Introduction
Instead of proposing a sociology notion of neoliberalism such as Bourdieu, at the end of the 70s, Foucault targeted to write a history of the ideology in the context of a wider history of governmentality. He as well committed the lectures he offered at the College de France in 1978 and the year later entitled Security, Territory, Population and especially The Birth of Biopolitics to the subject. Bourdieu challenged the concept of utopia in mainstream economic science in the 90s which in his standpoint had come to act as the conceptual matrix reintroducing the domination forms. The fact that both of them failed to embrace the notion of neoliberalism or from the common standpoint, they cannot detract from the desire in assessing all their claims. This paper examines both Bourdieu and Foucault’s ideas on power and impact of professional knowledge, value and ethics on promoting inclusion of marginalized people.
Discussion
Bourdieu and Foucault
At times, whereas arguing to uphold Bourdieu’s arguments, historians, philosophers and sociologists have sought to put Foucault’s examination of neoliberalism on trial by viewing the two authors from opposing sides. By accomplishing that, they have created a non-existent scandal (Alcaraz, Ramírez, and Peinado, 2020). This involves reducing the scope of the analyses as well as homogenizing their opinions to insert them insidiously into current political landscape in a manner they appear modern to the complete development of the neoliberalism. Whereas Bourdieu would have critiqued the neoliberal phenomenon, Foucault would show sympathy towards it. There are historians who believe that he may be among the actors behind intelligentsia’s major shift to the right in the 70s and 80s (Alcaraz, Ramírez, and Peinado, 2020). This is proof of a specific academic wish to homogenize ones that are not homogenous, erasing contexts to combine theoretical strategies, scientific disciplines and political intentions to reconcile them or depict them as irreconcilable. Both Foucault and Bourdieu had the final word regarding neoliberalism which is ever-changing and unfolding, rendering the actual interest that of the respective fertility of their assessments.
Difference in Eras
Bourdieu is concerned with the ideology of neoliberalism coming of age between the 80s and 90s. Foucault illustrates much foresight in his discovery of the idea by looking at its initial expressions. The revelation of discontinuity in politics of the 70s had not yet been stressed in the political and intellectual milieux and nearly no one had seriously considered the renewal of liberal concepts in particular spheres. The significant oppositions to have structured the political and socio-economic field’s reading still were classical (Alcaraz, Ramírez, and Peinado, 2020). Foucault’s assessment sought to avoid sweeping nature of categories such as state/society, totalitarianism/democracy, and capitalism/socialism. He did this with the intention of understanding a devious, more grating change involving the government.
Bourdieu developed the sociology of neoliberalism under a different situation which took shape ten years later than Foucault. This was during a period when neoliberal politics’ effects had informed people’s instant realities, especially ones regarding labor, housing, cities and public services. Thus, this strand of sociology aims its focus, as illustrated by his 1993 publication, more on neoliberalism’s social effects (Foulk et al., 2018). Its social construction had its basis on objectionable effects as per a technique that tracks the cause.
The difference fails to fully account for Bourdieu’s insufficient of interest in the other author’s assessments which takes a learner back to the question of mutual ignorance displayed by both of them. Even though Bourdieu only started to address the concept of neoliberalism towards the end of the 80s, he barely alluded to Foucault’s programs at College de France. He did not mention development of his work in England, United States or Italy according to Foucault’s works especially in the study of governmentality (Foulk et al., 2018). For more than twenty years, an outstanding silence was thus maintained from him regarding Foucault’s evaluations of neoliberalism and liberalism. This is in spite of his growing interest on the former as among his primary study objects as well as political targets.
It can be stated that among his obstacles to accessing Foucault’s work and embracing or referencing it was the publication of the latter’s courses on the topic in 2004, two years after his demise. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that he was assisted in his enrolment into College de France, four decades ago and that he had easy access to the summaries of the lectures. Therefore, it is difficult to trust that he did not understand anything of the two years of the course focusing on a political and intellectual subject which later became his main interest.
Both intellectual as well as political reception of their studies was staggered in time depicting a curious phenomenon of life in politics. Through supporting the 1995 strikes and involvement in establishment of tools of political intervention, for example, the small collection Reasons to act, he embodied the intellectual critique of the concept. His assessment of the notion encroached on that of a militant condemnation, amplifying a collection of widespread critical perceptions against neoliberal or liberal reforms. The great success of his evaluations was dampened by the rise of particular limitations especially regarding organization. This meant that articulation between the social movement, researchers as well as unions that he had hopes in, did not materialize.
Difference in Theoretical Styles
According to Foucault, research does not or should not consist much of past established frame of reference but instead a continuous change of the ideas as well as their relationships. This means that rather than using patterns, he produced new ideologies while traversing unfamiliar territories. He approaches the theory of neoliberalism in a creative way based on a study technique whereby his assessments are unstable (Masquelier, 2019). He repeatedly strikes the reader by continuous eruption of ideas that he changes as fast as he abandons enabling him to make quick shifts in daring historical standpoints. Bourdieu’s transposition of his ideas is juxtaposed to the slippery transformation of Foucault. The latter applies a stabilized ideological scheme to different fields or subjects with only the most minor of variations.
Whether it is discussing the political, literary, or economic field, a reader is usually on known ground with Bourdieu as well as seldom feels disoriented with regards to style, grammar, phrasing or syntax. The tactic is more technical than creative, applying a greatly elaborate conceptual system. In his dealing with neoliberalism, he reuses ideas already existing in his works revised for the unfamiliar territory (Foulk et al., 2018). He as well establishes bold connection between the generative frameworks of his sociology. It is commendable that he evaluates neoliberalism by mobilizing conceptual series to have risen within other contexts of assessment with words such as capital, field, and struggle.
Such a variance in style corresponds naturally to a more basic opposition regarding the history’s treatment. Foucault departs from the concept that there are significant discontinuities between historical eras that are differentiated by singular power forms and knowledge structures whereas Bourdieu assumes that symbolic forms and social structures are inert and subject to slow shifts. Thus, if he employs the Foucauldian formula of transcendental historical, it only stresses the consistence of past categories which continue to subliminally act on the present.
His interest lies in how both objective and subjective structures become changed while persevering over time. In spite of accusing Foucault as well as others of difficult structuralism, he is the most faithful to the structuralist initiative, even in his attempts to integrate the historicity notion. If an event exists, they ought to always be comprehended within a system of relations. He emphasizes occurrences of events, discontinuities and ruptures, declaring structuralism serves as the most systematic trial to avoid the ethnology and a sequence of other sciences. Even the whole idea of an occurrence in theoretical bases stems from various approaches which are near impossible to reconcile within the assessments done of neoliberalism as while one may consider it an event, another sees restoration.
Difference in Critical Approaches
According to Foucault, an intellectual is defined by his or her criticism of every type of power. However, liberalism is as well a vital strategy to power, constituting an external analysis on behalf of basic rights or an internal assessment regarding effects as well as their utility. The association between liberalism as an evaluation of power and critical function of intellectuals is both problematic and delicate. His analysis of the concept does not show that he is liberal, describing it as he does as a power which claims to adopt a serious approach, even controlling the censure of the governed.
It is thus perhaps wiser than any other type due to its imposition of the government modes by means of a controlled and conceded liberty that upholds its power position. This stands as the root of his assessment which instead of being apologetic, it aims to comprehend the particular status of the ideology. Such an assessment of governmental forms has to be contrasted to the various times he explains that every sign indicates that socialism has not prevailed and that there is need to invent something else. Invention in this context does not refer to adhering to the neoliberal project but instead innovating another unexpected mode of governing. In Foucault’s perspective, the movements started in the 70s would be better positioned to be responsible of the historical role.
Bourdieu’s approach somehow appears different from the one that Foucault uses. It is not that he does not attribute significance to political and symbolic inventions or to the novel forms of action or organization but instead seeks an association. He aims for both intellectuals who have their autonomy endangered by economy and middle or working class members subject to emerging precariousness and poverty to form an alliance. This calls for the introduction of another type of intellectual organized in a non-partisan fashion and that would consist of a new body of struggle within the social movement. His intervention is thus targeted at supporting particular demands as well as indirectly supporting a movement and envisioned to be systematic and direct, producing effects within the trade and social movement.
Bourdieu calls for a change in the geographies and forms of action, in a strategy which was not greatly received at the moment. Various actors in the social movement perceived it as a form of interference, in part accounting for the short-term disappointment of the projects (Svarstad, Benjaminsen, and Overå, R., 2018). His objective was to redefine relations between militants and researchers and that of social sciences as well as the social movement to mobilize scientific capital via action in the most direct way. His strategy meant that the social movement needs to capitalize on the gains from social sciences to become more effective politically by locating allies within the unions and movement in defense of scientific autonomy. Thus, it was a matter of depending on the social movement to stem economic imperialism, which was aiding to shape a proper utopia thanks neoliberalism witnessed in politics from the 80s.
Governmentality
Governmentality refers to an approach to the study of power that stresses the governing of individual’s conduct via positive means instead of the sovereign power to formulate the legislation. In a disciplinarian mode of power, this ideology is associated with the agreeable participation of subjects. The idea takes government’s definition of the exercise of arranged political power by a state or country and expands it to include the active willingness and consent of people to participate in their governance. It proposes that a government by a state is just a single form of governing, that both terms, that is state and government, are not synonymous and that actions done cannot result in desired goals.
Governmentality, initially formulated by the twentieth-century French ideologist called Michel Foucault, combines rationality and government. The latter in this context refers to an activity or conduct aimed at shaping, guiding or affecting the conduct of people. The term conduct does not just mean to lead or direct in this aspect. It refers to someone’s conduct of themselves where a sense of self-governance is a directing force. Rationality means striving to be clear and systematic concerning how the situation is or must be. This implies that prior to individuals or circumstances are managed or controlled, they ought to initially be defined. Thus, the state tailors systems for describing populations which makes them visible and known. They comprise of techniques of administration and management and ways of categorizing people or groups which enable for identification, ordering, classification and control.
Power Relations
Proposers of the notion of governmentality perceive power as effective. In this sense, the goals of power relations take on various forms important to contemporary authority. Sovereign power is seen as practicing authority over people within a state or territory. Disciplinary power is viewed as controlling the ordering of individuals within a school, work or military. A government is perceived as a type of power that involves relations and capacities between subjects as resources to be optimized and fostered.
A good government is viewed as beyond the practice of sovereign power to foster the prosperity of the population, its health, productivity, longevity as well as happiness. It is identified that political power is achieved in numerous ways via various agencies, techniques, and social groups which may be only loosely related to the state’s formal bureaucracy. Governmentality is focused on an assessment of the methods of government and the particular and diverse practices or procedures discovered both in and out of state institutions that cut across areas usually viewed as separate. Government cannot be perceived as a single actor but a combination of diverse elements as well as ways of thinking forming together to resolve and frame issues.
There are experts and historians that view governing as an art. The idea of governmentality does not desire to supplant the notions of state power where authority is usually practiced vertically via the application of decisions, rules or bureaucratic structure. However, it suggests that an extra horizontal strategy be used to obtain an insight of underlying relations which comprise institutions and people within a populace. Its eventual worry is how people can govern others and themselves, how a government serves everyone or expressing a problem for the population and every person within it. Even though the state may allocate identities to those who govern, where conduct is prescribed, there is the softer implication of influencing the direction of the governed’s conduct. Therefore, conceived, governing is an art that involves the imaginative use of intuition, skills and knowledge to management and administration.
Professional Knowledge, Value and Ethics and Impact on Capacity to Promote Inclusion of Marginalized People
Marginalized individuals are those that have been excluded from mainstream economic, social, cultural and educational life. Examples of such consist of groups that are isolated as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, language, physical ability and migration status. This happens when there is an unequal power association amongst social groupings. In the United States and some of the developed European countries, many people of color are discriminated against due to their race which forces researchers to term them as marginalized. There are nations or places whereby the laws governing the people do not allow women to have roles outside household chores. Anytime that there is one category of people being neglected or do not enjoy similar privileges as others, it can be said that there is marginalization.
Noteworthy is that using professional knowledge, value as well as ethics between service users and social workers has the capacity to promote or foster inclusion of marginalized groups in the community. Taking the example of the field of healthcare, it is true to state that not every individual in the United States enjoys the same privileges. Statistics show that more African Americans suffer to the point of death than their White counterparts (Konttila et al., 2019). This has as well been reflected in the high rate of mortality among Black citizens in the country as compared to others. It is important to understand that the issue of marginalization can be solved and every social worker is obligated to work for all people equally. However, lack of professional knowledge can impede steps towards inclusion of marginalized people.
Professional knowledge refers to a set of practices and theories associated with a particular field, gained after training. This means that someone is equipped with insights about a specific area after going through a tertiary-level education, for example, university. It every program at the college level, students are prepared to be professionals in their different careers in future. They are taught on how to treat individuals without being asked to differentiate between black and white. Without such guidance, tutors know that they could graduate individuals that instead of helping the society would ruin it. Thus, in order to promote inclusion of marginalized people, a social worker needs to apply and use professional knowledge in his work.
In addition to professional knowledge, graduates of college level are equipped with ethics and understand value. When given an opportunity to serve the people in any area of social work, they are keen on ensuring that their practices are principled. Individuals who discriminate in terms of who to give best services and the ones not to, has no ethics. The objective of the social work code of ethics is setting consistent principles, values, and standards of conduct for everyone in the line of work. It models how the job ought to be done so that the marginalized, disadvantaged as well as disabled reach maximum potential. Upholding the code implies that one is upholding the values and acting in a manner that honors ethical concerns such as cultural competence, informed consent, and proper patient-provider associations. Every social worker must adhere to it as failure to do so can lead to revocation of one’s license. It is encouraged that social work programs in schools focus as well on values, standards, and principle the students will require to comprehend and adhere to the NASW code.
For a social worker to serve the people equally and help in the promotion of inclusion of marginalized people, they have to learn about core values. The first one is service whereby they apply this value by helping other people. When they take on tasks that assist others but result in little fiscal compensation or individual prestige, they are devoting to service. They may choose to do pro-bono work or allow to be paid less what they would usually ask for as a depiction of the devotion to empowering humanity.
The second core value is social justice whereby they portray their commitment to social justice by advocating for marginalized individuals and educating people concerning discrimination, unemployment, poverty, and any other form of injustice. A social worker need to be sensitive towards cultural, racial, religious, and ethnic tied to prejudice and oppression via their actions and words. The third one is dignity and worth of a person whereby they are supposed to identify the peculiarity and value of all clients. They treat them with formality and respect while recognizing what every one of them is bringing to the world.
The social workers are supposed to aid the clients to integrate into the society in a manner that respects their worth and individuality while empowering them as well to accomplish their set goals. The fourth core value is importance of human relationships (Konttila et al., 2019). To realize positive change in the client’s life, a professional values association that offer the service user purpose and meaning. They connect them with community support or resources to assist them recover. Doing that, they strengthen the emotional lives of the users and that of families, friends and others.
The fifth core value is integrity whereby a social worker embraces responsibility and honesty in their actions, offering an example for other professionals. They as well respect the worth of self-care and understand when personal issues might hinder their capacity to work effectively. The last one is competence whereby they are supposed to exhibit a devotion to continuing training as well as education. They are committed to maintaining sharpness of the skillset and attuned to modern problems. Eventually, a social worker strives to make productive contributions to the knowledge base of the field.
Conclusion
The paper has been able to examine both Bourdieu and Foucault’s ideas on power and impact of professional knowledge, value and ethics on promoting inclusion of marginalized people. Even though the two authors did not mention each other in their works or showed any hints of combining some of their discoveries, they had near similar ideas. Apart from that, it has also indicated that for marginalization to end with regards to social work, professionals need to understand and adhere to the code of ethics.
Reference List
Alcaraz, J.P.H., Ramírez, J.P. and Peinado, M.E.L. (2020) ‘Updating the sociocultural approaches to obesity: Proposals from Hacking, Bourdieu and Foucault’, Physis: Revista de Saúde Coletiva, 30. Web.
Foulk, T.A., Lanaj, K., Tu, M.H., Erez, A. and Archambeau, L. (2018) ‘Heavy is the head that wears the crown: An actor-centric approach to daily psychological power, abusive leader behavior, and perceived incivility’, Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), pp.661-684. Web.
Konttila, J., Siira, H., Kyngäs, H., Lahtinen, M., Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kaakinen, P., Oikarinen, A., Yamakawa, M., Fukui, S. and Utsumi, M. (2019). ‘Healthcare professionals’ competence in digitalization: A systematic review’, Journal of clinical nursing, 28(5-6), pp.745-761. Web.
Masquelier, C. (2019) ‘Bourdieu, Foucault and the politics of precarity. Distinktion’, Journal of Social Theory, 20(2), pp.135-155. Web.
Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T.A. and Overå, R. (2018). Power theories in political ecology. Web.