Tilly, 2002, p.35). More credit is granted to him for his value of humanity since his thoughts condemn violent acts emanating from the political powers.
Foucault is also another political thinker who has left a legacy in the addressing the issues of Western discourse of power (Pitsoe & Letseka, 2013, p.23). For instance, he has a prominent reputation of power as a violent strive where all people fight one another in the modern world of politics (Deacon, 2006, p.177). Additionally, his suggestion for a universal reciprocity where the rule of law has become a replacement of the warfare, where humanity entails installation of its violence in a system of laws enhance moral aspects of everyday social and political relationships (May, 2006, p. 173). The impact this interpretation has on the readers is that one can be drifted from the Marxist and liberal conceptual models which focus on justice as a human intervention to the social consequences of a violent political system.
On the other hand, Steger’s narrative presents other thinkers such as Marx who have a legacy in his conceptual model who bases build his argument on the historical evolution of human beings and promoting healthy social relations in the society (Valentine, 2006, p.505). This aspect has ever since been the desire of every person to be in a society that is free from violent acts such as the increased cases of genocides and terrorism among others around the world (Fry, 2013, p.171). This model has gained fame since it encourages human relations based on their productive ability. Many readers may be attracted towards this model because there are now increased concerns by human agencies find Marxist view imperative in tackling the issues of Western power (Rash, 2003, p.120). This interpretation can affect the reader’s perception by making them focus on the evolution of human beings and the roles of human agencies and give less to other imperative models such Dahl’s liberal perception.
Conclusion
In the scope of Gandhi’s perception of the challenges to the Western discourse of power, he holds the truth via ahimsa (nonviolent) as a remedy to the issues of modern Western conceptualizations of power. In Steger’s arguments, his three perspectives, liberal, Marxist, and Poststructuralism, has been a cornerstone for the development of this narrative. This narrative has sought to address the question of how applicable the thoughts of John Keane, Gandhi, Foucault, and many more have been effective in the Western discourse of power. This paper notes the striking similarities and differences that arise from their views on the challenges of the Western discourse of political power. For instance, researchers and political thinkers have focused on the relationship between power and cruelty in the modern or Western world of politics. This narrative plays a role in the provision of insights concerning the various approaches that political thinkers have suggested to remedy the various Western political issues.
Bibliography
Arribas-Ayllon, M & Walkerdine, V 2008, Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, London: Sage, pp. 91–108
Blencowe, C 2010, Foucault’s and Arendt’s Insider View of Biopolitics: A Critique of Agamben, History Of The Human Sciences, Vol. 23, Vol.5, pp.113 –130.
Breen, K 2007, “Violence and Power: A Critique of Hannah Arendt on the Political Philosophy,” Social Criticism, Vol.33, No.3, pp.343-372.
Buffachi, V 2005, “Two Concepts of Violence” Political Studies Review, Vol. 3, 193–204
Chopra, A 2014, “Structural Violence,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies. Vol.1, No.4, pp. 19–23
Coleman, P 2000, Power and conflict, In M. Deutsche & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 108-130
Couto, RA 2010, The Politics of Terrorism: Power, Legitimacy, and Violence, Integral Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.63-81.
Davidson, AI 2005, “Ethics as Ascetics: Foucault, the History of Ethics, and Ancient Thought.” The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (2nd edition), Ed. Garry Gutting. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 121-147.
De Moll, KE 2010, Everyday Experiences of Power (Ph.D. dissertation), Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, p. 22.
Deacon, R 2006, Michel Foucault on Education: A preliminary theo- retical overview. South African Journal of Education, Vol.26, 177-187.
Eribon, D 2011, Gandhi The Man: How One Man Changed Himself to Change the World, 1972, Tomales, California: Nilgiri Press.
Finlay, CJ 2006, “Violence and Revolutionary Subjectivity: Marx to Zizek,” European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 5, pp.373-397.
Fry, DP 2013, War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views. Oxford University Press. pp. 171–173
Gier, NF 2004, The Virtue of Nonviolence: From Gautama to Gandhi. SUNY Press, p. 222
Guinote, A 2008, Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.95, No.2, pp.237-252
Halliburton, M 2004, “Gandhi or Gramsci?: The Use of Authoritative Sources in Anthropology.” Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 793-817.
Harrington, A 2006, Social theory and theology. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary European social theory, New York: Routledge, pp. 37-49.
Jackson, R 2014, Language Power and Politics: Critical Discourse Analyst and War on Terrorism, An Interdisciplinary Journal of North American Studies, Vol. 49, 1-17.
Jessop, B 2012, Marxist Approaches to Power’ in E. Amenta, K. Nash, A. Scott, eds, The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, Oxford: Blackwell, 3-14
Jessop, B, Brenner, N, & Jones, MR 2008, ‘Theorizing Sociospatiality,’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol.26, No.3, pp.389-401.
Kalyvas, A 2008, Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary: Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 254-291.
Karlberg, M 2005, The Power of Discourse and the Discourse of Power: Pursuing Peace through Discourse Intervention, International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol.10, No. 1, pp.1-23.
Kuklick, B 2006,”Doctrinal War: Religion and Ideology in International Conflict,” The Monist: The Foundations of International Order, Vol. 89, No. 2, p. 46.
May, T 2006, “Michel Foucault’s Guide to Living,”Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, Vol. II, No. 3, pp. 173-184.
Munck, R 2008, Introduction: Deconstructing Violence: Power, Force, and Social Transformation, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 3-19.
Nazaretyan, AP 2007, Violence and Non-Violence at Different Stages of World History: A view from the hypothesis of techno-humanitarian balance. In: History & Mathematics. Moscow: KomKniga/URSS, pp.127-148
Pitsoe, V & Letseka, M 2013, Foucault’s Discourse and Power: Implications for Instructionist Classroom Management, Open Journal of Philosophy, Vol.3, No.1, 23-28
Prozorov, S 2006, “Liberal Enmity: The Figure of the Foe in the Political Ontology of Liberalism,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.35, No.1, pp. 75-99.
Rash, W 2003, “Human Rights as Geopolitics Carl Schmitt and the Legal Form of American Supremacy,” Cultural Critique, Vol.54, pp.120-147
Steger, MB 2006, Searching for Satya through Ahimsa: Gandhi’s Challenge to Western Discourses of Power, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 333-353.
Stoddart, MCJ 2007, Ideology, Hegemony, Discourse: A Critical Review of Theories of Knowledge and Power, Social Thought and Research, Vol. 28, 191-225.
Taylor, D 2011, “Introduction: Power, Freedom, and Subjectivity,” Michel Foucault: Key Concepts, Durham, UK: Acumen, pp.1-9
Tilly, C 2002, War making and state making as organized crime In C, Besteman (Ed.), Violence: A reader, New York: New York University Press, pp. 35-60.
Urbinati, N 2007. J.S. Mill’s political thought: a bicentennial reassessment. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 101
Valentine, J 2006, “The Political,” Theory, Culture & Society, Vol.23, No.2-3, pp.505-511
