Michel Fuco

right | thumb | 300px | Michel Fuco Michel Foucou (Michel Foucault; 15 October 1926 - 25 June 1984) was France's leading thinker and philosopher. Fuku is counted among the 20th century's most prominent thinkers. It was the influence of Fuku's writings that revolutionized many areas of modern science, and especially in the field of historiography. State concept of Michel Foucault

Michelle Foucault has done the most recent and evocative development in this understanding - how the state organization manages to talk to people. The capitalist class does not establish its social power only in the state by violence equipment (army, police etc.). He also ensures the continuity of his social power by using a variety of cultural forms. Therefore it is also necessary to understand the structures of the state in their cultural forms. Finally, they are responsible for creating consensus on the part of the state to perform cultural structures.

Fuco explains that in order to control or discipline people in modern society, apart from a multi-level system of surveillance, adoption of decisions made by others and measures like examination system are adopted. Fouka insists that only half of the power of the work is accomplished by keeping a vision on people. For this, they cite the arrangement of the stadium in which the seats are arranged so that the viewer can easily see a program but at the same time, this arrangement also gives the controllers of power the ability to keep an eye on the audience. Here FoCo also mentions the hypothesized prison panopticon by political thinker Jeremy Bantham to mark the model of power of discipline and control. Whose original architectural plan was such that the locked prisoners in the cells were invisible to each other but could not get out of the monitor of the Central Tower of the prison. Prisoners never know whether or not they are being watched, but in their mind it is settled that someone has a vision on them. Fuco sees the principle of the Panoptik as a metaphor that goes beyond the boundaries of the prison and becomes a common discipline of schools in schools, factories and hospitals. Although this proposed prison of Bantham never took the shape of a concrete form, but in the form of a theory it has almost conquered almost every activity of modern society. In modern society, he has proved to be an instrument for disciplining systems which have replaced the kings and princes of modern times and have established themselves in their place.

In this sequence, Fuco also shows that the system of modern governance or discipline does not look only on the activities of the people, but it also governs people by showing their inability. According to him, modern power produces understanding, talent, general and abnormal behavior, and when a person does not endorse the criteria or standards established by it, then the system does not miss the chance to declare such a person less or unusual. In this context, Fuco does not forget to remind that this attitude of these disciplined institutions of modern society is motivated by no vengeance but by reform. Whose ultimate goal is to accept the given criteria or standards of society. Note that this pattern of discipline by the belief of society is different from the system of judicial punishment in which a person was punished only on the basis that his act is lawful or not. In such a situation it was not said that the person is normal or unusual. But modern society insists on establishing certain standards in educational programs, medical practices, and in matters of industry and products, and the dominance of these standards is so varied that the behavior and personality of the person arise according to them. Generally the state is seen as a government, organization or political community. It is believed that there are many variations in every round of history. The changes in this are the main topics of history. Only primitive nomadic political communities are not given the status of the state. It is believed that in these communities there is a lack of understanding of this concept along with the associated arrangement. In order to be a state, it is necessary that there is almost a permanent link between the community and the land area. When used in this general way, this word expresses the idea that there are certain universal attributes of the political community, which are beyond time and space (or space); That is, there are some common characteristics among Greek police, medieval reggaon and modern republics. Can this attribute be rendered in a more narrow form?

It is also clear that if a definition of the state introduces it as an eternal and unchanging object or organization, by doing so, it ignores the process of change and development in history. Therefore, a valid definition should focus on other aspects and actions. History shows that in the form of a universal phenomenon, the state is an activity or organization that is imposed on human beings as needs. Some of its main features in this form of activity are as follows: It creates a definite connection between humans and their property; Or in other words it creates unity or society among humans. Therefore, the state's existence is a fundamental thing. Second, it acknowledges the power of arrangement between humans, or a form of rule or command and obedience. Third, the activity of creating and maintaining the state is unique, which always present itself against those who are not part of this community.

However, despite seeing the state as a historical phenomenon, it can not be denied that a philosophical aspect is always involved in writing on it. Under it, the question arises that what is the ideal form of state that the system or the people want to establish a relationship? Has he been ideally received? Is the current method of governance right? Is the external relations of the community being operated properly? In fact, considering this view, the state does not appear only in the form of the necessity imposed on humans, but it also appears in the form of a problem of 'right' choice in front of humans. There is no struggle to establish an arrangement in place of anarchy rather than anarchy in the state. Instead, it is also a struggle to establish a system that is true, authentic and just. Therefore, the writing of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbs, Heigel etc. can be seen as an attempt to find the philosophical answer to this question of how the state should be. These scholars have tried to differentiate between the state and other human organizations, and at the same time, they have presented the concept of ideal state and arguments in favor of it.

In view of the state as a universal historical phenomenon and the idea of ​​looking at the state as a philosophical concept, it is also necessary to add the idea of ​​considering the state especially a modern phenomenon. There are many such historians and political theorists, who argue that the word 'state' should be used in Europe for the arrangement made after Renaissance and religion reform. They believe that the state's principle is actually the principle associated with this particular phenomenon. Therefore, if it is used for organizations present in the second round of history, then it will increase the illusion about its meaning. In the form of an organized system, the rise of the state word is also occurring between the end of the fourteenth century and the seventeenth century. The state's English word 'State' comes from the Latin word 'Steyr', which means standing up. In this way it tells about a situation. One of the main ideas behind considering the state as a modern concept is that the emergence of a modern state happens with the concept of sovereignty. It is a clear modern belief that the state which is not sovereign, is not a state in the right sense. Sovereignty means that the state is the supreme source of political authority in the territories under its jurisdiction. There are two sides of sovereignty - internal aspects and external aspects. The internal aspect means that there is no authority higher than the state within the boundaries of the state. The state is supreme and the citizen can not appeal to any other authority against the state. External sovereignty means the recognition given by other states to a particular state. In addition, it is also acknowledged that a state can speak on behalf of its citizens in international affairs. This right expresses the autonomy and sovereignty of the state in the international realm.

Considering the state as a modern phenomenon does not mean that it should be dismissed as a historical power or philosophical thought. It can not be said that any specialty of the modern state was not present in the earlier period of history. Basically, the 'state' of the modern era and the 'state' that has come up with a modern phase has many characteristics. Similarly, it can not be said that as a philosophical idea, the state represents the 'complete concept' of the modern state. In fact, the concept of state in philosophically has been conceptualized and interpreted in different ways. For example, the liberals saw the states as a 'neutral' institution, but serious and diverse discussion has been happening within liberalism about the role of the state. Within Marxism there has been a rich tradition of debate over the state. In this, considering the state as an instrument of capitalist classes, there is also a debate related to 'relative autonomy of the state'. Anarchists advocated the state to be completely eliminated by treating the state as an unnatural power. In the writing of Marx-Engels, a communist situation has been conceived in which the state will be completely destroyed. But the anarchists want to finish the state as soon as possible rather than wait for such a situation. They believe that the state is based on violence against the natural nature of man. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie prefers the state's side so that it can preserve the traditions and values ​​accumulated for many generations. Various streams within feminists have been considered in different ways about the state. For example, liberal-feminist believes that the state is inclined towards male domination as an institution, but by making laws, this trend of the state can be improved and its use can be used to establish gender equality can be done. On the other hand, socialist-feminism considers the capitalist character of the state as the main cause of women's problem. It is believed that women's status can be improved only by the end of capitalist state. Third, according to the radical feminist thought, the state works on protecting values ​​based on patriarchy and the values ​​being extended by it. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate the state of patriarchy that even the state should be terminated. Clearly, there is a very diverse and intense debate about the state, its nature and role. Due to the emergence of structures like European Union in recent times, it has been argued that the state is gradually becoming irrelevant. But this argument is not very strong. It is true that the countries involved in the European Union have given their consent to create a strong regional organization. Yet, they do not want to end their identity as a nation-state. Several other regional organizations have also extended cooperation between the countries of the region, but there is no possibility that they will prove to be an alternative to the nation-state. In the contemporary world, the state is such a reality that there is no hope of ending. Though ideologically opposed to followers of many ideologies, even after getting a practical opportunity, they have failed to eliminate the state's institution. Also see them

सामान्य जालस्थल:

जीवनी:

संदर्भ ग्रंथ:

पत्रिकायें:

विविध:

wiki