The whole process is intertwined and complements each other. Sonita Sarker analyses the cases of Dalit women in India and indigenous women in Texas in order to argue that in spite of hegemonic conceptions of time, there are always subaltern conceptions, which can be drawn upon for creating resistance.In conclusion, the modern society has continued to use different systems of power internalisation and hegemony to govern the society. In this second part of the paper, attempt will be made to pinpoint how Gramsci views evolvement of power in lieu of how difficult it is to understand his literature. With Foucault and Gramsci, she shows how post-invasion Iraq is, unsurprisingly, subject to neo-colonial practices. This is because if the individuals refuse to cooperate with the leader, there will be anomie in the society. Finally, Gramsci argues that in modern capital economy, economic transformation is not enough but also political constitutions are important. However, he is also being observed through his action and decision. Foucault writings are largely concerned with the questions of power. Meaning Foucault see social power as being ultimately enacted through individuals internalising discipline whereas Gramsci thinks social power is an intricate process of building hegemony in which consent and coercion play mutually constituting roles. But they also argue that resistance is far from enough. This is why he maintained that 3 individuals constitute in power relations. The civil society offers constructive opinions and criticisms to government policies to ensure good governance Gramsci Tortures and executioners apply the laws to extreme on orders from the leader. But the similarities between Gramsci and Foucault should also not be underestimated. He identified power to be in three different phases though he was forced to understand it that way by becoming a prisoner. These discussions centred the development of such an alternative way of life — taking in such elements as work, living space, gender roles and knowledge — through specific praxis.
Taken individually, most articles are informative, and the case studies are, in most cases, very well executed. Some major difference noted in their different views include the fact that Foucault thinks that superstructure plays a deeper role and leaves the individuals with little or no option but to comply with power and live a dogmatic life.
Also, this part will show Foucault understanding of the evolvement of power into its modern form.
For example, instead of passing judgments on people and kill them on one single process when found guilty, the leader will prefer to look into the case for a long period of time before doing a public execution Foucault, Gramsci on the other hand though acknowledges the impact of superstructure but thinks the most important thing is consciousness.
Democracy however is being interpreted differently in different countries and it is safe to say that different system of power is still an on going process and therefore there is no one particular system generally acceptable.
These discussions centred the development of such an alternative way of life — taking in such elements as work, living space, gender roles and knowledge — through specific praxis.
With Foucault and Gramsci, she shows how post-invasion Iraq is, unsurprisingly, subject to neo-colonial practices.
While neither Gramsci nor Foucault saw any of these forms of domination as completely separated from economic interests, they both refrained from explaining the existence of domination in an economically determinist way.
In this case, it makes sure that the capitalist does not exploit the workers much and the workers do not demand for much wages.
Foucault means of change of power is through democracy whereas reshaping of civil society leads to seizure of power according to Gramsci.