Totalizing: Before the 1970s, many social theorists imagined society as an integrated whole. Thus, they attempted that a universal logic accounted for all human experience. However later theorist have criticized, earlier theories as “totalizing attempts” and argue that universal mechanisms and assumptions cannot account for the variations in human development and history. Also, Later theorist assert traditional social science premised on white, patriarchal, male dominated European colonialism and ideology alone, does not consider the critical values of other races and cultures and their cultural practices in historical development. My analysis will develop a framework that illustrates how forms of past and present practices and histories of
…show more content…
The first strategy is the “War of Movement” or a phase of open conflict between classes, where an outcome is decided via direct clashes between revolutionary fractions and the State. Using Russia as an example, Gramsci asserts for Russian people “the state was everything, as Russian civil society was primordial and gelatinous” with little hegemony thus the War of Movement was a successful strategy in Russia when used to overthrow the state (1995:238). In contrast, in the West “The War of Position” is described as a battle in the trenches and fortresses, where common revolutionary fractions of vast numbers of civil society seek to gain influence and power over the state as soon as possible. Gramsci used Western Europe in his example, because unlike Russia, in the West civil societies, active and embedded hegemony as previously mentioned protects the state apparatus.
Thus “The War of Movement” Gramsci asserts would not be effective because taking over the State in the West using only the “War of Movement” is the action of a fool and would only destroy the outer perimeter of the State apparatus” due to the hegemony of civil society (1995:235). Thus, in his writings, Gramsci asserts using the “War of Position” revolutionary strategist, in …show more content…
Bourdieu asserts, though we are unconscious of Habitus, it presents in our day-to-day practices. In his book “The Logic of Practice” Bourdieu says habitus is a set of dispositions common to presentations of class, as habitus is “a product of history, which produces individual and collective practices.” Thus Habitus can be understood as the cognitive and mental structures which people perceive, evaluate and internalize the social world (1990:53,54). Where by people's past experiences regulates social environments and reproduce a “realistic relation to what is possible” because it is the most practical thing to do as individuals internalize this sense of practicality via their habitus which is limited by power (1990: 65). Additionally, in his book “Distinction,” Bourdieu discusses cultural capital and the way people use fields, and classification of class while classifying one another. As habitus, fields and cultural capital reproduce distinct and different class factions within social spaces, of the “sacred” sphere of culture that legitimates social order and racial stratification. Therefore, people undoubtedly know their place within society as well as quickly identify other individuals who are within their class or other factions of society that are not parts of the Bougie class via their pretentious actions. (1990:6,7). According to Bourdieu,
The first strategy is the “War of Movement” or a phase of open conflict between classes, where an outcome is decided via direct clashes between revolutionary fractions and the State. Using Russia as an example, Gramsci asserts for Russian people “the state was everything, as Russian civil society was primordial and gelatinous” with little hegemony thus the War of Movement was a successful strategy in Russia when used to overthrow the state (1995:238). In contrast, in the West “The War of Position” is described as a battle in the trenches and fortresses, where common revolutionary fractions of vast numbers of civil society seek to gain influence and power over the state as soon as possible. Gramsci used Western Europe in his example, because unlike Russia, in the West civil societies, active and embedded hegemony as previously mentioned protects the state apparatus.
Thus “The War of Movement” Gramsci asserts would not be effective because taking over the State in the West using only the “War of Movement” is the action of a fool and would only destroy the outer perimeter of the State apparatus” due to the hegemony of civil society (1995:235). Thus, in his writings, Gramsci asserts using the “War of Position” revolutionary strategist, in …show more content…
Bourdieu asserts, though we are unconscious of Habitus, it presents in our day-to-day practices. In his book “The Logic of Practice” Bourdieu says habitus is a set of dispositions common to presentations of class, as habitus is “a product of history, which produces individual and collective practices.” Thus Habitus can be understood as the cognitive and mental structures which people perceive, evaluate and internalize the social world (1990:53,54). Where by people's past experiences regulates social environments and reproduce a “realistic relation to what is possible” because it is the most practical thing to do as individuals internalize this sense of practicality via their habitus which is limited by power (1990: 65). Additionally, in his book “Distinction,” Bourdieu discusses cultural capital and the way people use fields, and classification of class while classifying one another. As habitus, fields and cultural capital reproduce distinct and different class factions within social spaces, of the “sacred” sphere of culture that legitimates social order and racial stratification. Therefore, people undoubtedly know their place within society as well as quickly identify other individuals who are within their class or other factions of society that are not parts of the Bougie class via their pretentious actions. (1990:6,7). According to Bourdieu,