The top reasons HR is important to an organization

The top reasons HR is critical to an association Nowadays, compelling organizations pay attention to each part of their association and have committed experts over their groups who progress in the direction of a shared objective supporting the business and situating it for enduring success.One significant group in the blend is (HR), who frequently serve â€Å"behind the scenes† as the foundation of an association. Their duties are frequently fundamental for a business to work adequately, and they’re at the bleeding edges of some center business capacities from staffing and enrolling to guaranteeing that the requirements of existing representatives are proficiently met, and more.In certainty, as per an ongoing article by The Balance, â€Å"A good HR departmentâ is basic to a worker arranged, gainful working environment in which representatives are invigorated and engaged.† Let’s investigate a portion of the key reasons why HR is so essential to an organization.Office cultureIn numerous ways, HR helps s et the pace of an office’s culture, including everything from admissible methods of dressing to setting work hours and working environment forms. HR builds up those seemingly insignificant details that help characterize a workplace and shape what a normal day at work resembles, which helps concrete an employee’s recognizable proof and contemplations on the association everywhere, just as how they’re saw from the outside.Staff recruitmentWe all skill significant having a top-level staff is to an organization’s achievement, and the HR division is legitimately answerable for guaranteeing that the absolute best accessible applicants are sought after and selected for every single vacant position. They likewise work to guarantee that the notoriety of the organization they work for is with the end goal that it draws in top-level ability in the business not a simple accomplishment in today’s ultra-serious corporate scene. As indicated by The Balance, †Å"HR is answerable for the general enlisting of a prevalent workforce. By and by, HR can't do only it however should offer help toâ hiring managersâ who are likewise answerable for enrolling aâ superior workforce. HR must provideâ leadership, preparing, booking help, aâ systematic recruiting process,â recruitment arranging forms, talk with aptitude, determination observing, and more.†hbspt.cta.load(2785852, '9e52c197-5b5b-45e6-af34-d56403f973c5', {});Employee advantages and perksAll of those things that come nearby an employee’s pay when they’re offered a pay bundle are likely gratitude to the company’s HR group, all intended to pull in the best and most splendid harvest of representatives (and in numerous organizations, HR staff even assistance to set pay ranges for open situations by giving serious market investigation). Everything from protection advantages to relax time, group building exercises, and transportation and training repayment to give some examples can fall under their domain, and the better they are at their occupations the better they’ll have the option to explore, recognize, and arrange extraordinary advantages to pull in talent.Employee issue resolutionIn general, a large portion of us don’t precisely anticipate having troublesome or testing individual issues that require the direction or mediation of others, yet when we do have them and they influence our work, we’re typically thankful that we have the people in the HR division to go to. They not just loan their mastery and experience to help manage whatever the issue is, they can likewise be genuine backers and partners during a troublesome situation.Although the jobs and duties of HR divisions fluctuate across organizations and businesses, ideally at this point it’s clear that they assume a critical job in many organization’s operational productivity, just as their prompt and long haul victories.

The Tragic Hero in Antigone free essay sample

Aristotle’s hypotheses on disaster were first settled during the fourth century in the Poetics, where he characterizes what makes an unfortunate saint. Aristotle proposes that a sad saint is a character who has a high social standing and encapsulates extraordinary honorability in his/her character. They are neither a scalawag nor are they completely acceptable, however an individual to some degree like us, raised to a higher situation in the public arena. What's more, the ruin of an appalling legend is brought about by deficiency of their own, frequently through egotism or pride, as the aftereffect of choice. It is activated by a shortcoming in their character or a mistake of their judgment, which is known as their lamentable defect, or hamartia. The sad hero’s mishap likewise surpasses the error they made, which summons feelings of pity and dread in the crowd. Their destruction isn't unadulterated misfortune, in any case, as the terrible saint encounters mindfulness or information on their bad behavior. With this being expressed, the meaning of a deplorable legend is best bolstered by King Creon in Antigone. His defeat is brought about by his mind blowing measure of pride, his unfortunate blemish, and he stimulates our pity and dread since he endures the most and perceives his goof when it is past the point of no return. In the first place, Creon was naturally introduced to honorability as the lord of Thebes. Creon’s tyrannous character is shown through his dismissal of family and solid commitment to the law toward the start of the play. The disaster starts with Creon’s order to let the assemblage of Polyneices, his own nephew, to decay and be eaten up by creatures. Any individual who attempted to cover him would be condemned to death. Creon accepted this was on the grounds that he was a double crosser to Thebes, and he believed the laws of men to be higher than those of the divine beings. As the ruler, the residents of Thebes sought him for all the appropriate responses, which caused him to assume that all that he did was correct. The statement, â€Å"My voice is the one voice providing orders in this City! † by Creon himself further exhibits his presumptuousness. His pride ends up being his unfortunate blemish as his declaration incited a series of occasions that prompted a few passings of Creon’s relatives since Antigone resisted his law, which he rebuffed her for. Creon made a mistake in his judgment in deciding if Antigone ought to be rebuffed on the grounds that he was unreasonably worried for his open picture; he didn’t need to be conquered by a lady. Since Creon was of colossal position and his ruin was brought about by his unfortunate imperfection, being blinded by his pride, his character drives the crowd to accept that he is the grievous saint. Antigone doesn't meet this model since she realized that by covering Polyneices, she was happy to hazard her life and suffer discipline on the off chance that she needed to. On her part, her choice was not a shortcoming of character, yet rather the inverse. Besides, Aristotle contends that the ultimate objective of a disaster is to tempt pity and dread through a purge, which originates from viewing the unfortunate hero’s horrendous destiny. In Antigone, this is accomplished through Creon since he endures the most and truly feels regret for his activities toward the finish of the play. In Exodus, the courier says, â€Å"Creon was upbeat once, as I tally satisfaction: Victorious in fight, sole legislative head of the land, blessed dad of kids respectably conceived. Also, presently it has all gone from him! Who can say that a man is as yet alive when his life’s satisfaction comes up short? He is a mobile dead man. † This statement broadcasts that everything was well in Creon’s world until he made his grievous imperfection. Presently, he should be dead since he lost his significant other and child, the regard of his residents, and the chance of a decent life following death. Teiresias cautioned Creon that divine beings were disappointed with his decree and would rebuff him for his pride, declining to acknowledge any type of apology. In contrast to Creon, Antigone favored the divine beings in allowing Polyneices a legitimate internment, so she is relied upon to have a superior existence in the wake of death. She didn't endure as much as Creon since she took her life unexpectedly by draping herself instead of letting nature follow through to its logical end in the cavern, which would have been increasingly agonizing for her. Since Creon is the most answerable for the all the dull turns in this play, he is left to languish over the ramifications for his activities considerably after death, which surpass his appalling imperfection. He had the most to lose, in this manner summoning sentiments of pity and dread in the crowd. Creon perceives his slip-up just when he loses everything and it is past the point where it is possible to invert the outcomes of his activities. He experiences an uncommon difference in character, bolstered by his last articulations in the play: â€Å"I have been imprudent and foolish†¦ Fate has carried all my pride to an idea of residue. † In this statement, Creon understands that he is to blame since he can’t control destiny and his pride took him no place. He even goes as far to concede that he executed his child and spouse. The crowd feels frustrated about Creon since now he is distant from everyone else and lost the entirety of his pride and greatness as lord. Creon experiences a lot of misfortune on account of his disastrous defect and the crowd animates our pity and dread for him, making him the exemplification of a grievous saint. His pride prompted his definitive destruction and he doesn't consent to Teiresias’ notice until it is past the point of no return. Creon shows the entirety of the attributes of a terrible legend, from being naturally introduced to a high social height to encountering adversity that isn’t altogether merited. At long last, the laws of the divine beings beat the laws of men, which Creon has neglected to see. Creon winds up enduring because of his pride, which encourages a significant exercise on having the correct mentality and settle on the correct choices.

What would you get rid of to improve life Free Essays

What might you dispose of to improve life in the 21 st century? BY Anna3201 In today’s world, there are numerous things that we are upset. The entire time we gripe about something, what stresses us. In any case, when a decent consider it, we see that we ruin ourselves this world. We will compose a custom exposition test on What might you dispose of to improve life or then again any comparative theme just for you Request Now Regularly, the developments and exhausting exertion assume responsibility for everything around you. The inquiry is: what might I dispose of to improve life in the 21st century? For me the most exceedingly awful things on the planet are brutality so that is the main thing which I would dispose of to improve life. Savagery is all over the place: at home, at school, at work. It is conduct that disparages restricted opportunity, damages the rights and causes mental and physical enduring of someone else. Contractual worker makes it a delight. Why? How might you get fulfillment from watching someone’s torment and dread? How irregular tear brings Joy? Is it human? No! Such an individual ought not be called human. The physical and mental brutality we face each day. Once in a while we don't understand when we are its observers. Reflecting for a second, we can perceive how frequently we see that somebody is harassed, prodded. Once in a while basically upsetting word for somebody can cause him to endure. The individual most wronged nobody to go to inspired by a paranoid fear of mocking. Physical maltreatment frequently influences the most defenseless, who don't adhere to a specific gathering, since they are simpler to hurt them. The culprits realize that they go unpunished, so frequently for a significant stretch of time aggrieve individuals. Physical maltreatment has numerous structures from prodding to genuine or even beat kicks. This makes physical torment. I think it merits thinking about whether similarly it harms mental savagery? , For this situation the casualties are more fragile, yet they can likewise be acceptable understudies, and customary individuals are timid. Effectively to heart them as a result of their inclination they annot protect itself against such animosity. Psychological mistreatment frequently appears as verbally abusing, mock. In my view, the two types of brutality hurt a similar way. One subverts the body †one as a top priority. Both are Just as unsafe as the other individual deprived of poise. Along these lines, we generally respond seeing the hurt the other individual. No approves the viciousness and consider how we would feel in the event that somebody carried on correspondingly according to us. Individual who was tormented and prodded as a youngster can have emotional wellness issues in a current life. Individuals, who have encountered brutality in youth, regularly do something very similar with your kids or others in beneficiary present life. Savagery is initial step to a wrongdoing; individuals who use brutality feel themselves unpunished and feel themselves accept they can do anything. This leads them to next wrongdoings. Without brutality on the planet there would be no wrongdoing on the planet. Savagery and culpability prompts the way that individuals are getting progressively forceful so it prompts the wars on the planet. We know, for instance, that Hitler had as a kid was manhandled, embarrassed and taunted by his dad, without the scarcest insurance from the mother. The genuine wellspring of his disdain accordingly gets self-evident. Yet, lso numerous different despots, for example, Mao, Stalin, or Ceausescu have encountered viciousness in their youth. So without viciousness would not to be wars on the world. Savagery is the start of all fiendishness on the planet. ne thing which I would get free otto improve light is energizers There are numerous sorts of energizers; they are liquor, tobacco (cigarettes), sedates, and even espresso, tea, cola, and chocolate. In the last four, there can be no obvious physical reliance. These substances, be that as it may, work on the joy habitats in the mind, which can cause incomplete reliance on them, however normally mental. The most h azardous of energizers are absolutely sedates. The most widely recognized of these are: regular weed, hashish and cocaine or engineered amphetamine, LSD, happiness, heroin. For these heavier medications habit can happen much after a solitary ingestion. Medication use frequently has a negative impact, prompts lethal fender benders, beatings, murders or suicides. Medications harm interior organs and frameworks, particularly the sensory system. This prompts the degeneration of physical and mental body. Fixation can't perform essential exercises of day by day living and decreased to the steady quest for the following bit of timulants. The issue of medication addicts is likewise moving HIV causes AIDS, a lethal infection. Liquor abuse is one of the most widely recognized addictions. He is viewed as the illness. Hitting the bottle hard altogether decreases mental and physical. In extraordinary cases prompts harm to the liver, heart and stomach just as mental maladies. Liquor abuse is a major issue in neurotic families. Kids from such homes frequently have gloom and mental injury. Another notable tobacco is a medication contained in cigarettes. Grown-ups go after the cigarettes to be de-stress, unwind or just out of weariness or for the organization. Subsequent to smoking a cigarette, some vibe a recuperation and improves their focus. These emotions, notwithstanding, are brief. Ceaseless cigarette smoking is the explanation behind various sicknesses, incorporating lung malignant growth which much of the time prompts passing. As should be obvious, solid energizers like medications, however these are less unsafe to people. I feel that savagery and energizers are the most noticeably terrible things in our reality and it’s Just I might want to be avoided from the 21st century. Savagery and energizers are the start of all wickedness on the planet. Without those things our life would be better. World would be increasingly excellent. The most effective method to refer to What might you dispose of to improve life, Papers

Profile of Harvey M. Robinson

Profile of Harvey M. Robinson The east side of Allentown, Pennsylvania had the notoriety of being a pleasant, safe territory for families to bring up youngsters. The occupants in the region had a sense of safety to walk their mutts, run, and let their children happen in the yards. The entirety of that changed in the mid year of 1992. The inhabitants and police power of Allentown had an issue. Just because, its east side occupants were being followed by a sequential executioner. A Killer Is Born Harvey M. Robinson was conceived on December 6, 1974. He experienced childhood in a disturbed family. His dad, Harvey Rodriguez Robinson, was a heavy drinker and genuinely and sincerely damaging towards his mom. When he was three, his folks were separated. Harvey Rodriguez Robinson wound up going to jail for murder subsequent to pounding the life out of his special lady. The more youthful Harvey worshiped his dad, paying little heed to his damaging and criminal conduct. School Years At an early age, youthful Harvey Robinson demonstrated incredible athletic and scholarly potential. He won honors for his papers and was a wild rival in wrestling, soccer, football and different crosscountry sports. Nonetheless, as ahead of schedule as nine years of age he exhibited a clouded side that lessened the entirety of his positive achievements. School advocates established that Robinson experienced extreme direct issue. As a kid, he was known to pitch fits. As he got more seasoned, he built up a snappy temper and couldn't characterize among good and bad. From the age of nine to 17, he topped off a rap sheet with various captures including theft and opposing capture. He was likewise a known substance abuser, which added to his inclination towards incautious forceful conduct. He loathed authority and lashed out at the individuals who attempted to control him including the police and his educators. As he developed more established, his dangers escalated. Instructors and understudies feared Robinson, and he enjoyed it. Why Robinson started assaulting and killing youngsters and ladies is obscure, yet to the extent what is known without a doubt, everything began on August 9, 1992, when he was 17-years of age. First Victim At about 12:35 a.m. on August 5, 1992, Robinson burglarized the home of Joan Burghardt, 29, who lived alone in a one-room condo on the primary floor of a private high rise on the east side of Allentown. He got through the screen on the yard entryway, which was bolted, and tore only enough to slip his hand through the door handle and open it. Burghardt detailed the theft and the missing $50 from a pull-out in her room dresser. Everything else appeared to be undisturbed. After four days at around 11:30 a.m. on August 9, 1992, Burghardts neighbor called the police to grumble that Burghardts sound system had been on for three days and evenings and that nobody addressed the doorbell. She additionally revealed that the screen had been out of the window for three evenings and during one of those evenings she heard Burghardt shouting and slamming the divider and seems as though she was being pummeled. At the point when the police showed up, they discovered Burghardt dead, lying on the front room floor. She had been seriously beaten about the head. The post-mortem examination uncovered that Burghardt had been explicitly ambushed and hit over the head in any event multiple times, breaking her skull and harming her cerebrum. She likewise had protective wounds on two hands, showing that she was alive during probably a portion of the assault. Original stains were found on some shorts found at the scene, proposing that a male had stroked off on them. Second Victim Charlotte Schmoyer, 15, was constantly steady about conveying the Morning Call paper on her doled out course on the east side of Allentown. At the point when she neglected to convey the paper on the morning of June 9, 1983, one of her clients examined the road for the youthful bearer. She didn't spot Schmoyer, however what she saw frightened her enough to telephone the police. Schmoyers paper truck was left unattended, for over 30 minutes, before a neighbors house. At the point when the police showed up, they found that the paper truck was half-loaded up with papers, and Schmoyers radio and the headset had been thronw on the ground between two houses. There were additionally finger streaks on the windowpane of the entryway to the close by carport of one of the houses. In view of the scene the police reasoned that Schmoyer had likely been snatched. The police started their hunt and discovered her bike relinquished alongside a portion of her own property. Inside hours a tip came in, and examiners started looking through a lush zone where they discovered blood, a shoe, and the assortment of Charlotte Schmoyer covered under a pile of logs. As per the examination report, Schmoyer was cut multiple times, and her throat was sliced. Likewise, there were cutting and scratching wounds in her neck territory, showing they were perpetrated while the Schmoyer was cognizant and her neck bowed down. She had additionally been assaulted. Examiners had the option to gather blood tests, a pubic hair and a head hair on Schmoyer that didn't coordinate her blood and hair. The proof was later coordinated to Robinson through DNA. Theft John and Denise Sam-Cali lived on the east side of Allentown, not a long way from where Schmoyer had been kidnapped. On June 17, 1993, Robinson burglarized their home while the couple was away for a couple of days. He had taken Johns firearm assortment, which was kept in a sack in the wardrobe. Inside days John purchased three new weapons, one of which he bought for Denise for assurance. The couple became considerably progressively worried about their security subsequent to discovering that somebody had broken into their neighbors home and assaulted their youngster. Third Victim On June 20, 1993, Robinson entered a womans home and stifled and assaulted her five-year-old little girl. The kid figured out how to live however dependent on her wounds it gave the idea that he had expected for her to bite the dust. Some speculated that he was in reality after the childs mother, however when he discovered her laying down with her accomplice, he assaulted the kid. Fourth Victim On June 28, 1993, John Sam-Cali was away, and Denise was separated from everyone else. She got up to the sounds Robinson was making from inside the stroll in storeroom close to her room. Startled, she chose to attempt to come up short on the house, however he got her, and they battled. She figured out how to escape the house, yet Robinson got at her again and nailed her down onto the ground in the front yard. As the two battled, she had the option to chomp him within his arm. He over and again punched her, cut her lip open and afterward assaulted her, be that as it may, her shouts cautioned a neighbor who turned on her yard light, and Robinson fled. At the point when the police showed up, they discovered Denise alive, however seriously beaten, with strangulation checks around her neck, and her lip profoundly cut. They likewise found a butcher blade enveloped by a napkin lying outside the washroom entryway. In the wake of recuperating in the medical clinic, the Sam-Calis left town for a couple of days. Fifth Victim On July 14, 1993, Robinson assaulted and killed Jessica Jean Fortney, 47, in the parlor of her girl and child parents in law home. She was discovered dead, half-exposed and her face was swollen and dark. There was blood scatter on the divider showing she had kicked the bucket a vicious demise. The post-mortem examination uncovered that Fortney kicked the bucket in the early morning hours in the wake of being choked and seriously beaten. It was additionally verified that she had been assaulted. What Robinson didn't know was that Fortneys granddaughter had seen the executing and had the option to give the police his portrayal. Back to Finish the Job On July 18, 1993, the Sam-Calis got back. Before leaving town, they had the house furnished with a thief caution. At about 4:00 a.m. Denise heard a clamor in the house and afterward the indirect access opened, setting off the caution and the gatecrasher, Robinson, took off. From that point onward, the Allentown police set up a sting activity and masterminded a cop to remain in the Sam-Cali home each night. They thought the man who assaulted her was returning to murder her since she could distinguish him. Their hunch was correct. Official Brian Lewis was marked out inside the Sam-Cali home when at around 1:25 a.m. on July 31, 1993, Robinson came back to the house and attempted to open entryways. Lewis heard the commotions, at that point looked as Robinson broke into the house through a window. When he was altogether inside, Lewis distinguished himself as a cop and advised Robinson to end. Robinson started taking shots at Lewis and gunfire was traded. Lewis went to the Sam-Calis room to caution the couple to remain inside the room. He at that point called for reinforcement. Meanwhile, Robinson got away by getting through a few glass boards on a wooden entryway in the kitchen. The police found a blood trail in the kitchen and out the entryway. It appeared as though the gatecrasher had been shot, or seriously cut during his departure. The nearby emergency clinics were alarmed. Gotten A couple of hours after the fact the police were called to the neighborhood emergency clinic after Robinson demonstrated up there to be treated for a discharge wound. A physical test of Robinson found that he had new injuries to his arms and legs characteristic of being cut with glass just as a chomp mark on the internal piece of his arm. Official Lewis additionally distinguished Robinson as the man he experienced inside the Sam-Calis home. He was captured on different charges including seizing, thievery, assault, endeavored murder, and murder. Examiners manufactured a huge body of evidence against Robinson with DNA proof, observer accounts and physical proof found at his home and the casualties homes. It was a strong case. The jury saw him as liable for assaulting and killing Charlotte Schmoyer, Joan Burghardt, and Jessica Jean Fortney. He was condemned to a joined 97 years in jail and three capital punishments.

Poststructuralism and Feminism

Poststructuralism and Feminism Poststructuralism and Feminism? Poststructuralism and Feminism? Academic Discipline: Womens Studies Course Name: Gender Studies Assignment Subject: Poststructuralism and Feminism?: De-essentializing Without Difference? Towards a Foucauldian Feminist Theory Academic Level: Graduate Referencing Style: APA Word Count: 2,050 The ideas of Michel Foucault have profoundly influenced and altered the development of feminist theory. As second-wave feminists were confronted for their exclusionary and unitary vision of women, new queries about unitary ‘truths’ and grand narratives were being posed by Foucault. At that time, Foucaults ideas about power and subjectivity provided a fitting response to feminism’s crisis in identity politics while also offering feminists theorists with new ways of looking at the world (Francis, 2001). His writings on sexuality and the body seemed germane to feminist goals of explicating how power operates on subjectified bodies in disciplinary and localized ways. And, his rupturing of the socially constructed partiality in modernist philosophical and political texts, and in methods used in the human sciences also aligned with feminist aims to challenge androcentric essentialist claims about women’s capacities. For these reasons, a Foucauldian feminism began to emerge, albeit adapted at times, and his lack of attention to gender notwithstanding, which has led to a prolific body of feminist scholarship. Not all feminists welcomed this emergent framework, arguing that Foucault’s fracturing of the subject undermines the goal of feminist liberation. This paper will explore the theoretical tension between Foucault and feminism, beginning with the points of convergence and utility. Critiques of a Foucauldian feminism will then be mapped out, followed by reconciliatory efforts and responses. In doing so, this paper will elucidate the ways in which a Foucauldian feminism is not only relevant, but also offers an expansive and inclusive vision of women and their experiences in localized operations of power. From Foucault to Feminism: Power, Sexuality and Subjectivity Foucault’s early reception among feminists was generally favorable. His attention to the subject helped theorize a timely response to allegations of feminism’s homogenized and exclusionary identity (Deveaux, 1994) while also echoing feminist goals of making the personal political (Amigot Pujal, 2009). However, as feminist theorists began engaging more closely with his works, it quickly became evident that his views on gender were ambivalent at best. For example, in the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he explicitly noted that disciplinary practices have made female bodies ‘hysterically marked,’ yet he offered no explanation as to what these practices are and how they operate on women’s bodies (King, 2004). There has also been no paucity of accusations of Foucault’s sexist, if not misogynistic comments about gender. Of frequent note are comments in a 1977 essay for a Parisian anti-psychiatry group that punishments for rape should be the same as those for physical violenc e “and nothing but that” (Heyes, 2013). Views on women aside, Foucault’s explication of subjectivity in determinations of ‘truth’ by regimes of power have had a significant impact among feminist and social theorists (Amigot Pujal, 2009). His rupturing of ‘rational’ and ‘objective’ approaches to scientific inquiry, provided an important window through which feminist researchers could (finally) expose the masculinist and essentialist worldviews had legitimized their subjugation (Francis, 2001). Foucault’s analyses with regards to knowledge claims more broadly, such those in modern literary and philosophical texts that constructed and reinforced power relations were also fruitful for a feminist epistemology to emerge (Davies Gannon, 2005). As he wrote, “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth”, determined by “the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned, the techniques and procedures accor ded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true” (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). Conversely, these politics of truth enable modes of thinking and being that deviate from established norms to appear as “abnormal” or “irrational,” and thus warranting sanction (Taylor, 2013). Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the body also offered feminists with a new understanding of the complex workings of power. For example, in Discipline and Punish (1975), he draws from Marx, in pointing to a “political economy of the body,” but refutes Marx’s over-attention to the state in noting this political economy is an intricate “micro physics of power” through which bodies are disciplined (Schrift, 2013). Foucault (1977, p. 138-139) explains these disciplinary practices as “a policy of coercions that act on the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behavior,” broken down and rearranged so that “discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile’ bodies.” For feminists, such an analysis offered an understanding that went beyond the simplicity of the state to more insidious forms of discursive versus grand structures of power and control (Deveaux, 1994). Beginning in the 1980s, feminist works inspired by Foucault have explored the disciplinary and normalizing technologies and practices that produce feminine bodies in essentialist and over-deterministic ways (Amigot Pujal, 2009). In a similar vein, Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the discourses that operate to normalize its domination have attracted many feminist theorists. In the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he pays particular attention to how sexuality shifted within modern regimes of power and the proliferation of discourses that subjectify and produce docile bodies (Deveaux, 1994). In pointing to the culturally constructed nature of these bodies and of sex, Foucault also ruptured the legitimization of essentialism, and it is this idea that remains one of his greatest contributions to feminism (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). In many ways, this allowed feminists to challenge modern assumptions about sexuality and the female body which were understood as inevitable and natural (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s explication of the socially constructed nature of women’s bodies and sexuality has proven useful for many feminist theorists to expose the falsehood of sexist stereotypes which were profoundly at odds with women’s lived realities (Mills, 2003). The influential work of feminist Sandra Lee Bartky that has prompted a myriad of works from other feminists was premised on a Foucauldian analysis in identifying the ways in which societal and cultural norms about the idealized woman are oppressive to women, regulated through disciplinary practices and industries such as dieting, cosmetics and fashion (Geerts, 2016). By bringing power to the micro level, through the operation of “micro-physics,” feminists were provided with new ways of understanding and challenging it. Rather than viewing power unilinearly, he illuminated the ways in which individuals are both objects and subjects in its operation. For Foucault (1980, p. 98), subjects of power “are not it’s inert or consenting target; they are always the elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application. In many of his later writings, he expanded upon the ways in which subjects can be vehicles of power through micro possibilities for resistance. Foucault (1998, p. 95-6) further asserts that resistance exists wherever there is normalisation and domination, and that “if it is exerted on ‘micro levels’ it can be contested on micro levels; there is “no single locus of great Refusal” but a “plurality of resistances” (King, 2004, p. 37). Thus, rather than seek emanc ipation through overturning systems of the state, such as patriarchy and/or capitalism, Foucault provided feminists with a vocabulary of resistance (Mills, 2003) that opened up possibilities of doing and thinking otherwise (Allen, 2013). Problematizing and Reconciling Foucault’s Fragmented Subject While Foucault’s conceptualization of power, subjectivity and resistance resonated among many feminist theorists, others have argued that it is insufficient for feminist ends. More specifically, criticisms have been raised about his lack of elaboration of the practices of and degrees to which liberation are afforded to subjects (Amigot Pujal, 2009). This is particularly problematic for many feminists who reject Foucault’s vision of emancipation, such as Hartsock (1990) who suggests resistance is strained at best by reducing women to ‘docile’ bodies and victims of disciplinary technologies. Moreover, this reduction, coupled with Foucault’s perspective on the micro operation of power has been challenged as decentres the experiences of the subject (i.e. women) as well as goals to challenge systemic injustice and oppression (Deveaux, 1994). In other words, his diffuse conception of power prevents the existences of a localized gendered inequality and an identification of an ope rative antagonism to organize against (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Indeed, challenging the micro exertions of power is a departure from established feminist theoretical traditions. However, by highlighting the complex entanglements with power does not mean that Foucault refutes the existence of power and the importance of resistance altogether (Allen, 2013). In other words, Foucault’s ideas do not deny global situations and systems of domination, such as male domination, but points to the heterogeneity and complexity in the operation of power and in possible modes of resistance (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Thus, for Foucault, regimes of power function to limit, or at times eliminate the range of possible subjectivities and discursive practices available to individuals (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s attention to the subject also opens up possibilities for self-agency, enabling reflexive awareness of discursive practices and positionality that was otherwise unavailable (Davies Gannon, 2005). In that reflexivity, and in the range of possible subje ctivities, Foucault also provides a more liberating view of gender in not unitarily positioning all women as powerless all of the time, caused in any simple way by mens possession of unwavering power (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). As such, Foucauldian feminist theorists and researchers see change as ‘transformative quest’ as opposed to an emancipatory agenda that aims to expand the range of subjectivities available to women (Baxter, 2008). Another central criticism of Foucault is his fracturing of the subject, as without unified gendered subject, it is difficult, if at all possible to make claims for and political demands on behalf of women (McLaren, 2002). Feminist theories such as Nancy Harstock have voiced some vehement critiques of a destabilized gender subject. As Hartsock (1990, p. 163) asks, “Why is it just at the moment when so many of us who have been silenced begin to demand the right to name ourselves, to act as subjects rather than objects of history, that just then the concept of sujbecthood becomes problematic?” Similarly, Brown (1995) problematizes Foucault’s fragmented subject as it offers no critique of vision of collective struggle, or grounds for activist efforts. In other words, the notion of “womanhood” appears to be indispensable to feminism as it is the fundamental basis of feminist thought, without which there would be no feminism (Francis, 1999). Feminist theorists that have embraced a Foucauldian perspective suggest such critiques are premised upon a limited and exclusionary politics that emerged in feminism’s second-wave. As Butler (1990: 148) aptly notes, “a feminist identity politics that appeals to a fixed feminist subject, presumes, fixes and constrains the very ‘subjects that it hopes to represent and liberate.” To reject such fragmentation would also deny that feminists have discriminated against other women, and that power relations and inequalities exist between women, just as they also exist between women and men (Francis, 2001). It would also ignore an understanding and analysis of the ways in which gendered relations of power intersect with other oppressive regimes, as Third-Wave and postcolonial feminisms have demonstrated (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Furthermore, Foucauldian feminists point out that by illuminating heterogeneity and differences among women, there is a freedom binary constructions, not only of female/male, but those such as gay/straight, Caucasian/racialized, etc. that have been used to grant normalcy, and conversely deviancy and irrationality (Davies Gannon, 2005). As this paper has illustrated, the relationship between Foucault and feminism has been a tenuous one, inciting some of the fractures within the movement itself. Indeed, his critiques of modern conceptions of reason and truth have resulted in a feminist double bind (Allen, 2013). Those that use Foucauldian concepts for feminist aims have found his analyses of the micro workings of power, whether through modern texts, disciplinary or discursive practices helpful to bring about a more complex and inclusive understanding of gender on localized levels. Those that contest his ideas suggest his denial of structural bases of power, and of a shared gendered inequality resulting from such power are insufficient to accomplish any kind of feminist emancipatory ends. While there is no denying that a Foucauldian feminist theory has complicated, if not undermined the possibility of a feminist representational ‘truth,’ and his works are not without flaws, he has offered feminism with an enrich ed and inclusive vision of gender and new tools for understanding and challenging the intricate workings of power. References: Allen, A. (2013, September). Feminism, Foucault, and the critique of reason: Re-reading the history of madness. Foucault Studies, 16, 15-31. Amigot, P. Pujal, M. (2009). On power, freedom, and gender: A fruitful tension between Foucault and feminism. Theory Psychology, 19(5), 646â€"669. Baxter, J. (2008). Feminist post-structuralist discourse Analysis â€" A new theoretical and methodological approach? In K. Harrington, L. Litosseliti, H. Sauntson, J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender and language research methodologies (pp. 245-255). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, W. (1995). Postmodern exposures, feminist hesitations in states of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge Davies, B. (2008), ‘Re-thinking ‘‘behaviour’’ in terms of positioning and the ethics of responsibility,” in A.M. Phelan and J. Sumsion (Eds.) Critical readings in teacher education: Provoking absences (pp. 173â€"86). Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Davies, B. Gannon, S. (2005). Feminism/Poststructuralism. In B. Somekh C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 318-325). UK: Sage Publishers. Deveaux, M. (1994, Summer). Feminism and Empowerment: A Critical Reading of Foucault Feminist Studies, 20(2), 223-247. Falzon, C., OLeary, T., and Sawicki, J. (2013). Introduction. In C. Falzon, C. O’Leary and J. Sawicki (Eds.). A companion to Foucault (pp 1-7). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Francis, B. (1999). Modernist reductionism of post-structuralist relativism: Can we move on? An evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research. Gender and Education, 11(4), 381-393. Francis, B. (2001). Beyond postmodernism: Feminist agency in educational research. In B. Francis and C. Skelton (Eds.), Investigating gender: Contemporary perspectives in education (pp. 1-7). Buckingham: Open University Press Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, trans. A. Sheridan, (Ed.). Harmondsworth: Peregrine. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. Poststructuralism and Feminism Poststructuralism and Feminism? Poststructuralism and Feminism? Academic Discipline: Womens Studies Course Name: Gender Studies Assignment Subject: Poststructuralism and Feminism?: De-essentializing Without Difference? Towards a Foucauldian Feminist Theory Academic Level: Graduate Referencing Style: APA Word Count: 2,050 The ideas of Michel Foucault have profoundly influenced and altered the development of feminist theory. As second-wave feminists were confronted for their exclusionary and unitary vision of women, new queries about unitary ‘truths’ and grand narratives were being posed by Foucault. At that time, Foucaults ideas about power and subjectivity provided a fitting response to feminism’s crisis in identity politics while also offering feminists theorists with new ways of looking at the world (Francis, 2001). His writings on sexuality and the body seemed germane to feminist goals of explicating how power operates on subjectified bodies in disciplinary and localized ways. And, his rupturing of the socially constructed partiality in modernist philosophical and political texts, and in methods used in the human sciences also aligned with feminist aims to challenge androcentric essentialist claims about women’s capacities. For these reasons, a Foucauldian feminism began to emerge, albeit adapted at times, and his lack of attention to gender notwithstanding, which has led to a prolific body of feminist scholarship. Not all feminists welcomed this emergent framework, arguing that Foucault’s fracturing of the subject undermines the goal of feminist liberation. This paper will explore the theoretical tension between Foucault and feminism, beginning with the points of convergence and utility. Critiques of a Foucauldian feminism will then be mapped out, followed by reconciliatory efforts and responses. In doing so, this paper will elucidate the ways in which a Foucauldian feminism is not only relevant, but also offers an expansive and inclusive vision of women and their experiences in localized operations of power. From Foucault to Feminism: Power, Sexuality and Subjectivity Foucault’s early reception among feminists was generally favorable. His attention to the subject helped theorize a timely response to allegations of feminism’s homogenized and exclusionary identity (Deveaux, 1994) while also echoing feminist goals of making the personal political (Amigot Pujal, 2009). However, as feminist theorists began engaging more closely with his works, it quickly became evident that his views on gender were ambivalent at best. For example, in the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he explicitly noted that disciplinary practices have made female bodies ‘hysterically marked,’ yet he offered no explanation as to what these practices are and how they operate on women’s bodies (King, 2004). There has also been no paucity of accusations of Foucault’s sexist, if not misogynistic comments about gender. Of frequent note are comments in a 1977 essay for a Parisian anti-psychiatry group that punishments for rape should be the same as those for physical violenc e “and nothing but that” (Heyes, 2013). Views on women aside, Foucault’s explication of subjectivity in determinations of ‘truth’ by regimes of power have had a significant impact among feminist and social theorists (Amigot Pujal, 2009). His rupturing of ‘rational’ and ‘objective’ approaches to scientific inquiry, provided an important window through which feminist researchers could (finally) expose the masculinist and essentialist worldviews had legitimized their subjugation (Francis, 2001). Foucault’s analyses with regards to knowledge claims more broadly, such those in modern literary and philosophical texts that constructed and reinforced power relations were also fruitful for a feminist epistemology to emerge (Davies Gannon, 2005). As he wrote, “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth”, determined by “the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned, the techniques and procedures accor ded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true” (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). Conversely, these politics of truth enable modes of thinking and being that deviate from established norms to appear as “abnormal” or “irrational,” and thus warranting sanction (Taylor, 2013). Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the body also offered feminists with a new understanding of the complex workings of power. For example, in Discipline and Punish (1975), he draws from Marx, in pointing to a “political economy of the body,” but refutes Marx’s over-attention to the state in noting this political economy is an intricate “micro physics of power” through which bodies are disciplined (Schrift, 2013). Foucault (1977, p. 138-139) explains these disciplinary practices as “a policy of coercions that act on the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behavior,” broken down and rearranged so that “discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile’ bodies.” For feminists, such an analysis offered an understanding that went beyond the simplicity of the state to more insidious forms of discursive versus grand structures of power and control (Deveaux, 1994). Beginning in the 1980s, feminist works inspired by Foucault have explored the disciplinary and normalizing technologies and practices that produce feminine bodies in essentialist and over-deterministic ways (Amigot Pujal, 2009). In a similar vein, Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the discourses that operate to normalize its domination have attracted many feminist theorists. In the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he pays particular attention to how sexuality shifted within modern regimes of power and the proliferation of discourses that subjectify and produce docile bodies (Deveaux, 1994). In pointing to the culturally constructed nature of these bodies and of sex, Foucault also ruptured the legitimization of essentialism, and it is this idea that remains one of his greatest contributions to feminism (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). In many ways, this allowed feminists to challenge modern assumptions about sexuality and the female body which were understood as inevitable and natural (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s explication of the socially constructed nature of women’s bodies and sexuality has proven useful for many feminist theorists to expose the falsehood of sexist stereotypes which were profoundly at odds with women’s lived realities (Mills, 2003). The influential work of feminist Sandra Lee Bartky that has prompted a myriad of works from other feminists was premised on a Foucauldian analysis in identifying the ways in which societal and cultural norms about the idealized woman are oppressive to women, regulated through disciplinary practices and industries such as dieting, cosmetics and fashion (Geerts, 2016). By bringing power to the micro level, through the operation of “micro-physics,” feminists were provided with new ways of understanding and challenging it. Rather than viewing power unilinearly, he illuminated the ways in which individuals are both objects and subjects in its operation. For Foucault (1980, p. 98), subjects of power “are not it’s inert or consenting target; they are always the elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application. In many of his later writings, he expanded upon the ways in which subjects can be vehicles of power through micro possibilities for resistance. Foucault (1998, p. 95-6) further asserts that resistance exists wherever there is normalisation and domination, and that “if it is exerted on ‘micro levels’ it can be contested on micro levels; there is “no single locus of great Refusal” but a “plurality of resistances” (King, 2004, p. 37). Thus, rather than seek emanc ipation through overturning systems of the state, such as patriarchy and/or capitalism, Foucault provided feminists with a vocabulary of resistance (Mills, 2003) that opened up possibilities of doing and thinking otherwise (Allen, 2013). Problematizing and Reconciling Foucault’s Fragmented Subject While Foucault’s conceptualization of power, subjectivity and resistance resonated among many feminist theorists, others have argued that it is insufficient for feminist ends. More specifically, criticisms have been raised about his lack of elaboration of the practices of and degrees to which liberation are afforded to subjects (Amigot Pujal, 2009). This is particularly problematic for many feminists who reject Foucault’s vision of emancipation, such as Hartsock (1990) who suggests resistance is strained at best by reducing women to ‘docile’ bodies and victims of disciplinary technologies. Moreover, this reduction, coupled with Foucault’s perspective on the micro operation of power has been challenged as decentres the experiences of the subject (i.e. women) as well as goals to challenge systemic injustice and oppression (Deveaux, 1994). In other words, his diffuse conception of power prevents the existences of a localized gendered inequality and an identification of an ope rative antagonism to organize against (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Indeed, challenging the micro exertions of power is a departure from established feminist theoretical traditions. However, by highlighting the complex entanglements with power does not mean that Foucault refutes the existence of power and the importance of resistance altogether (Allen, 2013). In other words, Foucault’s ideas do not deny global situations and systems of domination, such as male domination, but points to the heterogeneity and complexity in the operation of power and in possible modes of resistance (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Thus, for Foucault, regimes of power function to limit, or at times eliminate the range of possible subjectivities and discursive practices available to individuals (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s attention to the subject also opens up possibilities for self-agency, enabling reflexive awareness of discursive practices and positionality that was otherwise unavailable (Davies Gannon, 2005). In that reflexivity, and in the range of possible subje ctivities, Foucault also provides a more liberating view of gender in not unitarily positioning all women as powerless all of the time, caused in any simple way by mens possession of unwavering power (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). As such, Foucauldian feminist theorists and researchers see change as ‘transformative quest’ as opposed to an emancipatory agenda that aims to expand the range of subjectivities available to women (Baxter, 2008). Another central criticism of Foucault is his fracturing of the subject, as without unified gendered subject, it is difficult, if at all possible to make claims for and political demands on behalf of women (McLaren, 2002). Feminist theories such as Nancy Harstock have voiced some vehement critiques of a destabilized gender subject. As Hartsock (1990, p. 163) asks, “Why is it just at the moment when so many of us who have been silenced begin to demand the right to name ourselves, to act as subjects rather than objects of history, that just then the concept of sujbecthood becomes problematic?” Similarly, Brown (1995) problematizes Foucault’s fragmented subject as it offers no critique of vision of collective struggle, or grounds for activist efforts. In other words, the notion of “womanhood” appears to be indispensable to feminism as it is the fundamental basis of feminist thought, without which there would be no feminism (Francis, 1999). Feminist theorists that have embraced a Foucauldian perspective suggest such critiques are premised upon a limited and exclusionary politics that emerged in feminism’s second-wave. As Butler (1990: 148) aptly notes, “a feminist identity politics that appeals to a fixed feminist subject, presumes, fixes and constrains the very ‘subjects that it hopes to represent and liberate.” To reject such fragmentation would also deny that feminists have discriminated against other women, and that power relations and inequalities exist between women, just as they also exist between women and men (Francis, 2001). It would also ignore an understanding and analysis of the ways in which gendered relations of power intersect with other oppressive regimes, as Third-Wave and postcolonial feminisms have demonstrated (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Furthermore, Foucauldian feminists point out that by illuminating heterogeneity and differences among women, there is a freedom binary constructions, not only of female/male, but those such as gay/straight, Caucasian/racialized, etc. that have been used to grant normalcy, and conversely deviancy and irrationality (Davies Gannon, 2005). As this paper has illustrated, the relationship between Foucault and feminism has been a tenuous one, inciting some of the fractures within the movement itself. Indeed, his critiques of modern conceptions of reason and truth have resulted in a feminist double bind (Allen, 2013). Those that use Foucauldian concepts for feminist aims have found his analyses of the micro workings of power, whether through modern texts, disciplinary or discursive practices helpful to bring about a more complex and inclusive understanding of gender on localized levels. Those that contest his ideas suggest his denial of structural bases of power, and of a shared gendered inequality resulting from such power are insufficient to accomplish any kind of feminist emancipatory ends. While there is no denying that a Foucauldian feminist theory has complicated, if not undermined the possibility of a feminist representational ‘truth,’ and his works are not without flaws, he has offered feminism with an enrich ed and inclusive vision of gender and new tools for understanding and challenging the intricate workings of power. References: Allen, A. (2013, September). Feminism, Foucault, and the critique of reason: Re-reading the history of madness. Foucault Studies, 16, 15-31. Amigot, P. Pujal, M. (2009). On power, freedom, and gender: A fruitful tension between Foucault and feminism. Theory Psychology, 19(5), 646â€"669. Baxter, J. (2008). Feminist post-structuralist discourse Analysis â€" A new theoretical and methodological approach? In K. Harrington, L. Litosseliti, H. Sauntson, J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender and language research methodologies (pp. 245-255). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, W. (1995). Postmodern exposures, feminist hesitations in states of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge Davies, B. (2008), ‘Re-thinking ‘‘behaviour’’ in terms of positioning and the ethics of responsibility,” in A.M. Phelan and J. Sumsion (Eds.) Critical readings in teacher education: Provoking absences (pp. 173â€"86). Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Davies, B. Gannon, S. (2005). Feminism/Poststructuralism. In B. Somekh C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 318-325). UK: Sage Publishers. Deveaux, M. (1994, Summer). Feminism and Empowerment: A Critical Reading of Foucault Feminist Studies, 20(2), 223-247. Falzon, C., OLeary, T., and Sawicki, J. (2013). Introduction. In C. Falzon, C. O’Leary and J. Sawicki (Eds.). A companion to Foucault (pp 1-7). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Francis, B. (1999). Modernist reductionism of post-structuralist relativism: Can we move on? An evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research. Gender and Education, 11(4), 381-393. Francis, B. (2001). Beyond postmodernism: Feminist agency in educational research. In B. Francis and C. Skelton (Eds.), Investigating gender: Contemporary perspectives in education (pp. 1-7). Buckingham: Open University Press Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, trans. A. Sheridan, (Ed.). Harmondsworth: Peregrine. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

Poststructuralism and Feminism

Poststructuralism and Feminism Poststructuralism and Feminism? Poststructuralism and Feminism? Academic Discipline: Womens Studies Course Name: Gender Studies Assignment Subject: Poststructuralism and Feminism?: De-essentializing Without Difference? Towards a Foucauldian Feminist Theory Academic Level: Graduate Referencing Style: APA Word Count: 2,050 The ideas of Michel Foucault have profoundly influenced and altered the development of feminist theory. As second-wave feminists were confronted for their exclusionary and unitary vision of women, new queries about unitary ‘truths’ and grand narratives were being posed by Foucault. At that time, Foucaults ideas about power and subjectivity provided a fitting response to feminism’s crisis in identity politics while also offering feminists theorists with new ways of looking at the world (Francis, 2001). His writings on sexuality and the body seemed germane to feminist goals of explicating how power operates on subjectified bodies in disciplinary and localized ways. And, his rupturing of the socially constructed partiality in modernist philosophical and political texts, and in methods used in the human sciences also aligned with feminist aims to challenge androcentric essentialist claims about women’s capacities. For these reasons, a Foucauldian feminism began to emerge, albeit adapted at times, and his lack of attention to gender notwithstanding, which has led to a prolific body of feminist scholarship. Not all feminists welcomed this emergent framework, arguing that Foucault’s fracturing of the subject undermines the goal of feminist liberation. This paper will explore the theoretical tension between Foucault and feminism, beginning with the points of convergence and utility. Critiques of a Foucauldian feminism will then be mapped out, followed by reconciliatory efforts and responses. In doing so, this paper will elucidate the ways in which a Foucauldian feminism is not only relevant, but also offers an expansive and inclusive vision of women and their experiences in localized operations of power. From Foucault to Feminism: Power, Sexuality and Subjectivity Foucault’s early reception among feminists was generally favorable. His attention to the subject helped theorize a timely response to allegations of feminism’s homogenized and exclusionary identity (Deveaux, 1994) while also echoing feminist goals of making the personal political (Amigot Pujal, 2009). However, as feminist theorists began engaging more closely with his works, it quickly became evident that his views on gender were ambivalent at best. For example, in the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he explicitly noted that disciplinary practices have made female bodies ‘hysterically marked,’ yet he offered no explanation as to what these practices are and how they operate on women’s bodies (King, 2004). There has also been no paucity of accusations of Foucault’s sexist, if not misogynistic comments about gender. Of frequent note are comments in a 1977 essay for a Parisian anti-psychiatry group that punishments for rape should be the same as those for physical violenc e “and nothing but that” (Heyes, 2013). Views on women aside, Foucault’s explication of subjectivity in determinations of ‘truth’ by regimes of power have had a significant impact among feminist and social theorists (Amigot Pujal, 2009). His rupturing of ‘rational’ and ‘objective’ approaches to scientific inquiry, provided an important window through which feminist researchers could (finally) expose the masculinist and essentialist worldviews had legitimized their subjugation (Francis, 2001). Foucault’s analyses with regards to knowledge claims more broadly, such those in modern literary and philosophical texts that constructed and reinforced power relations were also fruitful for a feminist epistemology to emerge (Davies Gannon, 2005). As he wrote, “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth”, determined by “the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned, the techniques and procedures accor ded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true” (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). Conversely, these politics of truth enable modes of thinking and being that deviate from established norms to appear as “abnormal” or “irrational,” and thus warranting sanction (Taylor, 2013). Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the body also offered feminists with a new understanding of the complex workings of power. For example, in Discipline and Punish (1975), he draws from Marx, in pointing to a “political economy of the body,” but refutes Marx’s over-attention to the state in noting this political economy is an intricate “micro physics of power” through which bodies are disciplined (Schrift, 2013). Foucault (1977, p. 138-139) explains these disciplinary practices as “a policy of coercions that act on the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behavior,” broken down and rearranged so that “discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile’ bodies.” For feminists, such an analysis offered an understanding that went beyond the simplicity of the state to more insidious forms of discursive versus grand structures of power and control (Deveaux, 1994). Beginning in the 1980s, feminist works inspired by Foucault have explored the disciplinary and normalizing technologies and practices that produce feminine bodies in essentialist and over-deterministic ways (Amigot Pujal, 2009). In a similar vein, Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the discourses that operate to normalize its domination have attracted many feminist theorists. In the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he pays particular attention to how sexuality shifted within modern regimes of power and the proliferation of discourses that subjectify and produce docile bodies (Deveaux, 1994). In pointing to the culturally constructed nature of these bodies and of sex, Foucault also ruptured the legitimization of essentialism, and it is this idea that remains one of his greatest contributions to feminism (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). In many ways, this allowed feminists to challenge modern assumptions about sexuality and the female body which were understood as inevitable and natural (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s explication of the socially constructed nature of women’s bodies and sexuality has proven useful for many feminist theorists to expose the falsehood of sexist stereotypes which were profoundly at odds with women’s lived realities (Mills, 2003). The influential work of feminist Sandra Lee Bartky that has prompted a myriad of works from other feminists was premised on a Foucauldian analysis in identifying the ways in which societal and cultural norms about the idealized woman are oppressive to women, regulated through disciplinary practices and industries such as dieting, cosmetics and fashion (Geerts, 2016). By bringing power to the micro level, through the operation of “micro-physics,” feminists were provided with new ways of understanding and challenging it. Rather than viewing power unilinearly, he illuminated the ways in which individuals are both objects and subjects in its operation. For Foucault (1980, p. 98), subjects of power “are not it’s inert or consenting target; they are always the elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application. In many of his later writings, he expanded upon the ways in which subjects can be vehicles of power through micro possibilities for resistance. Foucault (1998, p. 95-6) further asserts that resistance exists wherever there is normalisation and domination, and that “if it is exerted on ‘micro levels’ it can be contested on micro levels; there is “no single locus of great Refusal” but a “plurality of resistances” (King, 2004, p. 37). Thus, rather than seek emanc ipation through overturning systems of the state, such as patriarchy and/or capitalism, Foucault provided feminists with a vocabulary of resistance (Mills, 2003) that opened up possibilities of doing and thinking otherwise (Allen, 2013). Problematizing and Reconciling Foucault’s Fragmented Subject While Foucault’s conceptualization of power, subjectivity and resistance resonated among many feminist theorists, others have argued that it is insufficient for feminist ends. More specifically, criticisms have been raised about his lack of elaboration of the practices of and degrees to which liberation are afforded to subjects (Amigot Pujal, 2009). This is particularly problematic for many feminists who reject Foucault’s vision of emancipation, such as Hartsock (1990) who suggests resistance is strained at best by reducing women to ‘docile’ bodies and victims of disciplinary technologies. Moreover, this reduction, coupled with Foucault’s perspective on the micro operation of power has been challenged as decentres the experiences of the subject (i.e. women) as well as goals to challenge systemic injustice and oppression (Deveaux, 1994). In other words, his diffuse conception of power prevents the existences of a localized gendered inequality and an identification of an ope rative antagonism to organize against (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Indeed, challenging the micro exertions of power is a departure from established feminist theoretical traditions. However, by highlighting the complex entanglements with power does not mean that Foucault refutes the existence of power and the importance of resistance altogether (Allen, 2013). In other words, Foucault’s ideas do not deny global situations and systems of domination, such as male domination, but points to the heterogeneity and complexity in the operation of power and in possible modes of resistance (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Thus, for Foucault, regimes of power function to limit, or at times eliminate the range of possible subjectivities and discursive practices available to individuals (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s attention to the subject also opens up possibilities for self-agency, enabling reflexive awareness of discursive practices and positionality that was otherwise unavailable (Davies Gannon, 2005). In that reflexivity, and in the range of possible subje ctivities, Foucault also provides a more liberating view of gender in not unitarily positioning all women as powerless all of the time, caused in any simple way by mens possession of unwavering power (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). As such, Foucauldian feminist theorists and researchers see change as ‘transformative quest’ as opposed to an emancipatory agenda that aims to expand the range of subjectivities available to women (Baxter, 2008). Another central criticism of Foucault is his fracturing of the subject, as without unified gendered subject, it is difficult, if at all possible to make claims for and political demands on behalf of women (McLaren, 2002). Feminist theories such as Nancy Harstock have voiced some vehement critiques of a destabilized gender subject. As Hartsock (1990, p. 163) asks, “Why is it just at the moment when so many of us who have been silenced begin to demand the right to name ourselves, to act as subjects rather than objects of history, that just then the concept of sujbecthood becomes problematic?” Similarly, Brown (1995) problematizes Foucault’s fragmented subject as it offers no critique of vision of collective struggle, or grounds for activist efforts. In other words, the notion of “womanhood” appears to be indispensable to feminism as it is the fundamental basis of feminist thought, without which there would be no feminism (Francis, 1999). Feminist theorists that have embraced a Foucauldian perspective suggest such critiques are premised upon a limited and exclusionary politics that emerged in feminism’s second-wave. As Butler (1990: 148) aptly notes, “a feminist identity politics that appeals to a fixed feminist subject, presumes, fixes and constrains the very ‘subjects that it hopes to represent and liberate.” To reject such fragmentation would also deny that feminists have discriminated against other women, and that power relations and inequalities exist between women, just as they also exist between women and men (Francis, 2001). It would also ignore an understanding and analysis of the ways in which gendered relations of power intersect with other oppressive regimes, as Third-Wave and postcolonial feminisms have demonstrated (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Furthermore, Foucauldian feminists point out that by illuminating heterogeneity and differences among women, there is a freedom binary constructions, not only of female/male, but those such as gay/straight, Caucasian/racialized, etc. that have been used to grant normalcy, and conversely deviancy and irrationality (Davies Gannon, 2005). As this paper has illustrated, the relationship between Foucault and feminism has been a tenuous one, inciting some of the fractures within the movement itself. Indeed, his critiques of modern conceptions of reason and truth have resulted in a feminist double bind (Allen, 2013). Those that use Foucauldian concepts for feminist aims have found his analyses of the micro workings of power, whether through modern texts, disciplinary or discursive practices helpful to bring about a more complex and inclusive understanding of gender on localized levels. Those that contest his ideas suggest his denial of structural bases of power, and of a shared gendered inequality resulting from such power are insufficient to accomplish any kind of feminist emancipatory ends. While there is no denying that a Foucauldian feminist theory has complicated, if not undermined the possibility of a feminist representational ‘truth,’ and his works are not without flaws, he has offered feminism with an enrich ed and inclusive vision of gender and new tools for understanding and challenging the intricate workings of power. References: Allen, A. (2013, September). Feminism, Foucault, and the critique of reason: Re-reading the history of madness. Foucault Studies, 16, 15-31. Amigot, P. Pujal, M. (2009). On power, freedom, and gender: A fruitful tension between Foucault and feminism. Theory Psychology, 19(5), 646â€"669. Baxter, J. (2008). Feminist post-structuralist discourse Analysis â€" A new theoretical and methodological approach? In K. Harrington, L. Litosseliti, H. Sauntson, J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender and language research methodologies (pp. 245-255). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, W. (1995). Postmodern exposures, feminist hesitations in states of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge Davies, B. (2008), ‘Re-thinking ‘‘behaviour’’ in terms of positioning and the ethics of responsibility,” in A.M. Phelan and J. Sumsion (Eds.) Critical readings in teacher education: Provoking absences (pp. 173â€"86). Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Davies, B. Gannon, S. (2005). Feminism/Poststructuralism. In B. Somekh C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 318-325). UK: Sage Publishers. Deveaux, M. (1994, Summer). Feminism and Empowerment: A Critical Reading of Foucault Feminist Studies, 20(2), 223-247. Falzon, C., OLeary, T., and Sawicki, J. (2013). Introduction. In C. Falzon, C. O’Leary and J. Sawicki (Eds.). A companion to Foucault (pp 1-7). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Francis, B. (1999). Modernist reductionism of post-structuralist relativism: Can we move on? An evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research. Gender and Education, 11(4), 381-393. Francis, B. (2001). Beyond postmodernism: Feminist agency in educational research. In B. Francis and C. Skelton (Eds.), Investigating gender: Contemporary perspectives in education (pp. 1-7). Buckingham: Open University Press Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, trans. A. Sheridan, (Ed.). Harmondsworth: Peregrine. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. Poststructuralism and Feminism Poststructuralism and Feminism? Poststructuralism and Feminism? Academic Discipline: Womens Studies Course Name: Gender Studies Assignment Subject: Poststructuralism and Feminism?: De-essentializing Without Difference? Towards a Foucauldian Feminist Theory Academic Level: Graduate Referencing Style: APA Word Count: 2,050 The ideas of Michel Foucault have profoundly influenced and altered the development of feminist theory. As second-wave feminists were confronted for their exclusionary and unitary vision of women, new queries about unitary ‘truths’ and grand narratives were being posed by Foucault. At that time, Foucaults ideas about power and subjectivity provided a fitting response to feminism’s crisis in identity politics while also offering feminists theorists with new ways of looking at the world (Francis, 2001). His writings on sexuality and the body seemed germane to feminist goals of explicating how power operates on subjectified bodies in disciplinary and localized ways. And, his rupturing of the socially constructed partiality in modernist philosophical and political texts, and in methods used in the human sciences also aligned with feminist aims to challenge androcentric essentialist claims about women’s capacities. For these reasons, a Foucauldian feminism began to emerge, albeit adapted at times, and his lack of attention to gender notwithstanding, which has led to a prolific body of feminist scholarship. Not all feminists welcomed this emergent framework, arguing that Foucault’s fracturing of the subject undermines the goal of feminist liberation. This paper will explore the theoretical tension between Foucault and feminism, beginning with the points of convergence and utility. Critiques of a Foucauldian feminism will then be mapped out, followed by reconciliatory efforts and responses. In doing so, this paper will elucidate the ways in which a Foucauldian feminism is not only relevant, but also offers an expansive and inclusive vision of women and their experiences in localized operations of power. From Foucault to Feminism: Power, Sexuality and Subjectivity Foucault’s early reception among feminists was generally favorable. His attention to the subject helped theorize a timely response to allegations of feminism’s homogenized and exclusionary identity (Deveaux, 1994) while also echoing feminist goals of making the personal political (Amigot Pujal, 2009). However, as feminist theorists began engaging more closely with his works, it quickly became evident that his views on gender were ambivalent at best. For example, in the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he explicitly noted that disciplinary practices have made female bodies ‘hysterically marked,’ yet he offered no explanation as to what these practices are and how they operate on women’s bodies (King, 2004). There has also been no paucity of accusations of Foucault’s sexist, if not misogynistic comments about gender. Of frequent note are comments in a 1977 essay for a Parisian anti-psychiatry group that punishments for rape should be the same as those for physical violenc e “and nothing but that” (Heyes, 2013). Views on women aside, Foucault’s explication of subjectivity in determinations of ‘truth’ by regimes of power have had a significant impact among feminist and social theorists (Amigot Pujal, 2009). His rupturing of ‘rational’ and ‘objective’ approaches to scientific inquiry, provided an important window through which feminist researchers could (finally) expose the masculinist and essentialist worldviews had legitimized their subjugation (Francis, 2001). Foucault’s analyses with regards to knowledge claims more broadly, such those in modern literary and philosophical texts that constructed and reinforced power relations were also fruitful for a feminist epistemology to emerge (Davies Gannon, 2005). As he wrote, “Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth”, determined by “the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned, the techniques and procedures accor ded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true” (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). Conversely, these politics of truth enable modes of thinking and being that deviate from established norms to appear as “abnormal” or “irrational,” and thus warranting sanction (Taylor, 2013). Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the body also offered feminists with a new understanding of the complex workings of power. For example, in Discipline and Punish (1975), he draws from Marx, in pointing to a “political economy of the body,” but refutes Marx’s over-attention to the state in noting this political economy is an intricate “micro physics of power” through which bodies are disciplined (Schrift, 2013). Foucault (1977, p. 138-139) explains these disciplinary practices as “a policy of coercions that act on the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behavior,” broken down and rearranged so that “discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile’ bodies.” For feminists, such an analysis offered an understanding that went beyond the simplicity of the state to more insidious forms of discursive versus grand structures of power and control (Deveaux, 1994). Beginning in the 1980s, feminist works inspired by Foucault have explored the disciplinary and normalizing technologies and practices that produce feminine bodies in essentialist and over-deterministic ways (Amigot Pujal, 2009). In a similar vein, Foucault’s writings on sexuality and the discourses that operate to normalize its domination have attracted many feminist theorists. In the History of Sexuality (Volume 1), he pays particular attention to how sexuality shifted within modern regimes of power and the proliferation of discourses that subjectify and produce docile bodies (Deveaux, 1994). In pointing to the culturally constructed nature of these bodies and of sex, Foucault also ruptured the legitimization of essentialism, and it is this idea that remains one of his greatest contributions to feminism (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). In many ways, this allowed feminists to challenge modern assumptions about sexuality and the female body which were understood as inevitable and natural (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s explication of the socially constructed nature of women’s bodies and sexuality has proven useful for many feminist theorists to expose the falsehood of sexist stereotypes which were profoundly at odds with women’s lived realities (Mills, 2003). The influential work of feminist Sandra Lee Bartky that has prompted a myriad of works from other feminists was premised on a Foucauldian analysis in identifying the ways in which societal and cultural norms about the idealized woman are oppressive to women, regulated through disciplinary practices and industries such as dieting, cosmetics and fashion (Geerts, 2016). By bringing power to the micro level, through the operation of “micro-physics,” feminists were provided with new ways of understanding and challenging it. Rather than viewing power unilinearly, he illuminated the ways in which individuals are both objects and subjects in its operation. For Foucault (1980, p. 98), subjects of power “are not it’s inert or consenting target; they are always the elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application. In many of his later writings, he expanded upon the ways in which subjects can be vehicles of power through micro possibilities for resistance. Foucault (1998, p. 95-6) further asserts that resistance exists wherever there is normalisation and domination, and that “if it is exerted on ‘micro levels’ it can be contested on micro levels; there is “no single locus of great Refusal” but a “plurality of resistances” (King, 2004, p. 37). Thus, rather than seek emanc ipation through overturning systems of the state, such as patriarchy and/or capitalism, Foucault provided feminists with a vocabulary of resistance (Mills, 2003) that opened up possibilities of doing and thinking otherwise (Allen, 2013). Problematizing and Reconciling Foucault’s Fragmented Subject While Foucault’s conceptualization of power, subjectivity and resistance resonated among many feminist theorists, others have argued that it is insufficient for feminist ends. More specifically, criticisms have been raised about his lack of elaboration of the practices of and degrees to which liberation are afforded to subjects (Amigot Pujal, 2009). This is particularly problematic for many feminists who reject Foucault’s vision of emancipation, such as Hartsock (1990) who suggests resistance is strained at best by reducing women to ‘docile’ bodies and victims of disciplinary technologies. Moreover, this reduction, coupled with Foucault’s perspective on the micro operation of power has been challenged as decentres the experiences of the subject (i.e. women) as well as goals to challenge systemic injustice and oppression (Deveaux, 1994). In other words, his diffuse conception of power prevents the existences of a localized gendered inequality and an identification of an ope rative antagonism to organize against (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Indeed, challenging the micro exertions of power is a departure from established feminist theoretical traditions. However, by highlighting the complex entanglements with power does not mean that Foucault refutes the existence of power and the importance of resistance altogether (Allen, 2013). In other words, Foucault’s ideas do not deny global situations and systems of domination, such as male domination, but points to the heterogeneity and complexity in the operation of power and in possible modes of resistance (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Thus, for Foucault, regimes of power function to limit, or at times eliminate the range of possible subjectivities and discursive practices available to individuals (Davies, 2008). Moreover, Foucault’s attention to the subject also opens up possibilities for self-agency, enabling reflexive awareness of discursive practices and positionality that was otherwise unavailable (Davies Gannon, 2005). In that reflexivity, and in the range of possible subje ctivities, Foucault also provides a more liberating view of gender in not unitarily positioning all women as powerless all of the time, caused in any simple way by mens possession of unwavering power (Falzon, OLeary Sawicki, 2013). As such, Foucauldian feminist theorists and researchers see change as ‘transformative quest’ as opposed to an emancipatory agenda that aims to expand the range of subjectivities available to women (Baxter, 2008). Another central criticism of Foucault is his fracturing of the subject, as without unified gendered subject, it is difficult, if at all possible to make claims for and political demands on behalf of women (McLaren, 2002). Feminist theories such as Nancy Harstock have voiced some vehement critiques of a destabilized gender subject. As Hartsock (1990, p. 163) asks, “Why is it just at the moment when so many of us who have been silenced begin to demand the right to name ourselves, to act as subjects rather than objects of history, that just then the concept of sujbecthood becomes problematic?” Similarly, Brown (1995) problematizes Foucault’s fragmented subject as it offers no critique of vision of collective struggle, or grounds for activist efforts. In other words, the notion of “womanhood” appears to be indispensable to feminism as it is the fundamental basis of feminist thought, without which there would be no feminism (Francis, 1999). Feminist theorists that have embraced a Foucauldian perspective suggest such critiques are premised upon a limited and exclusionary politics that emerged in feminism’s second-wave. As Butler (1990: 148) aptly notes, “a feminist identity politics that appeals to a fixed feminist subject, presumes, fixes and constrains the very ‘subjects that it hopes to represent and liberate.” To reject such fragmentation would also deny that feminists have discriminated against other women, and that power relations and inequalities exist between women, just as they also exist between women and men (Francis, 2001). It would also ignore an understanding and analysis of the ways in which gendered relations of power intersect with other oppressive regimes, as Third-Wave and postcolonial feminisms have demonstrated (Amigot Pujal, 2009). Furthermore, Foucauldian feminists point out that by illuminating heterogeneity and differences among women, there is a freedom binary constructions, not only of female/male, but those such as gay/straight, Caucasian/racialized, etc. that have been used to grant normalcy, and conversely deviancy and irrationality (Davies Gannon, 2005). As this paper has illustrated, the relationship between Foucault and feminism has been a tenuous one, inciting some of the fractures within the movement itself. Indeed, his critiques of modern conceptions of reason and truth have resulted in a feminist double bind (Allen, 2013). Those that use Foucauldian concepts for feminist aims have found his analyses of the micro workings of power, whether through modern texts, disciplinary or discursive practices helpful to bring about a more complex and inclusive understanding of gender on localized levels. Those that contest his ideas suggest his denial of structural bases of power, and of a shared gendered inequality resulting from such power are insufficient to accomplish any kind of feminist emancipatory ends. While there is no denying that a Foucauldian feminist theory has complicated, if not undermined the possibility of a feminist representational ‘truth,’ and his works are not without flaws, he has offered feminism with an enrich ed and inclusive vision of gender and new tools for understanding and challenging the intricate workings of power. References: Allen, A. (2013, September). Feminism, Foucault, and the critique of reason: Re-reading the history of madness. Foucault Studies, 16, 15-31. Amigot, P. Pujal, M. (2009). On power, freedom, and gender: A fruitful tension between Foucault and feminism. Theory Psychology, 19(5), 646â€"669. Baxter, J. (2008). Feminist post-structuralist discourse Analysis â€" A new theoretical and methodological approach? In K. Harrington, L. Litosseliti, H. Sauntson, J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender and language research methodologies (pp. 245-255). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, W. (1995). Postmodern exposures, feminist hesitations in states of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge Davies, B. (2008), ‘Re-thinking ‘‘behaviour’’ in terms of positioning and the ethics of responsibility,” in A.M. Phelan and J. Sumsion (Eds.) Critical readings in teacher education: Provoking absences (pp. 173â€"86). Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Davies, B. Gannon, S. (2005). Feminism/Poststructuralism. In B. Somekh C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 318-325). UK: Sage Publishers. Deveaux, M. (1994, Summer). Feminism and Empowerment: A Critical Reading of Foucault Feminist Studies, 20(2), 223-247. Falzon, C., OLeary, T., and Sawicki, J. (2013). Introduction. In C. Falzon, C. O’Leary and J. Sawicki (Eds.). A companion to Foucault (pp 1-7). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Francis, B. (1999). Modernist reductionism of post-structuralist relativism: Can we move on? An evaluation of the arguments in relation to feminist educational research. Gender and Education, 11(4), 381-393. Francis, B. (2001). Beyond postmodernism: Feminist agency in educational research. In B. Francis and C. Skelton (Eds.), Investigating gender: Contemporary perspectives in education (pp. 1-7). Buckingham: Open University Press Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, trans. A. Sheridan, (Ed.). Harmondsworth: Peregrine. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

Prohibition of Torture Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment - Free Essay Example

Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The right to fair trail, their importance, features and to what extent they are incorporated in national legislation of Azerbaijan Republic under respective clauses of ECHR. Throughout the history there were so many people that faced with the torture which is done by another person or by group of people. The most of individuals who faced with that kind of unlawful act are the ones that are captured by enemy during the war time. Now lets find out the meaning of the torture and identify the acts that are considered as the torture. The term â€Å"torture† means any act that causes real damage or suffering to any person that is intentionally done by another person whether mentally or phscically for the aim of obtaining the significant information from him or her, of punishment, of intimidation of him or her. The torture not only causes the damage or suffering on human body physcally or mentally but also decrease the human dignity as the worst treatment form. It is also considered as the crime under International Law. However abovementioned people are considered as the victims of this unlawful act according to all relevant legislations or laws, the tor ture is absolutely prohibited and can not be justified under any circumstances. Fortunately, this prohibitation is considered as obligation for all states in the world because it is binding on every member of international community which menas that whterher the any state ratified the treaties in which torture is absolutely prohibited. Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights is about the prohibitation of torture and it is written that â€Å" No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punshment†. Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is considered as one the fundamental human rights and freedoms. This right protects from: 1. Torture (mental or physical) which is mentioned above. 2. Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 3. Deportation or extradition means to be sent from on state to another where individual has the real risk of being tortured. It is one of the main responsibilities of any state to not inflict any kind of treatment and public authorities must protect every citizen who is threatened by someone else to be tortured. The state must also investigate the allegations of such unlawful act. The concept of degrading treatment is extremely humiliating act and causes to decrease of human dignity. To be considered as the degrading, it depends on different factors such as the duration of treatment, its mental or physical effects, and sex, age, vulnerability and health of individual who faced with the torture. This concept is based on the values of all human beings which are given them from the birth. The one important question arrives here: Are there any restrictions to this right? The right of people about not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way is absolute and it means there are no any restrictions to this right. All the states have to obey this right whether they ratify any relevant treaties or not. In conclusion, the right to not being tortured is very useful and having the binding power is the most significant side of this right and it should keep that power for the future generation. The right to fair trail When people strated to live any state and became one of the citizens, they give their some of rights to the government such as all types of punishments. The states have a right to arrest any person who commited a crime or to make investigations on individual that is considered as suspicious. In those cases we have the right to appeal the court and it have to be fair. All the human beings ahve the right ti fair trial or hearing if: 1. They are charged with criminal offence and have to go to court. 2. A public authority is making a decision that has an impact upon your civil rights or obligations . As we see from those 2 cases, the right to fair trial is provide for more with the criminal proceedings than the civil ones. In the case of criminal accusation which means granting data to an individual if he or she is considered as guilty on the commitment of an unlawful act, all people have a right to appeal the court. Those cases are: 1.When the individual is considered as suspicious. 2. When there is a court order about detention of an individual. 3. When the relevant government organ investigating the customs crime and requires an individual to present an evidence or stopping his or her bank account etc. When people are charged with criminal accusation they have to be provided by minimum rights which are as following. 1. They have to get familiar with the accusation in an understandable language even they are in another country of which mother tongue is different.2. Individuals have a right to get enough time for preparing the court defence.3. People may defense them on their own or through the representative. If it is not affordable to hold a lawyer, then government has to provide it.4. The person who is not able to speak due to healthy problems, he or she can obtain free interpreter to figure out the speeches.5. If suspicious person is arrested after decision of court, he or she has right to examine the case once more in appellate court. By saying the fair and public hearing, we consider the issues that are listed below: 1.It should be held within the reasonable time. 2. It should be heard by independent and impartial decision-maker.3. We should be provided with all relevant inform ation.4. The court process should be open to public.5. It should be followed by public decision. There are some cases that the right to fair trial or public hearing is restricted. For example, the issues about extradition, tax, immigration law and voting rights do not always apply fair and public hearing. Additionally, the right to access to the courts can be limited if we bring the cases without merit and when we miss the time-limit for bringing the case. The concept of equality of parties and equality of arms is implemented in all tribunal proceedings. It means that both sides during the court should be provided with the same opportunity to defense themselves. Both abovementioned rights are also applicable in the legislation of Azerbaijan Republic. Because of having absolute and binding power over the state, in my opinion, the right to free from torture is extremely applicable in our legislation. On the other hand, the right to fair trial has some limitations in certain cases, but for me it also should be absolute and binding power.