ReviseSociology

Author: Karl Thompson

  • Inside Facebook: What a Whistleblower’s Memoir Reveals About Media Power and Control

    In her recently published memoir, Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism, Sarah Wynn-Williams discusses her experiences. She presents a cautionary tale about power and greed. It also highlights the loss of idealism.

    She is a former Facebook executive. She provides a critical insider’s perspective on the corporate culture at Meta (formerly Facebook).

    During her six-year tenure, Wynn-Williams alleges that top executives tried to suppress her whistleblowing efforts. This happened just before Facebook’s rebranding as Meta. The executives mentioned include CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

    Her allegations concern the company’s internal practices. She claims that the leadership prioritized profit over ethical considerations, leading to decisions that compromised user privacy and platform integrity. Wynn-Williams further asserts that the company’s actions were often at odds with its public statements. This created a dissonance between its professed values and operational realities. ​

    Analyzing Media Theories in the Context of Wynn-Williams’ Exposé

    To understand the dynamics highlighted in Wynn-Williams’ memoir, it’s insightful to examine three prominent media theories. These are Pluralist, Marxist Instrumentalist, and Neo-Marxist perspectives.​

    Pluralist Perspective

    The pluralist view of the media posits that media content is driven by consumer demand within a competitive marketplace. It suggests that no single entity can dominate media narratives. Media organizations aim to cater to diverse audience preferences to maximize profits.

    This implies that consumers ultimately control media content through their choices. However, Wynn-Williams’ account challenges this perspective. It illustrates how internal corporate decisions at Meta were made without adequate consideration of user interests. These decisions indicate a potential disconnect between consumer control and corporate actions.​

    Marxist Instrumentalist Perspective

    This theory argues that media owners, as part of the ruling class, manipulate media content directly. They do this to perpetuate their own interests and maintain the societal status quo.

    According to this view, the media serves as a tool for ideological control. It disseminates content that aligns with the interests of the elite. This keeps the broader populace passive and less likely to challenge existing power structures.

    Wynn-Williams’ revelations about Meta’s leadership show that internal dissent was suppressed. Profit was prioritized over ethical considerations. These actions align with the Marxist Instrumentalist perspective. They suggest the company’s actions were intended to maintain its dominant position. This might have been at the expense of broader societal well-being.​

    Neo-Marxist Perspective

    Neo-Marxists focus on cultural hegemony. Media professionals share similar backgrounds and worldviews with the ruling class. As a result, they unconsciously propagate dominant ideologies. This perspective emphasizes that media content is shaped not just by direct control. It is also influenced by a shared cultural lens. This lens aligns with elite interests. Wynn-Williams’ experiences suggest that Meta’s corporate culture may have fostered an environment where certain viewpoints became normalized. Meanwhile, dissenting opinions were marginalized. These dynamics reflect the subtle mechanisms of control highlighted by Neo-Marxist theory.​

    Evaluating the Use of Qualitative Secondary Data

    Using qualitative secondary data, like Wynn-Williams’ memoir, provides valuable insights into organizational cultures. It also reveals internal dynamics that external observers often miss. Such personal documents can reveal subjective experiences and internal deliberations, enriching our understanding of complex entities like Meta. However, challenges exist. These include assessing the authenticity and credibility of the accounts. Understanding the author’s potential biases is also a challenge. Finally, determining the representativeness of the experiences described is necessary. Researchers must critically evaluate such sources. They should corroborate them with additional evidence. It is important to remain mindful of the context in which these narratives were produced. Hindustan Times

    Conclusion

    Sarah Wynn-Williams’ memoir offers a critical lens to examine Meta’s internal operations. It aligns with concerns raised by various media theories about corporate influence. It also touches on ideological control. Personal memoirs provide deep insights as qualitative secondary data. They also necessitate careful scrutiny to fully understand the complexities of organizational behaviors and media dynamics.

    Signposting

    This material is mainly relevant to the Media option within A-level sociology.

    You can find out more in this article in The Conversation.

  • Bell Hooks, Intersectionality, and Second-Wave Feminism: Challenging White Patriarchy and Capitalism

    The “second-wave” feminists of the 1960s to 1980s presented a far more formidable and thoroughgoing challenge to male domination than earlier feminists. Their broadening agenda included issues such as social inequalities, sexuality, rape, the family, and the workplace.

    But the US feminist Bell Hooks criticized second wave feminism as representing the privileged view of white women. In Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, published in 1984, she claimed that an emphasis on women as the “sisterhood” masked what she saw as the “opportunism of bourgeois white women.”

    Hooks argued that the situation was more complex than second-wave feminists recognized. Worse still, these women helped maintain an interlocking network of oppressive forces that impacted the lives of working-class women of color: white women were complicit in perpetuating white patriarchal domination.

    Kimberlé Crenshaw

    In 1989, US lawyer Kimberlé Crenshaw described the crisscrossing forces of oppression as “intersectionality.” She likened this to a place where traffic flows in four directions. Discrimination, like traffic, may flow in one direction or another. If an accident happens at an intersection, it could have been caused by traffic coming from multiple directions—sometimes all at once.

    A black woman who is harmed because she is a woman and black is at an “intersection”; this may be due to sex, race discrimination, or both.

    As a lawyer, Crenshaw found that black women in the workplace were discriminated against on both counts – being black and female – but fell through a legal loophole. They were the last to be hired and the first to be laid off, but their employers denied this was due to discrimination. When such cases went to court, judges often ruled that they could not have been laid off because they were women—since other women still worked at the firm. Likewise, their race alone could not be the reason, as black men still worked there. The law only recognized discrimination based on one factor at a time, not the intersection of multiple oppressions.

    “It was clear to black women… that they were never going to have equality within the existing white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy.”

    Bell Hooks

    Hierarchy Systems and Intersectionality

    Bell hooks expanded the idea of intersectionality in her book The Will to Change (2004). She stated:


    “I often use the phrase ‘imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy’ to describe the interlocking political systems that are the foundation of our nation’s politics.”

    Hooks used the phrase intersectionality to describe how different systems of oppression—race, gender, and class—intersect and reinforce social hierarchies.

    • White supremacy assumes the superiority of lighter-skinned or “white” races over others. While hooks acknowledged that openly hostile racial prejudice is less common today, she argued that it persists in subtler forms, such as stereotypes about intelligence, work ethic, and violence.
      • For example, racial biases may lead people to perceive an Indian doctor or a Hispanic teacher as less competent than their white counterparts.
    • Capitalism refers to an economic system in which private or corporate ownership of firms and goods determines prices, production, and labor.
      • Hooks argued that capitalism is inherently hierarchical, as those who own the means of production control and exploit the labor force.

    She agreed with US writer and activist Carmen Vázquez, who highlighted how intersecting oppressions disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

    Hooks highlights how colonialism and imperialism remain relevant today because non-white peoples and their resources have historically been plundered and exploited by white supremacist capitalists in their pursuit of wealth.

    The Rules of Patriarchy

    Bell hooks defines patriarchy as:

    “a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything… and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.”

    She argues that of all the interlocking systems of oppression we encounter, patriarchy is the one we learn the most about while growing up.

    In The Will to Change, hooks explains how the notion of patriarchy is instilled in children from an early age.

    • At school, they are told that men hold power.
    • At church, they are taught that God is a man, who created and ruled over the world.
    • In the family, women were created to serve men—expected to strategize, lead, and provide for them, but also be subservient.

    These patriarchal gender roles are deeply ingrained in society and shape expectations for both men and women.

    She argues that racial discrimination and social hierarchies exist in every institution of society, from families and schools to workplaces and courtrooms.

    When challenged, these systems often reinforce their dominance through social pressure. For example,

    • A boy who cries may be mocked into conforming to gender norms.
    • A woman resisting gender roles may be ostracized or pressured to conform.

    These examples illustrate how patriarchy dictates social expectations and forces individuals to adhere to rigid norms.

    Feminism as a Political Movement

    Hooks argues that some women reject feminism because they fear being associated with a “women’s rights” movement that challenges male norms. Many women have internalized patriarchal values and continue to uphold its rules rather than resisting them.

    She emphasizes that patriarchy—not men—is the real problem, and feminism should challenge all systems of oppression, including race and class inequalities, rather than benefiting only a privileged few.

    For this reason, hooks insists that feminism is a political movement, not just a “romantic notion of personal freedom.”

    An image describing Bell Hook's view on white women in feminism

    The Aim of Feminism

    Hooks argues that feminism must challenge interlocking systems of oppression rather than simply seeking “equality between the sexes.”

    She critiques mainstream, liberal feminism for focusing primarily on white women’s experiences while ignoring the struggles of working-class women, Black women, and other marginalized groups. 

    For hooks, true women’s liberation must also dismantle capitalism and white supremacy, as these systems oppress women as well as men. She asks:

    “Why would women want to be equal to men within a system that oppresses both?”

    She notes that women in lower class and poor groups, particularly black women, would not define women’s liberation as equality with men, because men in their groups are also exploited and oppressed, they too may lack social, political, and economic power. 

    While these women are aware that patriarchy gives those men privileges, they tend to see exaggerated expressions of male chauvinism in their own group as stemming from a sense of powerlessness compared to other male groups. The continuing effect of imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy is a complex “intersectionality” that must be examined in its totality of effect on women, if feminists are to improve the lives of all women. hooks claims that black women have been suspicious of the feminist movement since its inception. 

    They realized that if its stated aim was equality with men, it could easily become a movement that would mostly improve the social standing of middle- and upper-class women. Privileged white women, hooks argues, have not been anxious to call attention to race and class privilege because they benefit from these; they could “count on there being a lower class of exploited, subordinated women to do the dirty work they were refusing to do.”

    Privilege and Politics

    Women with multiple social privileges (such as being white, heterosexual, and wealthy) may view oppression through a single lens rather than recognizing the intersectionality of multiple forms of discrimination.

    Hooks suggests that ignorance plays a role in this. She describes how, in her hometown, black people frequently traveled to white districts for work, but white people never visited black neighborhoods, leaving them with no knowledge or experience of the realities faced by black women.

    Black women have often been suspicious of the feminist movement since its inception. They realized that if feminism’s goal was simply equality with men, it could easily become a movement that mostly improved the status of middle- and upper-class white women while leaving other women behind.

    Hooks argues that privileged white women have often ignored race and class privilege, benefiting from it while relying on lower-class, subordinated women to do the work they refused to do.

    Bell Hooks – In Context

    Focus: Feminism and intersectionality

    Key Dates

    • 1979 – The Combahee River Collective, a black feminist lesbian organization in the USA, claims it is essential to consider the conjunction of “interlocking oppressions.”
    • 1980s – US economist Heidi Hartmann says that in the “unhappy marriage” of Marxist feminism, Marxism (the husband) dominates feminism (the wife), because class trumps gender.
    • 1989 – US law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw uses “intersectionality” to describe patterns of racism and sexism.
    • 2002 – German sociologist Helma Lutz claims at least 14 “lines of difference” are used in power relations, including age, gender, skin color, and class.

    bell hooks – Biography

    US social activist and scholar Gloria Jean Watkins took the name of her maternal great-grandmother, Bell Hooks, as a pen name. She did this to honor her legacy and gain strength from her ability to “talk back.”

    • Hooks deliberately used lowercase letters in her name to shift the focus from herself to her ideas.
    • She was born in 1952 in rural Kentucky, USA.
    • Her father was a janitor, and her mother was a parent to their seven children.
    • She first attended a racially segregated school, then later an integrated high school, where she became deeply aware of racial and class differences.
    • In 1973, hooks earned an English degree from Stanford University, followed by an MA and PhD, before becoming a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Southern California.
    • Since writing her first book at age 19, she has published more than 30 books on topics including feminism, race, culture, and education.

    Signposting and Sources

    This material should be relevant to the social theories aspect of A-level sociology.

  • Why France’s Healthcare System is Better than the UK’s NHS

    The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK has long been a source of national pride. However, it has faced increasing strain due to funding shortages, growing patient demand, and inefficiencies in service delivery. In contrast, France’s healthcare system is frequently held up as a model of efficiency, with shorter waiting times, more available hospital beds, and a hybrid funding model that blends public and private contributions.

    graph showing increased waiting list for hospital treatment UK 2008 to 2024.

    This post explores why France’s healthcare system is considered superior to the NHS, using insights from this Nuffield Trust article. Additionally, we will incorporate Marxist perspectives on the welfare state and the challenges posed by an ageing population in Britain, linking to relevant sociological analyses (Marxist perspectives on the welfare state and the ageing population in Britain).

    Key Differences Between the NHS and France’s Healthcare System

    a) Speed and Accessibility

    One of the most striking contrasts highlighted in the articles is the speed with which patients receive treatment in France compared to the UK. The NHS is notorious for its long waiting lists, often requiring months before patients receive specialist care. In contrast, France provides significantly faster access to doctors, diagnostic tests, and surgeries.

    For example, in the UK, arranging an MRI scan through the NHS can take weeks, whereas in France, it can be done on the same day. One article describes a patient who, after experiencing chest pain in Paris, was referred for an MRI scan and received emergency surgery in less than 15 hours. The same patient speculates that if they had been in London, they would have likely been placed on a waiting list, increasing the risk of severe complications or even death.

    b) Number of Doctors and Hospital Beds

    France has a much higher number of doctors and hospital beds per capita than the UK. According to OECD data, France has 5.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people, compared to the UK’s 2.5. Similarly, France has 3.4 doctors per 1,000 people, while the UK lags behind at 2.9. This higher availability of medical professionals ensures that French patients receive treatment more quickly and efficiently.

    c) Public vs. Private Hybrid Model

    The NHS is fully state-funded, meaning that all citizens have access to free healthcare. However, this model relies heavily on taxation and suffers from chronic underfunding. In contrast, France uses a hybrid system where public healthcare is complemented by private insurance, allowing people to cover additional costs and access a broader range of services. This system encourages efficiency while ensuring that essential healthcare remains universally accessible.

    French patients pay a small fee for consultations, but 70% of medical costs are covered by the state, with the remaining 30% often covered by private insurance (mutuelles). This co-payment system helps reduce unnecessary visits and ensures that resources are directed efficiently.

    Why the NHS is Struggling

    a) Chronic Underfunding and Bureaucracy

    One of the main reasons why the NHS is underperforming compared to France is chronic underfunding. Although the UK spends around 10% of its GDP on healthcare, it struggles to allocate resources effectively due to excessive bureaucracy. Administrative costs and inefficiencies consume a significant portion of the budget, leaving fewer funds available for frontline services.

    In contrast, France’s system, while more expensive per capita, ensures better outcomes by prioritising patient care over administrative processes. The articles suggest that the NHS’s overreliance on bureaucratic structures prevents it from responding swiftly to patient needs.

    b) The Impact of an Ageing Population

    One of the biggest challenges facing the NHS is Britain’s ageing population. As discussed in this analysis of Britain’s ageing population, the increasing number of elderly people places a heavy burden on healthcare services. Older patients require more frequent hospital visits, long-term care, and expensive treatments, all of which strain NHS resources.

    France also has an ageing population, but its hybrid healthcare model distributes costs more effectively, reducing the strain on public funds. Additionally, France’s greater emphasis on preventative care helps minimise hospital admissions for age-related conditions.

    A Marxist Perspective on the NHS vs. France’s Healthcare System

    a) The NHS as a Struggling Welfare State Institution

    From a Marxist perspective, the NHS can be seen as an institution that originally aimed to provide universal healthcare but has since been undermined by capitalist interests and government austerity measures. According to Marxist perspectives on the welfare state, welfare institutions such as the NHS are designed to serve the working class by providing essential services. However, under neoliberal economic policies, these institutions have been systematically underfunded and privatised, leading to inefficiencies and declining service quality.

    Many Marxist sociologists argue that the NHS has become a tool for private profiteering, with large portions of its budget being outsourced to private companies rather than reinvested into patient care. This contrasts with France’s system, where private and public healthcare sectors coexist in a more balanced way.

    b) The Role of Private Insurance in France

    Marxist critiques of the French model would likely argue that private insurance introduces class inequalities, as wealthier individuals can afford better coverage. However, the system still ensures that all citizens receive a high standard of care, unlike in the UK, where NHS underfunding has led to postcode lotteries in healthcare provision.

    One could argue that the French model represents a compromise between socialist and capitalist healthcare principles. It maintains universal coverage while allowing private enterprise to complement public services, leading to better overall outcomes.

    Can the UK Learn from France?

    If the UK wants to improve the NHS, policymakers should consider structural reforms inspired by the French model:

    1. Increase Funding and Reduce Bureaucracy – The NHS needs more investment in frontline services rather than administrative structures. Reducing unnecessary management costs could free up funds for hiring more doctors and expanding hospital capacity.
    2. Introduce a Co-Payment System – While maintaining universal healthcare, the UK could introduce a small co-payment fee for appointments and prescriptions to reduce unnecessary demand and ensure that resources are used efficiently.
    3. Expand Private Healthcare Partnerships – Allowing greater private sector involvement in non-essential treatments could relieve pressure on the NHS, ensuring that critical services remain free and accessible.
    4. Improve Preventative Care – France’s focus on preventative medicine helps reduce hospital admissions. The UK could benefit from greater investment in GP services, screenings, and early interventions.

    Conclusion

    The French healthcare system outperforms the NHS in terms of speed, efficiency, and overall patient outcomes. The NHS, while a valuable public institution, suffers from underfunding, excessive bureaucracy, and the growing burden of an ageing population. A hybrid system, like the one used in France, could help address these issues while maintaining universal healthcare access.

    From a Marxist perspective, both systems have their flaws—the NHS is struggling under capitalist austerity policies, while France’s co-payment model introduces some inequalities. However, if the UK wants to improve healthcare outcomes, adopting key elements of the French system—such as better funding allocation, a mixed public-private model, and a focus on preventative care—could be a viable solution.

    For further sociological analysis on healthcare and the welfare state, refer to the following sources:

    By learning from the strengths of France’s system, the UK can work towards a more effective, sustainable healthcare model that serves its population efficiently.

  • The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills

    Critical thinking is not only crucial for academic study, especially for –A-level Sociology, but also for life in general…

    Enhancing Our Thinking Abilities

    We often take for granted that we fully understand a topic, have the correct answer, or know the best course of action, but this is not always the case. It is easy to fall into the habit of simply repeating what we have heard or summarizing information we have read without properly evaluating it. Sometimes, we may assume we are applying critical thinking when, in reality, we are just reinforcing our own beliefs without questioning them.

    This kind of unexamined thinking can result in errors, misunderstandings, unconscious bias, and flawed judgments. While minor mistakes may not have serious consequences, some could lead to significant problems. Developing critical awareness helps sharpen our ability to recognize when we need to slow down and analyze our reasoning more carefully, ensuring a more structured and systematic approach to our thoughts and decisions.

    (Illustration of a person proudly showing a poorly built house, saying, “I did it all myself!” Another character, looking skeptical, thinks: “Your self-assessment highlights your strong skills in construction, marketing, and self-promotion. Luckily for you, my weak critical thinking abilities prevent me from disagreeing.”)

    Applying Critical Thinking in Academia and Work

    Progress in education and professional fields relies on identifying areas for improvement in existing knowledge and practices. This involves breaking down current ideas and methods into their fundamental components—such as assessing whether information is based on solid evidence, whether reasoning is sound, and whether assumptions are justified.

    Academic study and research require slowing down our thought processes to carefully analyze information. Using structured research methods and engaging with constructive feedback from peers allows us to identify weaknesses in how conclusions are reached. This approach enhances accuracy, efficiency, and fairness in decision-making and problem-solving.

    Objective Self-Assessment

    Strong critical thinking skills enable us to make more accurate and realistic assessments of our own skills, interests, and decision-making abilities. By refining these skills, we can gain a clearer understanding of where to focus our efforts, whether in choosing a career, pursuing further education, or making personal decisions.

    Key Advantages of Strong Critical Thinking Skills

    1. Recognizing your own and others’ underlying assumptions.
    2. Identifying inconsistencies and errors that require further investigation.
    3. Making well-reasoned and balanced decisions.
    4. Reducing the likelihood of being misled or deceived.
    5. Spotting what is important and relevant, leading to greater efficiency.
    6. Increasing accuracy and precision in different tasks.
    7. Improving clarity in both thinking and communication.
    8. Enhancing problem-solving by recognizing areas that need improvement and evaluating possible solutions.
    9. Taking a structured and systematic approach to ensure nothing crucial is overlooked.
    10. Processing and analyzing complex information more effectively.
    11. Developing confidence in tackling difficult challenges and issues.
    12. Gaining a broader perspective by viewing situations with greater awareness and insight.

  • Ideologies of the Welfare State

    For this post, the term ideology is used broadly to refer to the systems of beliefs within which all individuals perceive all social phenomena.

    In this usage, no one system of beliefs is more correct, or more privileged, than any other. Rather they are our own systems of beliefs that shape and structure the way we see the world and make judgments about it.

    As such, people will draw upon a range of different ideologies within welfare and social policy debates, generating disagreements and differences regarding, for our interest, the appropriate mix of welfare providers and how to address certain social problems.

    This post serves as an introduction to further posts on theories of the welfare state to follow….

    Ideologies are value laden

    Ideologies are both critical and prescriptive: we know what is wrong with the world around us, and we know what should be done about it. As a result of this, they are therefore partial and value-laden; we do not know or understand everything but we do know what we like and do not like.

    Ideological perspectives therefore influence the way in which all of us perceive the world in which we live, and they do so in a way that leaves all of us with a more or less restricted and biased perspective on it. They provide a lens through which we view injustice, inequality, and social problems and a framework through which we determine solutions.

    Our individual systems of belief, however, are also part of broader ideological perspectives from which we draw the ideas and values which we use to form judgements, and to which we may contribute ideas and values of our own.

    Individual ideologies are shaped by social ideologies

    Individual ideologies are constructed within wider ideological perspectives in which views are shared and debated, and within which shared views are held and disseminated. Such broader ideological perspectives may be held by relatively small social groups and may focus specifically upon particular issues, or they may be much wider in both scale and scope, enlisting adherence or support from the majority of people throughout the country (or even across countries) and addressing a range of social issues from a particular perspective.

    Such broader ideological perspectives influence those individuals, or groups, who are in positions of power and, through this influence, those individuals or groups who are in positions of power are able to shape the world in which we live. Indeed, it is because ideologies shape the social world that we debate so passionately about them, and within them. The power of ideology cannot be overestimated in social sciences and, as we shall see, in social policy, ideologies of welfare have shaped and structured all perceptions of welfare policy and the development of all policy planning.

    It is important to recognize here, however, that ideological perspectives not only determine which policies we propose to develop or support but also influence how we view, and judge, policy developments that have already taken place. Ideological perspectives offer different judgements of the same social problems and relationships between welfare providers (state, market, voluntary and informal sectors).

    At this broader social level, however, the size and scope of ideological perspectives will vary dramatically. A perspective shared by the majority of people in any society will be rather more important in influencing how a group of friends and neighbours, in their discussion of a social problem, may develop a shared view.

    Four characteristics of ideological perspective

    In their discussion of ideological perspectives and ideologies of welfare, George and Wilding (1994) discussed this point and argue that major ideological perspectives must possess certain characteristics in order to be regarded as of particular social importance. They outline four such characteristics:

    • Coherence – ideological perspectives must have an internal logic and theoretical consistency.
    • Pervasiveness – ideological perspectives must be current and relevant, as old perspectives may have lost their social base.
    • Extensiveness – ideological perspectives must be widely shared within, or across, societies.
    • Intensiveness – ideological perspectives must command the support, and commitment, of those who share them; they must really be believed.

    Therefore an ideological perspective is a shared view, or set of views, with a clear social impact. Of course, not all ideological perspectives focus on, or even address, social policy issues; indeed, most do not. As such, the focus here is upon those that do address welfare issues and focus on description, and judgement, of policy development, and prescription for future policy reform. These we can call ideologies of welfare.

    Theory and Politics

    Commentators have frequently attempted to compare ideologies of welfare according to their location within a continuum of political preferences. George and Wilding did this in 1976 in their first book on ideology and social welfare. In their later text (1994) they produced a table summarizing a total of ten separate analyses of ideologies of welfare.

    These various analyses identify a range of different numbers of perspectives and also sometimes give these perspectives different names. In practice, however, many analysts place the different perspectives that they identify at different points within a continuum moving from the political left to the political right, in particular in terms of their support for (or opposition to) the role of the state in welfare provision.

    Thus on the left are socialists or Marxists, who believe the state should play the major, or exclusive, role in the provision of social policy. As you move towards the centre of the continuum political ideologies linked to the Fabians, the social democrats and the revisionist left are located. On the right are anti-collectivists or liberals, who believe individuals should be free to provide (or not) for whatever needs they wish.

    This is a simplified, shorthand way of classifying political ideologies and within the continuum, as we shall see later, there will be a variety of ideas and arguments. Additionally, not all ideologies of welfare can be so readily classified along such a left-to-right political spectrum. For example, some political parties, like nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, will be influenced by a desire for independence but encompass a broader range of welfare brought together around the one central goal. Nevertheless, a debate about the relative politics in social policy, and the central role played in both of these, the link between ideology and the state and the market, means that political differences here are also likely to represent ideological differences, and vice versa.

    Ideology and Politics are not the same

    However, although ideology and politics may be linked, they are not the same thing. Ideology is concerned with ideas, ideals and principles; politics is concerned with pragmatism and results. Thus debate and study of the politics of welfare focuses not primarily upon differing perspectives and approaches, still less on the differences between theoretical concern of theory, but rather upon events and achievements.

    Deakin (1994) and Page (2007) independently examined the changes in British welfare policy in the latter half of the last century, taking the arguments in more detail, taking analysis up to the start of the new century; and Bochel (2011) has brought together analysis of the arguments underpinning the politics of the Conservative Party in the 2000s, which later became a central part of the Coalition government. In all writing on the politics of welfare, however, the differences in view are contrasted in terms of their impact on the development and implementation of policy.

    During the first two decades following the Second World War, however, the appearance of political consensus over the future direction of policy development, characterized by the notion of Butskellism, suggested that such political differences had been superseded. Commentators argued that this also implied that ideological differences had disappeared (in particular, the differences between left and right over the role of the state) and that future political conflict would be ‘a fight without ideologies’ (Lipset, 1963).

    This end of ideology thesis proved to be a little premature, or over-simplistic, however, for ideological disagreements did remain and, in particular after the early 1970s, they were represented again in political debate and conflict over the future direction of reform, with a significant divide opening up between the Conservative right and the Labour left over the appropriate future direction for policy development.

    This triggered a renewed claim of the end of history (Fukuyama, 1992) in which neoliberalism largely replaced the traditional differences between left and right politics and become the final form of economic and political existence.

    However, the 2008 financial crisis and the more recent revival of left-wing arguments through Corbynism has demonstrated stark differences in thinking between Labour and Conservative parties can remain. Additionally, since the 1970s the rise of more critical theories such as feminism and anti-racism have offered alternative interpretations of the state welfare, and some have even suggested that traditional ideologies can no longer provide viable explanatory frameworks in the complex (post)modern world that we now occupy.

    Related Posts

    See also:

    To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com

  • Trump’s Tariffs: A Return to Protectionism?

    Trade wars are back in the headlines. In his second term, Donald Trump has reignited tensions with China by imposing new tariffs, following his earlier moves as President when he introduced sweeping trade barriers. His justification? Protecting American workers and countering what he calls China’s “unfair trade practices.”

    However, economists warn that trade wars often do more harm than good, increasing consumer prices and disrupting global supply chains. But what does the history of trade wars tell us? And how do they fit into broader theories of global development?

    What is a Trade War?

    A trade war occurs when countries impose tariffs (taxes on imports) or other trade barriers against each other in retaliation. Historically, mercantilism—where nations sought to maximize exports and minimize imports—dominated trade policy. This led to famous trade conflicts like the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century. Governments used tariffs to protect domestic industries and control resources, shaping global trade as we know it today.

    Has Free Trade Made the World Richer?

    Yes—GDP per capita has skyrocketed from $1,100 in 1820 to more than $16,600 today. Free trade allows countries to specialize in goods they produce efficiently while buying what they lack from others. However, the benefits of free trade are unevenly distributed. Wealthier nations gain disproportionately, while poorer ones often remain dependent on raw material exports, a core argument of dependency theory (source).

    Global tariff rates have been relatively low since the end of WW2…

    Why is Free Trade Unpopular?

    Despite its economic benefits, free trade is politically contentious. Abraham Lincoln once said, “If I buy a coat in America, I have a coat and America has the money. If I buy a coat in England, I have the coat and England has the money.” This nationalist sentiment explains why free trade remains controversial: it benefits consumers through cheaper goods but can devastate industries in wealthier nations. The “dispersed gains” of free trade benefit many, but the “concentrated losses” harm specific industries—like the steelworkers who lost jobs due to cheap Chinese imports in the UK and US.

    Trump and Tariffs: A Protectionist Approach

    Donald Trump’s trade policies illustrate this backlash against free trade. In his first term, he imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, targeting China, Mexico, and Canada. The logic? Protect American jobs and reduce the trade deficit. However, many economists argue that tariffs often backfire, raising prices for consumers while doing little to bring back lost jobs (source). The Biden administration rolled back some of these policies but maintained others, showing that protectionism remains politically popular.

    The Global Perspective: Neoliberalism vs. Dependency Theory

    From a neoliberal perspective, free trade is essential for economic development—it encourages investment, increases efficiency, and drives innovation (source). However, dependency theorists argue that free trade primarily benefits wealthy countries while keeping poorer nations locked in economic dependence. The ongoing US-China trade war reflects these tensions: the US accuses China of unfair practices, while China argues that US protectionism is merely an attempt to maintain economic dominance.

    Find Out More

    Trade wars are just one aspect of global economic development. To explore more about how globalization and trade shape economies, check out this guide on globalization and global development: Read more here.

    Average US Tariffs:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Average_Tariff_Rates_in_USA_%281821-2016%29.png

  • What is Critical Thinking?

    Learning Outcomes

    • Understand what critical thinking entails.
    • Recognize the benefits associated with critical thinking skills.
    • Identify personal qualities that contribute to effective critical thinking.
    • Acknowledge barriers that hinder the development of critical thinking skills.
    • Assess your current understanding of critical thinking and identify areas for improvement.
    Critical thinking involves detailed analysis, including being able to spot the AI typos!

    Critical Thinking as a Process

    Critical thinking is a deliberate and intricate process that encompasses a variety of cognitive skills and approaches, including:

    • Identifying perspectives, claims, and conclusions presented by others.
    • Assessing evidence to consider alternative viewpoints.
    • Comparing and balancing opposing arguments and evaluating their validity.
    • Detecting hidden meanings, biases, or misleading assumptions.
    • Understanding persuasive strategies that influence how arguments are framed, such as rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies.
    • Analyzing issues methodically, ensuring logical reasoning and insight are applied.
    • Drawing informed conclusions about the validity of arguments by considering reliable evidence and logical premises.
    • Synthesizing various pieces of information to create a well-founded, personal perspective.
    • Expressing an argument in a structured, articulate, and logical manner that effectively persuades others.

    Skepticism and Trust

    Ennis (1987) outlined various traits and abilities that contribute to critical thinking, emphasizing two key aspects:

    • The ability to engage in reflective skepticism.
    • The capacity to think in a logical, reasoned manner.

    In the context of critical thinking, skepticism involves adopting a mindset of cautious inquiry. However, being skeptical does not mean outright rejecting all information you encounter. Instead, it requires maintaining an open mind to the possibility that what you currently understand may be incomplete or subject to revision.

    A Skill, Not a Personality Trait

    Developing critical thinking skills equips individuals with the ability to apply skepticism and doubt constructively. It allows for deeper analysis of information, leading to more informed decisions about what is likely to be accurate, useful, or meaningful.

    In daily life, we must acknowledge that some aspects of the world must be accepted as they appear. This necessitates an element of trust. However, by critically examining the foundation of the knowledge we accept, we can better discern when trust is justified and when skepticism is warranted.

    Some people may naturally exhibit more skeptical tendencies, whereas others might be more inclined to trust information readily. These differences often stem from past experiences or personal traits. However, critical thinking is not an inherent personality characteristic—it is a set of learned methods designed to rigorously evaluate information. Individuals who are naturally skeptical may require structured approaches to develop trust in well-supported conclusions, just as those who are more trusting can benefit from adopting strategies to critically assess information before accepting it.

    Critical Thinking and Argument

    A central aspect of critical thinking involves the ability to construct and analyze arguments.

    In this context, an argument refers to a structured presentation of reasoning, whether communicated through speech, writing, or other forms of media. Developing critical thinking skills enhances one’s ability to distinguish between explicit and implicit messages in arguments, evaluate their credibility, and understand how arguments are built and presented.

    The Role of Reasoning in Critical Thinking

    Understanding Our Own Reasoning

    Critical thinking is closely linked to reasoning, which is our ability to engage in rational thought. The term rational refers to the use of logic and structured reasoning to address questions and solve problems. Self-reflection plays a crucial role in this process, which includes:

    • Recognizing the reasoning behind our own beliefs and actions.
    • Critically assessing our personal viewpoints and decisions.
    • Clearly articulating the basis of our beliefs and justifying them to others.

    Although we may assume we understand why we hold certain beliefs, challenges and scrutiny can sometimes reveal that our reasoning is not as robust as we initially thought. It is common to discover that our knowledge is based on incomplete information or a single perspective rather than a comprehensive view.

    Similarly, there are moments when we may struggle to determine the best course of action or how to interpret a particular issue. By carefully examining the foundation of our reasoning, we can strengthen our ability to make informed judgments.

    Questioning Our Own Assumptions

    Human cognition is wired to take mental shortcuts, leading us to jump to conclusions quickly. Studies in psychology suggest that individuals often gravitate toward the most accessible or convenient conclusion rather than engaging in deeper analysis (Kahneman, 2011).

    This tendency can result in overlooked details, omitted key information, or flawed assumptions. However, by systematically analyzing our own reasoning, we can become more aware of these cognitive biases and challenge them effectively. This process enables us to refine our thinking and ensure our judgments are based on sound reasoning rather than instinctive assumptions.

    Analyzing Other People’s Reasoning

    Critical reasoning also involves assessing how others construct their arguments. This requires not only understanding the overall structure of an argument but also examining its components in detail.

    Key aspects of critically analyzing someone else’s reasoning include:

    • Identifying their key claims and conclusions.
    • Examining how they organize, prioritize, and connect supporting evidence.
    • Assessing whether their reasoning effectively supports their conclusions.
    • Determining whether their argument is well-founded and based on credible evidence.
    • Recognizing any flaws, logical inconsistencies, or biases within their argument.

    Constructing and Presenting Arguments

    A fundamental component of reasoning is the ability to analyze evidence and derive logical conclusions. This process involves evaluating information and using it to support well-reasoned arguments.

    For example, if someone asserts that today is a particularly cold day, a skeptic may ask for justification. Evidence to support this claim could include thermometer readings, reports on weather conditions, and physical observations such as frost on the ground.

    In both everyday discussions and academic work, reasoning is used to communicate and support ideas. Within academic and professional settings, structured formats such as essays and reports are commonly used to present arguments effectively. Developing these skills requires an understanding of how to:

    • Organize and prioritize supporting reasons for a conclusion.
    • Construct an argument with logical coherence.
    • Maintain a structured and systematic flow of ideas.
    • Use language effectively to articulate reasoning persuasively.

    By refining these abilities, individuals enhance their capacity for logical reasoning, persuasive communication, and effective problem-solving.

    Critical Thinking in A-level Sociology

    Critical thinking is a vital skill for A-level sociology students, helping them to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in order to understand complex social structures and issues. By engaging in critical thinking, students learn to question assumptions, assess evidence, and develop well-reasoned arguments—key skills needed for success in sociology.

    In sociology, critical thinking involves examining multiple perspectives and theories to understand how society functions. For example, when studying the role of education, students might explore the Functionalist perspective on education, which views education as a means of maintaining social order and promoting shared values. Functionalists argue that education helps socialize individuals into the norms of society, preparing them for their roles within the economy and wider social structures.

    However, a critical thinker would also consider alternative viewpoints, such as the Marxist critique of education. According to Marxist theory, education reinforces social inequality by benefiting the ruling class, ensuring that the working class remains subordinate through mechanisms like the hidden curriculum and the correspondence principle.

    To develop critical thinking skills in sociology, students should engage with fundamental sociological questions that challenge their understanding of social structures. Questions such as “To what extent does social class shape life chances?” or “Do institutions serve the needs of society as a whole, or do they primarily work in favor of the powerful?” encourage deeper reflection on social systems and inequalities. These thought-provoking issues are explored in big questions for A-level sociology students.

    Furthermore, understanding different sociological perspectives allows students to critically assess competing explanations for social phenomena. The theories of Functionalism, Marxism, Feminism, and Postmodernism all offer unique insights into how society operates. For instance, Feminists argue that traditional sociological theories have often overlooked gender inequalities, emphasizing how patriarchy influences social institutions. Meanwhile, Postmodernists question whether grand theories of society are still relevant in an increasingly fragmented and digital world. These perspectives are discussed in more detail in sociological perspectives: key concepts.

    Incorporating critical thinking into A-level sociology also involves evaluating research methods and evidence. Students must assess the strengths and weaknesses of different research approaches, such as quantitative vs. qualitative methods, to determine the validity and reliability of sociological findings. For example, positivist sociologists favor large-scale surveys for their ability to produce generalizable data, whereas interpretivists prefer in-depth qualitative methods to explore the meanings behind social actions. A comparison of these approaches is available in sociology research methods.

    By developing strong critical thinking skills, A-level sociology students can build a more nuanced understanding of society, recognize the limitations of singular perspectives, and appreciate the complexities of social issues. This analytical approach not only enhances academic performance but also equips students with the ability to navigate and critically assess the world around them.

  • Do we need to reform Sickness Benefits in the UK…?

    Recent figures (1) show that 3.3 million working-age adults in Britain are receiving incapacity benefit, 700,000 more than before Covid. Of these, 2.4 million are claiming these higher rates of benefit for mental illness – 900,000 in 2024. The total health-related bill was put at close to-£66bn, due to reach £100bn in a decade’s time. 

    A 30 year old today is twice as likely to claim disability benefits as their equivalent 20 years ago. 

    Another recent study (2) found that 63 000 people aged 16-24 went straight from study to claiming long-term sickness benefits. 

    There is little evidence that the Government’s post-pandemic welfare strategy is delivering. In the last month, the number of individuals transitioning off incapacity benefit into employment dropped to its lowest point since the initial lockdown in 2020. 

    The National Institute of Economic and Social Research discovered that although 21% of incapacity benefit claimants in early 2021 had secured employment by June 2022, the figure had since dropped back to 14% – and the pipeline is diminishing. 

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies (3) has established that in the previous year, the rate of successful health-related benefit claims rose from 45% to 65% – suggesting the Government has “relaxed its approach to making claims.” 

    In January 2025 , the cross-party Lords report demanded root-and-branch reforms to the system: in the long term, merging sickness benefits and universal credit; in the short term, increasing the number of personnel dedicated to dealing with claims. In Covid Britain, fewer working-age individuals are in work and the cost of benefits is increasing sharply. 

    The next big battle in Whitehall is how far, and how fast, to push for reform – not just for the sake of the public finances, but because for too long we’ve parked hundreds of thousands of people on the benefits system”.

    A Marxist Analysis of the ‘war on sickness benefits’

    From a Marxist viewpoint, the rising sickness benefit claims and mounting fiscal burden reveal deeper structural contradictions in capitalist societies. Marxist theory argues that welfare provisions are designed less to liberate the working class and more to pacify it, ensuring a steady surplus labor force for capitalists. The figures—3.3 million working-age adults on incapacity benefit, with many citing mental illness—highlight systemic exploitation and alienation. Poor working conditions, job insecurity, and labor commodification leave many unfit for sustained employment.

    The trend of 63,000 young adults aged 16–24 moving directly from study to long-term claims underscores a crisis in labor reproduction, forcing more people into dependency on state support. Proposed reforms, such as merging sickness benefits with universal credit and increasing staff, are seen not as solutions to exploitation but as measures to control the workforce. As discussed in Marxist Perspective on Society and Marxist Perspectives on the Welfare State, these reforms may stabilize a system that maintains worker dependency without challenging the capitalist mode of production.

    A Neoliberal Analysis

    Neoliberal thinkers interpret the surge in sickness benefit claims through the lens of individual responsibility, market efficiency, and fiscal prudence. They argue that the increase in claims and the resulting fiscal strain expose inefficiencies in an overextended welfare state. Neoliberals contend that generous benefits foster a ‘dependency culture,’ reducing incentives for employment and productivity.

    The drop in claimants transitioning into work—from 21% to 14%—reinforces the view that current policies discourage labor participation. The relaxed approach to health-related claims, rising from 45% to 65%, further supports the argument for tighter controls. As detailed in Neoliberalism and Social Welfare Policies Neoliberals advocate reforms like closer integration of sickness benefits with universal credit and enhanced administrative oversight to reduce state expenditure, promote self-reliance, and restore market discipline. T

    his perspective is outlined in Neoliberalism New Right Introduction, where reforms aim to reintroduce competition and efficiency into the welfare system.

    Marxist compared to neoliberal perspectives on sickness benefits

    A Third Way Analysis

    The Third Way occupies a middle ground between Marxist and neoliberal approaches. Proponents acknowledge the need for a robust safety net while stressing individual initiative and market responsiveness. They argue that reforms should integrate support with active labor market policies, ensuring benefits assist claimants without fostering long-term dependency.

    This perspective recommends personalized benefit management alongside job-placement initiatives and retraining programs to facilitate a smoother transition back into work. As detailed in Middle Way Perspectives on the Welfare State, this balanced approach reconciles social solidarity with economic efficiency. By addressing structural issues that lead to long-term dependency while maintaining fiscal discipline, the Third Way offers a pragmatic path forward.

    Conclusion

    In summary, the debate over reforming UK sickness benefits is multifaceted. Marxist analysis views the system as a tool for managing exploited labor, neoliberal thought pushes for tighter controls to reduce dependency and boost efficiency, while the Third Way seeks to blend robust social support with active labor market policies for a balanced solution.

    Sources 

    Department of Work and Pensions (2025) Decomposition of growth in the number of claimants of Universal Credit with Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity, or in the Employment and Support Allowance Support Group. 

    NHS Confederation (2024) “Improving our Nation’s Health: A Whole-of-Government Approach to Tackling the Causes of Long-Term Sickness and Economic Inactivity”, 

    Institute for Fiscal Studies (2024) Health-related benefit claims post-pandemic: UK trends and global context.

  • Judith Butler: Gender and Performativity 

    Judith Butler argues that “gender is what you do, rather than a universal notion of who you are. “

    She believes that traditional expectations of gender are based on how most people behave in their culture. However, gender isn’t fixed because people perform in ways that are expected of them by their culture.

    The status quo of gender norms can be challenged through performance. Sexual identity is shaped not only by repeated performance of certain behaviors but also by our whole social and political outlook. We can challenge other aspects of the status quo by deliberately performing in new, subversive ways.

    Historical Background of Gender and Sexuality

    It was not until after World War II that gender and sexuality were recognized as key issues for sociological study. The so-called “second-wave” feminism of the 1960s to 1980s built upon the insights of Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex (1949), particularly her claim that “One is not born a woman: one becomes one.”

    Her idea that there is a distinction between sex (as a biological category) and gender (as a set of socially constructed roles and expectations) paved the way for a reappraisal of gender roles in society. It also kickstarted the women’s liberation movement of the following decades.

    Attitudes towards sex and gender in Western society were further influenced by anthropologists such as Margaret Mead, whose studies of tribes in the South Pacific and Southeast Asia revealed that many behavioral differences between males and females were culturally, rather than biologically, determined.

    These findings were shocking when first published in the 1930s, but were more openly considered by the post-war generation, which began addressing previously taboo subjects, such as:

    • Promiscuity
    • Extramarital sex

    These were now studied as social phenomena rather than as deviant behaviors.

    Challenging Convention

    At the forefront of examining sexual conventions in Western society was Michel Foucault, who tackled the subject head-on in 1976 in The History of Sexuality.

    Running through this text was his central theory of the way power shapes and regulates sexuality. ​

    For More context see Erving Goffman and Judith Butler’s Perspectives on Identity. 

    Judith Butler on Gender Performativity

    “Gender is an impersonation… becoming gendered involves impersonating an ideal that nobody actually inhabits.”
    — Judith Butler

    Power in society is exerted by the imposition of social norms, and in particular, not only our gender but also our sexuality is shaped by the culture in which we live.

    Just as Simone de Beauvoir brought the issue of gender into the social sphere, Michel Foucault broadened the debate significantly to include sexual orientation and the whole of sexual behavior.

    The generation after Foucault grew up in an era marked by a relaxation of sexual norms, including:

    • The “free love” movement of the 1960s
    • Acceptance (or at least decriminalization) of homosexuality in many countries
    • The sexual liberation movement brought by feminism

    Gender Identities

    Among the “baby boomers” of the post-war generation, US scholar Judith Butler took these ideas even further. While accepting de Beauvoir’s main point that gender is a social construct, Butler felt that traditional feminism ignored the wider implications of this notion, and merely reinforced male and female stereotypes.

    • Gender is not as simple, consistent, or binary as masculinity and femininity.
    • No sexuality or gender identity is natural.
    • Gender and sexuality are not fixed or innate.
    • Identity is fluid, covering a whole spectrum of gender identities.

    One major example of this shift was seen in Gay Pride events, which were first held in the US in 1971 to protest against the persecution of LGBTQ+ communities. These events challenged the idea that sexuality was confined to rigid masculinity and femininity.

    an image illustrating the fluidity of gender identity.
    Gender is just a performance!

    Quote from Judith Butler

    “Laughter emerges in the realization that all along the original was derived.”
    — Judith Butler

    Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity

    Butler argues that both sex and gender are socially, not biologically, determined. At the heart of her argument is the idea that “gender is not something that one is, it is something one does… a ‘doing’ rather than a ‘being’.”

    Conventionally, our anatomical sex (female or male) is considered to be the basis of our gender identity, according to the cultural norms associated with them. But Butler challenges the idea of a stable and coherent gender identity.

    According to Butler:

    • It is the things that we do—our “gender acts”—that determine our gender, even more than our biological sex.
    • When we behave in ways that are “appropriate” to our sex, we are imitating the norms of gender identity, which are based on how each sex is expected to behave.
    • We are performing a role that does not actually exist. In essence, there is no original template for “female” or “male”—the original itself is derived.
    • If one is born female, for example, one is taught to act in a “feminine” way (e.g., desiring a male partner), and one eventually accepts the idea that sex with men is associated with femininity.

    Gender Acts and Identity Formation

    It is, Butler says, these “gender acts”—which include dress, mannerisms, and everyday activities, as well as sexual activity and choice of sexual partner—that determine how we perceive ourselves to be.

    Even the language we use reinforces social norms, ensuring that we perform gender in a certain way.

    Subversive Acts

    Butler claims that, crucially, it is the constant repetition of this kind of performance that molds gender identity, so that:

    “The actors themselves come to believe and to perform in the mode of belief.”

    Escaping Gender Norms

    To escape the restrictiveness of socially imposed gender norms, Butler advocates “subverting” gender through acts that challenge conventional gender performances.

    • Cross-dressing and other forms of gender expression can challenge not only the way gender is performed but also the social perception of gender itself.
    • Even biological sex can be challenged.
    • However, this is not a trivial lifestyle choice—we cannot simply wake up and decide what gender we want to be each day.
    • A genuine act of subversion is one that actively challenges gender norms, rather than merely playing within them.
    Gender is fluid, thus diverse!

    The Cycle of Gender Acts

    According to Butler, gender identity is not a natural essence but the product of repeated behaviors and social taboos.

    The repetition of these gender acts—combined with the taboos imposed by society—produces what is seen as an essentially “masculine” or “feminine” identity.

    This perpetual performance is what ultimately creates and reinforces gender identity. ​

    Butler’s Influence on Sexuality and Gender Theory

    Butler’s widening of the issue of sexuality and gender was a cornerstone of what became known as queer theory.

    • As well as moving the discussion away from traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity, she included a broader spectrum of sexuality and gender identity.
    • Her ideas demonstrated how our perceptions of sexuality are socially molded, rather than an essential part of human nature.
    • But she is also a political activist, and beneath her theories of gender lie Foucauldian ideas of power and how it is exercised in society.

    Judith Butler on Drag as Subversion

    “Drag is subversive to the extent that it reflects on the imitative structure by which… gender is itself produced and disputes heterosexuality’s claim on naturalness.”
    — Judith Butler

    Criticism of Butler’s Theories

    Butler has faced considerable criticism, particularly from feminist scholars such as Martha Nussbaum.

    Some critics argue that:

    • Butler implies a lack of free will in those who conform to sexual norms, when in reality, these norms have frequently been broken by those who feel uncomfortable with them.
    • Like many postmodern thinkers, Butler’s writing style is often criticized as overly convoluted, making simple ideas appear unnecessarily complex.

    For a fuller account see ‘What is Judith Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity?

    Impact and Legacy

    Despite criticism, Butler has more followers than detractors, and her work has profoundly influenced the field of gender and sexuality in sociology.

    • Whether as a direct result of her work or simply due to wider cultural shifts, there has been an increasing liberalization of attitudes toward different forms of sexuality in Western society.
    • Same-sex couples and LGBTI issues are now widely accepted in mainstream and popular culture, often without controversy in many places.

    However, in more restrictive societies, where cultural norms remain rigid and governments enforce strict heterosexual norms, the impact of gender subversion is far more profound.

    • In such societies, individuals who do not conform to gender norms face greater resistance, making their acts of subversion even more powerful. ​

    Judith Butler – Biography

    Judith Butler is one of the most influential figures in feminist and LGBTQ+ issues from the 1990s onwards. She has also been a prominent activist in:

    • Anti-war movements
    • Anti-capitalism
    • Anti-racism movements

    Her parents were of Russian and Hungarian Jewish descent. Butler studied at Yale University, USA, where she received her doctorate in philosophy in 1984.

    In 1993, after teaching at various universities, she took up a post at the University of California, Berkeley, and was appointed Maxine Elliot Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature in 1998. She was awarded the Theodor W. Adorno Prize in 2012.

    Key Works by Judith Butler

    • 1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
    • 1993 Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”
    • 2004 Undoing Gender ​

    KEY DATES:

    • 1905 Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud describes the formation of infantile sexuality in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality.
    • 1951 French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan begins his weekly seminars in Paris, further developing Freud’s idea of “sexual drives” and sexuality.
    • Mid-1970s Michel Foucault talks about regulatory regimes in Discipline and Punish, and about sex, power, and the social construction of sexuality in The History of Sexuality.
    • 1996 Steven Seidman examines the sociological implications of the emergence of queer theory in Queer Theory/Sociology.

    This material is mainly relevant to the Theory and Methods aspect of A-level sociology.

  • Michel Foucault: Where there is power, there is resistance 

    Michel Foucault’s work has been extremely influential in shaping sociological analysis of power. Some of his key ideas about power in society include:

    • Power is not simply wielded by one level of society over another, but is present in every level of society.
    • Power is something that is enacted rather than possessed.
    • Power relations involve discourse (systems of ideas), which allows the possibility of resistance.
    • Power is not a thing, but a relation.
    • “Where there is power, there is resistance.”

    MICHEL FOUCAULT’s theory of power 

    The power to maintain social order, or to bring about social change, has conventionally been seen in political or economic terms. Until the 1960s, theories of power usually fell into two types: ideas of the power of government or state over citizens, or the Marxist idea of a power struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

    However, these theories tended to concentrate on power at the macro level, either ignoring the exercise of power at lower levels of social relations or seeing it as a consequence of the primary exercise of power (or only of secondary importance). ​

    Foucault acknowledges that power has been, and continues to be, the major force in shaping social order, but describes how the nature of power relations has changed from medieval times to today.

    What he calls the “sovereign” exercise of power, such as public torture and executions, was the method that authority figures in feudal society used to coerce their subjects into obedience. With the advent of the Enlightenment in Europe, however, violence and force were seen as inhuman and, more importantly, as an ineffective means of exercising power.

    For further reading on Foucault’s theories, visit: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Foucault.

    A visual representation of POWER in society according to Foucault
    POWER casts a long shadow over all of us according to Foucault…

    Surveillance and Control

    In place of harsh physical punishment, a more pervasive means of controlling behavior emerged: discipline. The establishment of institutions such as prisons, asylums, hospitals, and schools characterized the move away from merely punishing individuals toward a disciplinary exercise of power—acting to prevent people from behaving in certain ways.

    These institutions not only removed opportunities for transgression but also provided the conditions in which people’s conduct could be corrected, regulated, and above all, monitored and controlled.

    This element of surveillance is especially important in the evolution of modern power structures.

    For a more detailed discussion on Foucault’s perspective on surveillance and crime control, see Foucault – Surveillance and Crime Control.

    The Panopticon

    Foucault was particularly struck by the Panopticon, a prison design inspired by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The circular structure features a central watchtower, enabling continual observation of inmates.

    • The cells are backlit, preventing prisoners from hiding in shadows.
    • Prisoners are unsure of when they are being watched, so they self-discipline their behavior as if they are always under surveillance.
    • Power is no longer exercised by coercion but by establishing mechanisms that ensure compliance.

    Foucault argues that not only prisons but also hierarchical institutions such as hospitals, factories, and schools have evolved to resemble this model of surveillance and control.

    Foucault's panopticon
    The Panotopticon

    Regulating Conduct

    The mechanisms by which power is exercised, referred to as the “technology of power”, have since become an integral part of society. In the modern Western world, social norms are not imposed through direct enforcement but through a “pastoral” power that guides people’s behavior.

    Rather than an authority figure forcing people to act in specific ways, or preventing them from behaving differently, individuals participate in a complex system of power relations, regulating their own conduct.

    This pervasive form of power is determined by the control society has over people’s attitudes, beliefs, and practices—what Foucault refers to as “discourse.”

    Over time, belief systems evolve as people come to accept certain views, shaping social norms and expectations.

    A shepherd tending his flock is the analogy Foucault uses to describe “pastoral” power, whereby people are guided to act in certain ways and allow themselves to be governed.

    These views become embedded in society, defining what is good and bad, and what is considered normal or deviant. Individuals within that society regulate their behavior according to these norms, largely unaware that it is the discourse that is guiding their conduct, as it makes opposing thoughts and actions unthinkable.

    For an exploration of how discourse shapes identity, refer to Sociological Perspectives on Identity.

    Discursive Regimes

    Discourse is constantly reinforced, as it is both an instrument and an effect of power:

    • It controls thoughts and conduct, which in turn shape belief systems.
    • Because it defines what is right and wrong, it creates a “regime of truth”, forming a body of what is considered undeniable common knowledge.

    Foucault challenged the traditional idea that “knowledge is power,” arguing that the two are related more subtly.

    • He coined the term “power-knowledge”, explaining that knowledge creates power but is also created by power.
    • Today, power is exercised by controlling what forms of knowledge are acceptable, presenting them as truths and excluding other forms of knowledge.
    • At the same time, accepted knowledge (discourse) is actually produced through the process of exercising power.

    Unlike traditional power, which compelled and coerced people to behave in certain ways, this modern form of power-knowledge lacks an immediately recognizable agent or structure.

    • Because it is all-pervasive, it appears to have nothing specific that can be resisted.
    • Political resistance (such as revolutions) may not lead to real social change, as they challenge only the power of the state, but not the everyday ways in which power is exercised.

    However, Foucault argues that resistance is possible.

    • What can be resisted is discourse itself, which can be challenged by opposing discourses.
    • Power that relies on complicity implies at least some degree of freedom for those subject to it.
    • For discourse to function as an instrument of power, those subject to it must be involved in a power relation.
    • If there is a power relation, there is also the possibility of resistance—without resistance, there is no need for the exercise of power.

    The Deployment of Power

    Foucault’s concepts of power, knowledge, and discourse were initially rejected by many scholars as speculative and vague. However, his lectures and writings became enormously popular, despite his sometimes difficult concepts and convoluted prose style.

    The ideas of power described in Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality gradually gained acceptance in the mainstream of sociology (though not always among historians and philosophers).

    Eventually, Foucault’s work influenced the analysis of how discourse is used as an instrument of power in many areas, including:

    • Modern feminism
    • Queer theory
    • Cultural studies

    These fields owe much to Foucault’s explanation of how norms of behavior are enforced.

    Today, opinion is still divided as to whether Foucault’s theories are:

    1. Vague conclusions based on poor research, OR
    2. A brilliant and original contribution to the social sciences.

    Foucault’s Quote on Power and Discourse

    “Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it.”
    — Michel Foucault ​

    Quote from Judith Butler on Foucault’s Theory of Power

    “Foucault’s History of Sexuality… warns us against imagining a complete liberation from power. There can never be a total liberation from power.”
    — Judith Butler ​

    Michel Foucault Brief Biography (1926-1984)

    A brilliant polymath, influential in the fields of philosophy, psychology, politics, and literary criticism, as well as sociology, Michel Foucault was often associated with the structuralist and post-structuralist movements in France but disliked being labelled as such.

    Born in Poitiers, France, he studied philosophy and psychology at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. He taught in Sweden, Poland, and Germany in the 1950s and received his doctorate in 1959.

    He lectured in Tunisia from 1966 to 1968 before returning to Paris, where he was appointed head of philosophy at the University of Vincennes. Two years later, he was elected to the Collège de France as professor of the history of systems of thought.

    He died in 1984, one of the first prominent victims of HIV/AIDS-related illness in France.

    Foucault’s Key Works

    • 1969 The Archaeology of Knowledge
    • 1975 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
    • 1976-84 The History of Sexuality (three volumes) ​

    KEY DATES

    • 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels describe the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie in their book The Communist Manifesto.
    • 1883 Friedrich Nietzsche introduces the concept of the “Will to Power” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
    • 1997 Judith Butler’s Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative develops Foucault’s idea of power/knowledge in relation to censorship and hate speech.
    • 2000 In Empire, Italian Marxist sociologist Antonio Negri and U.S. scholar Michael Hardt describe the evolution of a “total” imperialist power, against which the only resistance is negation.

    For more on Foucault’s influence on modern sociology and critical theory, check out:

    Foucault’s work is part of the Theory and Methods module within A-level sociology.