History assignment help

Are you pressed for time and haven’t started working on your assignment yet? Would you like to buy an assignment? Use our custom writing services for better grades. Even if your deadline is approaching fast, our writers can handle your task right when you need it. Our writers will complete your order from scratch and make sure it’s completely unique.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

  

The Indian Caste Culture

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course 

Date

The Indian Caste Culture

The Indian Caste culture revolves around the idea of separating classes according to preferences drawn from both financial and cultural backgrounds (Pathania & Tierney, 2018). Throughout history, India has had a two-concept system commonly referred to as jati and varna that has continuously classified people into four social classes namely Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Vaishyas, and Shudras. The basis for the classification has been to continuous states defined along hereditary and endogamous lines whose shifts that have defined the Indian cultural system, the 2,200 BCE and 100 CE era saw the growth of strong state ideologies that shaped the Indian political status (Pathania & Tierney, 2018). The caste system is prominent today with present-day Indian Buddhism representing one of the oldest social statuses in India.

The Indian caste system flourishes under the ideas of discrimination and separation of classes where people from the lower classes are considered ineligible and thus undeserving of the socioeconomic statuses enjoyed by upper classes which have created major rifts in the Indian population. At the same time, the caste system ignores the introduction of a fair system where constitutional articles such as Article 15 of the Indian Constitutions are largely opposed by higher classes as they fight against discrimination which is mostly seen in the educational system where job allocations and school admissions serve as incentives for those who are considered deserving (Pathania & Tierney, 2018; history assignment help). However, the caste system has helped to show the ills in how most of the Indian institutions are run. For instance, the caste system has exposed the economic inequality in India with past studies showing that 36.3% of the Indian people owned no land as of 2001(Pathania & Tierney, 2018). As such, leadership has been forced to start listening to the grievances of the poor in a country whose population stretches its available resources to the limit. As such, the effects of the Indian caste system both  https://historyassignmenthelp.com/category/help-with-homework/ hurts and shapes the country in a way that the development of the themes behind the system and its existence today need to be analyzed from both negative and positive perspectives.

References

Pathania, G. J., & Tierney, W. G. (2018). An ethnography of caste and class at an Indian 

university: creating capital. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 221-231.

Essay Brief

Essay Question

Topic- Power: Michel Foucault

Dear students, you must answer the following questions making reference to the 3 readings. The very best of luck. The word count is 2000 words maximum.

Part A

“There is no need for weapons, physical violence, material constraints. Just a Gaze. An inspecting gaze a gaze which each person feeling its weight will end up by interiorizing to the point of observing himself; thus each person will exercise this surveillance over and against himself” (Foucault, 1977, p.154).

Critically discuss the above quote, in your answer incorporate the transition from sovereign power to disciplinary power, using the work of Michel Foucault to support your answer.

Part B

Explain the application and links between Foucault’s theory to working in the area of Community and Youth Development.

Please document your key observations below.

Intro

Surveillance has the potential to induce self-regulation in individuals at a low cost to the state or organization. This concept of surveillance is what Foucault (1977) described as a “gaze which each person feeling its weight will end up by interiorizing to the point of observing himself” (p. 154). The connection between knowledge and power, whereby the two reinforce one another, has a significant bearing on surveillance. This effect underlies the transition from sovereign power to disciplinary power.

Knowledge, Power, and Surveillance in

history essay help

The connection between knowledge and power is important in understanding surveillance or gaze. In Foucault’s work, knowledge is power (Bell, 2011). The shift from a moral perspective to the abusers-as-ill paradigm in the problem of child abuse suggests the association between knowledge and power. The longstanding but now replaced belief that child abuse is a moral issue draws upon the dominance of religion as a basis of understanding the world. The ascendancy of science as the dominant paradigm for understanding the world, replacing religion, came with the rise of new forms of power. One such power is “biopower” as described by Bell (2011) and “discipline” as described by Foucault (1975). The power that came with knowledge of medicine facilitated the shift towards the abusers-as-ill belief. New knowledge in medicine implied more power for medicine to redefine the dominant perspectives on child abuse.

Bentham’s Panopticon, based on the principle that power should be invisible and unverifiable, underpins Foucault’s argument on power as regards the gaze he described. The Panopticon machine “produces homogenous effects of power” (Foucault, 1975). As such, discipline, which is a type of power, is independent of the institution or apparatus. This element of discipline makes surveillance an appealing technique for the state and organizations alike to achieve control or other desired ends.

Normalcy and Surveillance

The state provides information about what is normal and what is abnormal, leading to domination of citizens or certain ends. Individuals are regulated by the state and educated to self-monitor and regulate their own behavior. For the state, surveillance is easier when it is self-surveillance. Foucault’s statement (1977) suggests that individuals interiorize the perceived or actual state of being under surveillance to observe a given normalcy. This conscious state leads individuals to self-monitor and self-regulate to align their behavior with what is provided to them as normal. In other words, there’s no need for weapons, physical violence, and material constraints for surveillance to achieve a certain end.

Transition from Sovereign Power to Disciplinary Power

Foucault connects the emergence of a disciplinary society with some broad historical processes including economic, juridico-political, and scientific. The disciplines are techniques or technologies for assuring the ordering of human multiplicities. Although this is not peculiar, the peculiarity lies in the tendency to define, in relation to the multiplicities, a tactics of power that meets three criteria as described by Foucault (1975): to achieve the exercise of power at the lowest possible economic cost, to bring the effects and reach of this social power to their maximum intensity and extend, and to link the “economic” growth of power with the output of the apparatus.

As regards the transition to disciplinary power, the first criterion above underpinned economic take-off following the population boom at the dawn of the seventeenth century. Foucault (1975) noted that at the start of the century, significant growth in population coincided with growth in the apparatus of education. The development of the disciplinary methods resonated with the two processes due to the need to adjust their correlation. The residual power of previous methods such as the feudal power and administrative monarchy were inadequate to solve problems such as the inefficiency of mass phenomena. Discipline according to Foucault (1975) could solve such problems. Discipline underlay technological and process changes, making the cumulative multiplicity of men useful, accelerating the accumulation of capital and ultimately economic take-off.

The panoptic modality of power shows how the disciplines bring the effects and reach of social power to their maximum intensity and extend. Although the representative regime makes it possible for the will of all to form the fundamental authority of sovereignty, the disciplines provide a guarantee of submission of forces and bodies (Foucault, 1975, p. 214). On the outset, the disciplines appear to extend the general forms defined by law and thereby extending sovereign power. In reality, however, the disciplines are a sort of counter-law in the sense that they “introduce insuperable asymmetries and exclude reciprocities” (Foucault, 1975, p. 215). The mechanisms of the disciplines involve suspending the laws but never annulling them. Despite the fact that the modern society appears to impose limits on the exercise of power, the universally widespread panopticism of power enables it to operate a disguised machinery on the underside of the law. As such, societal struggles such as class domination and rampant inequality signify the mechanisms of the panopticism of power. Underlying the law, the power works in a manner that supports and reinforces the asymmetry of power and undermines the limits that the society fixes on power.

The nexus between the formation of knowledge and increase of power that emerged in the eighteenth century shows the attempt of the disciplines to link the economic growth of power with the output of the apparatus, in this case, knowledge. At this stage, these techniques attained the “technological threshold” to operate as apparatuses in a cycle of reinforcing one another that led to the formation of clinical medicine, psychiatry, child psychology, educational psychology, and rationalization of labor (Foucault, 1975). The nexus between knowledge and power amplified the increase of these two elements, leading to the transition from sovereign to disciplinary power.

Limitations of Foucault’s Work

Criticism of Foucault’s work include the views that he continuously refined his work, the uncertainty over what sought of work he was producing, and difficulties in explaining or locating opposition to the disciplines. O’Farrell (2005) argues that it is difficult to understand and apply Foucault’s work because of Foucault’s continuous refinement of his work and the uncertainty over what sought of work he was producing. Bell (2011), also argued that it is difficult to explain opposition to surveillance and power in the context of Foucault’s work. These issues undermine Foucault’s concept of the gaze he describes in the quoted text.

Conclusion

Bell, 2011

Argument: Child abuse is socially constructed

· Shift from a moral perspective to the abusers-as-ill paradigm

· Ascendancy of science over religion as the dominant basis for understanding the world, but both advance a shared system of beliefs

· Knowledge as power – the role of medicine in advancing the abusers-as-ill belief, i.e biopower

· Normalcy and surveillance – the state provides information about what is normal and what is abnormal, leading to domination of citizens or certain ends. Individuals are regulated by the state and educated to self-monitor in and regulate their own behavior. For the state, surveillance is easier when it is self-surveillance.

· Issues with Foucauldian framework (history homework help)

O’Farrell, (2005)

· Difficulties in understanding and using Foucault’s work

· Foucault continually refined his work. Foucault recognized that change is inevitable and humanity is constantly reshaping its beliefs as it undergoes change cite ref1. For instance, the concept of child abuses keeps changing in line with changes in human understanding or knowledge. In this regard, an attempt to understand Foucault’s work should go beyond Foucault himself and therefore consider the continuous refinements as a natural outcome of human understanding. the author outlines five principles that underpin Foucault’s work, including the view that knowledge is always shaped by political, social and historical factors. Therefore, if this principle holds true, it is plausible that knowledge of Foucault’s work is influenced by political, social, and historical factors, necessitating the changes. In this regard, the continuous refinements is not necessarily a bad feature of Foucault’s work.

· Uncertainty over what sought of work he was producing: academic, political, or works of art. This criticism of Foucault’s work is ironical given that the author quotes Foucault as expressing his willingness and desire to “talk about an unknown object with a non-defined method” cite ref2 p. 52. This criticism ironical in the sense that Foucault method is actually using no method at all as he stated. Although the criticism is merited, the author’s argument is flawed because it overlooks the fact that Foucault’s approach is the absence of a method. As such, the author’s criticism should argue against the approach and provide the basis for the argument. This approach would consider Foucault method-free approach and look to disprove it in a manner that is not ironical.

Foucault, (1975)

· Bentham’s Panopticon – based on the principle that power should be invisible and unverifiable

· The machine “produces homogenous effects of power”. As such, discipline, which is a type of power, is independent of the institution or apparatus.

· The emergency of a disciplinary society is connected with some broad historical processes including economic, juridico-political, and scientific.

· The disciplines are techniques or technologies for assuring the ordering of human multiplicities. Although this is not peculiar, the peculiarity lies in the tendency to define, in relation to the multiplicities, a tactics of power that meets three criteria:

· To obtain the excercise of power at the lowest possible economic cost

· To bring the effects and reach of this social power to their maximum intensity and extend.

· To link the “economic” growth of power with the output of the apparatus

· The first criterion underpinned economic take-off following the population boom at the dawn of the seventeenth century. At the start of the century, significant growth in population coincided with growth in the apparatus of education. The development of the disciplinary methods resonated with the two process due to the need to adjust their correlation. The residual power of previous methods such as the feudal power and administrative monarchy were inadequate to solve problems such as the inefficiency of mass phenomena. Discipline could solve such problems. Discipline underlay technological and process changes, making he cumulative multiplicity of men useful, accelerating the accumulation of capital and ultimately economic take-off.

· The panoptic modality of power shows how the disciplines bring the effects and reach of social power to their maximum intensity and extend. Although the representative regime makes it possible for the will of all to form the fundamental authority of sovereignty, the disciplines provide a guarantee of submission of forces and bodies cite p. 214. On the outset, the disciplines appear to extend the general forms defined by law and thereby extending sovereign power. In reality, however, the disciplines are a sort of counter-law in the sense that they “introduce insuperable assymetries and exclude reciprocities” cite p. 215. The mechanisms of the disciplines involves suspending the laws but never annulling them. Despite the fact that the modern society appears to impose limits on the exercise of power, the universally widespread panopticism of power enables it to operate a disguised machinery on the underside of the law. As such, societal struggles such as class domination and rampant inequality attest to the mechanisms of the panopticism of power. Enderlying the law, the power works in a manner that supports and reinforces the asymmetry of power and undermines the limits that the society fixes on power. More at https://historyassignmenthelp.com/research-paper-writing-service/

· The formation of knowledge and the increase of power nexus that emerged in the eighteenth century shows the attempt of the disciplines to link the economic growth of power with the output of the apparatus, in this case, knowledge. At this point in history, these techniques attained the “technological threshold” to operate as apparatuses in a cycle of reinforcing one another that led to the formation of clinical medicine, psychiatry, child psychology, educational psychology, and rationalization of labor. (point to explore, the cycle of mutual reinforcement has …)

·

Writerbay.net

Do you need help with this or a different assignment? Even when your task is complicated and the deadline is in less than 2 days, you still have every chance to get a good grade for it. How? By completing the order form, you will get the finest custom-written assignment at an affordable price. We also deliver a number of services for free (e.g., revisions, editing, checking the text for authenticity). Use our paper writing service to receive effective help with your homework.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper