Question 1: Foucault versus Durkheim
According to Durkheim, sociological knowledge discovers the laws of social formations to liberate man into conformity with his social being. Similarly, Foucault, genealogical critique unmasks the limits of knowledge for the purpose of exploring alternative, not- totalizing, ways of being. On the one hand, Durkheim’s cultural criticism anchors in piety. Durkheim believes that the excesses of modern individualism can only subdue within an integrated social organism hence he maintains critical reverence for a pathological social body, for its potential to achieve normalizing relations. For example, “an economic crisis, a crash on the stock market, even bankruptcy, can disorganize the body social much more seriously than the isolated case of homicide” (Durkheim 3). On the other hand, Foucault’s critique anchor in irony. Only through an analysis that threatens to undermine its foundations can the concept of organizations be put to the question, and the oppression of totalizing contemporary discourses de-legitimization. Despite these differences, however, epistemological and methodological …show more content…
Sykes portrayal of social relations as being comprised of inclusionary and exclusionary mechanisms that are constructive and dispersed finds its postmodern equivalent in Foucault’s genealogies. Sykes sociology of religion does not replace political questions with religious but possess political matters in a new light. Sykes presents politics regarding the religious mechanisms that produce an ordered society, as opposed to the legal and state-centered mechanisms of traditional political philosophy. While it cannot be true that Foucaultian genealogy concerns itself with religious mechanisms, it is true that the spiritual mechanisms of Sykes operate in ways that correspond to Foucault’s articulation of
According to Durkheim, sociological knowledge discovers the laws of social formations to liberate man into conformity with his social being. Similarly, Foucault, genealogical critique unmasks the limits of knowledge for the purpose of exploring alternative, not- totalizing, ways of being. On the one hand, Durkheim’s cultural criticism anchors in piety. Durkheim believes that the excesses of modern individualism can only subdue within an integrated social organism hence he maintains critical reverence for a pathological social body, for its potential to achieve normalizing relations. For example, “an economic crisis, a crash on the stock market, even bankruptcy, can disorganize the body social much more seriously than the isolated case of homicide” (Durkheim 3). On the other hand, Foucault’s critique anchor in irony. Only through an analysis that threatens to undermine its foundations can the concept of organizations be put to the question, and the oppression of totalizing contemporary discourses de-legitimization. Despite these differences, however, epistemological and methodological …show more content…
Sykes portrayal of social relations as being comprised of inclusionary and exclusionary mechanisms that are constructive and dispersed finds its postmodern equivalent in Foucault’s genealogies. Sykes sociology of religion does not replace political questions with religious but possess political matters in a new light. Sykes presents politics regarding the religious mechanisms that produce an ordered society, as opposed to the legal and state-centered mechanisms of traditional political philosophy. While it cannot be true that Foucaultian genealogy concerns itself with religious mechanisms, it is true that the spiritual mechanisms of Sykes operate in ways that correspond to Foucault’s articulation of