Breaking Conformity: The Intersection of Thought, Power, Resistance, and the Quest for Liberation
The concept of "one-dimensional thinking" highlights the ways in which modern society shapes individuals to conform to systems of control. Thinkers like Michel Foucault, George Ritzer, and Judith Butler have explored how social institutions, cultural practices, and economic structures create disciplined, compliant individuals. These systems operate not through overt force but through deeply embedded norms and routines, guiding how people think, act, and even perceive themselves. This essay examines the mechanisms of control, such as Foucault’s "docile bodies" and Ritzer’s McDonaldization, as well as resistance strategies drawn from feminist theory, intersectionality, and solidarity economics. By analyzing how power works on both individual and systemic levels, we can better understand how to challenge these structures and envision more equitable ways of living.
Understanding One-Dimensional Thinking
Herbert Marcuse, in One-Dimensional Man, introduces the concept of one-dimensional thinking to critique the nature of advanced industrial societies. He describes how modern systems embed control within everyday life, consumption, and production, creating a reality where dissent is absorbed and neutralized. Marcuse argues that this form of thinking emerges when individuals are integrated into systems that suppress critical thought and independent action, limiting their ability to envision alternatives to the status quo.
Marcuse’s concept of one-dimensional thinking highlights how workers lose their sense of individuality and autonomy as their roles are mechanized and standardized within larger systems of production. This mechanization limits critical thinking and embeds individuals into the system’s operational framework, making it challenging to imagine alternative ways of living and organizing society.
Marcuse argues that this integration creates a form of "false freedom," where individuals are offered choices within a pre-determined framework that ultimately serves the interests of the dominant order. This illusion of freedom—evident in consumer choice and material abundance—masks deeper forms of alienation and control. Traditional freedoms, which once served as critical tools for challenging outdated intellectual and material cultures, are neutralized in this advanced stage of productivity. Modern societies’ ability to satisfy basic needs leads to a scenario where autonomy and dissent are rendered unnecessary, even counterproductive. Autonomy, as Marcuse defines it, involves self-determination and the ability to critically shape one's life, a form of freedom restricted by the structure of industrialized societies.
Marcuse introduces the concept of operationalism to describe how modern societies quantify and control human behaviour. Concepts are valued for their efficiency and ability to integrate seamlessly into the system. Even technological advancements, which hold liberatory potential, are utilized to deepen alienation and enforce conformity. The result is the creation of the "one-dimensional" man—a being integrated into the machinery of production and consumption, with little room for critical thought or revolutionary action.
Moreover, Marcuse explores how advanced industrial societies co-opt opposition through controlled forms of dissent that lack revolutionary potential. This "happy consciousness," as he terms it, involves individuals accepting the imposed reality as rational and beneficial, feeling content with their apparent freedoms while remaining unaware of the deeper constraints imposed by the system. Language itself becomes instrumentalized; words lose their conceptual depth and are instead used to achieve specific ends, reinforcing the logic of the dominant system.
Marcuse’s critique aligns with Michel Foucault’s (1977) concept of "docile bodies,"; in Discipline and Punish, particularly in the chapter "Docile Bodies," Michel Foucault examines how disciplinary practices developed historically to produce individuals who are efficient, obedient, and controlled through a complex series of techniques. Here are the key points, including a genealogical study of the evolution of disciplinary practices. Docility signifies a body that can be subjected, used, transformed, and improved. Foucault links docility with a mechanism of power that is less about violence and ownership and more about subtle and consistent control over each aspect of an individual's behaviour and act. Foucault outlines the evolution of "micro-physics" of power: The term micro-physics, within the works of Michel Foucault, refers to the subtle, detailed, and often unnoticed ways that power operates in society. Rather than seeing power only in terms of large institutions or overt domination (like the government or the military), the idea of micro-physics emphasizes how power is distributed through everyday practices, social norms, and interactions at the smallest levels of social organization.
Surveillance, discipline, and rules governing behaviour are forms of micro-power that shape individuals’ actions and identities subtly but persistently. Unlike traditional views that focus on centralized power (like the rule of a monarch or state), micro-physics sees power as decentralized. It’s not just held by a few but exercised by many people in their roles and interactions. People participate in enforcing norms and expectations. Through micro-physics, society imposes standards of “normal” behaviour, thinking, and appearance. Individuals come to monitor and adjust themselves based on what is considered acceptable or deviant by societal norms. This normalization process can subtly shaping people’s identities and actions without explicit coercion. “The study of this micro-physics presupposes that the power exercised on the body is conceived not as a property, but as a strategy, that its effects of domination are attributed not to 'appropriation', but to dispositions, manoeuvres, tactics, techniques, functionings;… this power is not exercised simply as an obligation or a prohibition on those who 'do not have it'; it invests them, is transmitted by them and through them (Foucault, 1977, p. 27).
A docile body is one that has been rendered useful and compliant through rigorous methods, producing individuals whose capabilities increase while simultaneously reinforcing obedience. This process makes them economically productive (increasing utility) and politically submissive (leading to obedience). Foucault (1977) argues that discipline aligns individuals towards social control. Foucault argues that these techniques of discipline are pervasive across social institutions, using education, military training, and industrial work to make docility paramount. The concept of "exercise" is essential here, as it means systematic repetitive and progressive tasks to enhance compliance and utility and is central to producing disciplined bodies whose skills and obedience evolve over time, transforming each institution (military, school, factory) into a place where discipline maximizes output and social control. Discipline involves a tactical arrangement where each person is positioned, classified, and segmented according to their role within a structured whole. The organization of schools, armies, and factories shows how individuals are organized into efficient and rank-based structures, with clearly defined roles and relationships to maximize productivity and obedience (Foucault, 1977).
The conformity inherent in capitalist systems and hierarchical structures aligns closely with George Ritzer (1983)'s The McDonaldization of Society, which explores how the principles like fast-food chains, particularly McDonald's, have come to dominate various aspects of society and culture on a global scale. Ritzer builds on Max Weber’s theory of rationalization, which describes the increasing reliance on efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control within modern bureaucracies, and applies these concepts to contemporary daily life. The key principles of McDonaldization include efficiency, which focuses on the optimal method for accomplishing tasks while minimizing time and effort; calculability, which emphasizes quantifiable aspects such as size, cost, and time; predictability, which ensures standardization and uniformity across locations; and control, which relies on technology and non-human actors to reduce human variability and enforce conformity. The cultural and social implications of McDonaldization are significant. The spread of standardized practices often results in a loss of local diversity in culture, food, and traditions. It also fosters dehumanization, as workers and customers are treated as parts of a machine, leading to impersonal interactions and reduced creativity. On a global scale, McDonaldization demonstrates how Western business practices and cultural norms reshape societies worldwide, removing local identities in favour of uniformity. While Ritzer acknowledges the advantages of efficiency and consistency, he also critiques the broader consequences of hyper-rationalized systems, such as homogenization and the dehumanizing effects on societies (Ritzer, 1983).
Therefore, disciplines in the system can create individuals who are shaped not only by their training but by their place that integrates each person’s capacities into a unified whole. Through genealogical analysis, Foucault (1977) argues that each small regulation and control technique in these institutions accumulates, contributing to a social system where control is internalized by individuals themselves. Similarly, the aforementioned Foucault’s analysis of discipline and the creation of "docile bodies" demonstrates a shift from brutal force control to a refined, detailed power system embedded within social institutions. Disciplinary practices shape both social order and personal identity through everyday routines that reinforces obedience while producing efficient individuals. A common saying, "Don’t criticize unless you have a solution," exemplifies this dynamic, as it discourages workers from questioning the system. This notion implies that individuals cannot critique the existing structure unless they present a systematic solution, which in turn, aligns with the organization’s logic and contributes to increased efficiency. This expectation effectively disables critical voices by demanding compliance with the very framework that perpetuates the issues that are being criticized.
Erving Goffman (2002)'s concept of front and back regions explores how individuals manage their social identities through performances in different contexts. Goffman views social interactions as theatrical performances where the "front region" represents the public space where individuals present a crafted image according to social expectations. Here, people display behaviours and appearances that align with norms, roles, and expectations suited to the audience, such as in a workplace or formal event, where impression management is critical. In contrast, the back region represents a private space away from the audience's view, where individuals are more free to behave in ways that might contradict with their public face, allowing for genuine expressions and relaxation from social roles. Goffman’s approach suggests that individuals navigate these regions continuously, balancing between social expectations and personal authenticity. This framework highlights how social interactions are structured and how social identity is a product of ongoing, context-dependent performances.
Judith Butler (1988)'s essay, titled "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution", even goes deeper and argues how social and historic context can even shape identity factors such as how we represent gender; Butler challenges essentialist notions of gender, the idea that men and women have inherent traits tied to their biological sex. Butler argues that gender is not something we are born with or a stable identity that resides in us. Instead, it is a performative act, meaning that gender is constituted through repeated behaviours, gestures, and actions. These performances give the illusion of a stable identity, but they are actually social constructs that unfolds over time through repetition and modification. Judith butler talks about how societies and histories have been shaping how gender identity was formed, emphasizing that "feminine" or "masculine" categorizing varies across time and cultures and are not universal. Butler argues that the body is not just a passive biological entity but an active site where societal norms and meanings are implemented. Butler argues that individuals internalize and enact societal expectations through repetitive bodily acts (e.g., how we walk, talk, dress, or gesture). According to her these acts become habitual and appear "natural," creating the illusion that gender is inherent and fixed rather than socially constructed.
Mechanisms of Systemic Control
Drawing on Panopticon, an architectural concept created by Jeremy Bentham, Foucault (1977) introduces Panopticism which is a profound exploration of how modern society developed mechanisms of surveillance and control, and how these have shaped the way power operates across society, in Schools, factories, hospitals, and military barracks all use structures and surveillance models to monitor individuals. This surveillance is not necessarily present constantly; however, the uncertainty nature of this surveillance makes the mechanism of control more pervasive and internalized. These institutions aim to make people more productive, obedient, and “docile”. The goal isn’t merely punishment but molding individuals into compliant members of society.
This panoptic control extends beyond physical spaces. For example, the hierarchical structures in workplaces, standardized testing in schools, and monitoring in hospitals all function to regulate and normalize behaviour. They make individuals conscious of being evaluated, driving them to conform to institutional expectations. Foucault’s concept of panopticism remains relevant today, especially as digital surveillance expands. Panopticism is now seen in surveillance cameras, data tracking, and digital footprints, where people are constantly monitored (or assume they are being monitored). Foucault (1977) traces a shift from sovereign power, which relies on overt displays of force (such as public executions), to disciplinary power, which is subtler and more pervasive and internalized; people regulate themselves out of fear of invisible surveillance. This model allows power to be diffused through institutions rather than centralized in a single ruler. It’s economical and efficient: once people internalize the idea that they’re being watched, then fewer direct control mechanisms are needed to maintain order.
The connection between knowledge and power is essential in Foucault’s work; institutions gather data about people’s actions, health, and productivity to create norms and enforce conformity. Schools, for instance, evaluate students to produce a certain type of educated person. Knowledge thus becomes a tool for power. The more data institutions have, the better they can enforce norms and expectations. The individual becomes subject to scientific classification and analysis, while society is organized to ensure that people’s lives and behaviours can be systematically observed and controlled. “Discipline' may be identified neither with an institution nor with an apparatus; it is a type of power, a modality for its exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets; it is a 'physics' or an 'anatomy' of power, a technology” (Foucault, 1977, P. 215). The knowledge gathered becomes a tool for controlling behaviour, ensuring that power is applied not just through direct punishment, but also through surveillance. Gilles Deleuze (1992) builds on Michel Foucault’s theory of disciplinary societies, which are structured around institutions like prisons, schools, factories, and hospitals. These institutions impose order by organizing individuals within physical spaces, enforcing conformity through rules and schedules. Deleuze argues that we are moving beyond this model into what he calls “societies of control,” where boundaries are fluid and control is more pervasive but less visible. In societies of control, individuals are not confined in the same way; instead, they are monitored and influenced continuously in various aspects of life. Deleuze introduces the term “dividuals” to describe how people are fragmented into data points or samples in control societies. Rather than being treated as whole individuals with identities, people are categorized and modulated according to specific characteristics. For example, a person’s online behaviour might be analyzed to determine their consumer preferences, which are then used to control their choices in subtle ways. This shift from individuals to dividuals signifies a new mode of power, where people are modulated according to specific characteristics or consuming patterns which signifies a new mode of power, where people are influenced based on data-driven predictions.
In “What It Might Mean to Do a Canadian Sociology: The Everyday World as Problematic”, Dorothy E. Smith (1975), emphases the need to ground sociological inquiry in the lived experiences of individuals, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds. In Smith’s view, mainstream sociology often prioritizes abstract, theoretical perspectives that center the experiences of dominant social groups (usually white, male, and economically advantaged) while sidelining the voices and realities of women, racial minorities, and other marginalized groups. This leads to a partial, incomplete understanding of social phenomena that lacks insight into the actual conditions of those who experience systemic oppression. “The procedures, methods, and aims of sociology as a science which were described in the first section of this paper give primacy to the concepts, relevances, and topics of the discourse. These procedures constitute the hegemony of the discourse over actualities of experience” (Smith, 1975, P. 367). Sociology examines the structured nature of social life as it is actively produced and maintained by people, with the sociologist working to make this structure visible and understandable. Social relations are embedded in routine activities and examining how these are organized by institutions such as schools, workplaces, and government bodies. Smith argues that day-to-day experiences are not just personal or isolated but are shaped by broader power structures and institutional processes. These processes often operate in the background, subtly influencing individuals’ choices, behaviours, and perspectives.
Resisting One-Dimensional Thinking
In response to the norms that society imposes, Herbert Marcuse (1991) develops the concept of "negative thinking" as a critical form of thought that challenges the prevailing social order. In opposition to "positive thinking," which accepts the world as it is and seeks to rationalize or accommodate it, negative thinking is revolutionary and radical. It questions established norms, values, and structures, emphasizing the contradictions and repressive aspects of advanced industrial societies. Negative thinking involves recognizing the oppressive aspects of society, including the ways in which technological advancements serve the interests of dominant groups while limiting individual freedom and creativity. Marcuse views negative thinking as the first step towards social change. It lays the groundwork for resistance and revolutionary change. negative thinking enables people to see beyond the "one-dimensional" world and envision alternatives that are more just and liberating.
Activism is a “sensitizing concept” in Blumer (1954)’s language, flexible and context-dependent, and as he says, “the relevance of an isolated empirical content to the empirical world is not established merely by using the concept to label given occurrences in that empirical world” (Blumer, 1954, P.7). This flexibility context-dependent nature can remove or minimize the revolutionary potential of activism in a capitalist system. Activism in a capitalist society contrast with past revolutionary movements, such as Marxist-inspired revolutionary movements, where it was seen as a direct confrontation with oppressive systems. Hannah Arendt (1969) talks about the term “new militants” referring to a younger generation of activists and thinkers who are critical of the current social, economic, and technological systems. They are often outspoken about issues like environmental destruction, inequality, technological impacts on employment, and existential threats posed by modern advancements. These individuals tend to be skeptical of the system and are more aware of the potential for global crises, such as climate change, economic instability, and societal issues. The "new militants" do not necessarily align with traditional revolutionary approaches. Instead, they may adopt the rhetoric and ideology of past revolutionary movements, but not always engaging in actual violence. They are often associated with movements critical of capitalism, consumerism, and rapid technological advancement, and they might be part of groups concerned with climate action, social justice, and anti-globalization. new militants represent a modern, critical response to systemic issues, often using bold and sometimes provocative language to express their concerns and desire for transformative change. Their critics reflect frustration with social and technological issues and a desire for change, looking for effective ways to address the challenges they see in society, rather than engaging in violent acts.
With regards to models that address collective needs of individuals bypassing the structural domination, Edward Said proposes nationalism of co-existence. At a certain age nationalism is a defence mechanism against ethnocide and elimination, in that sense he is supporting it, but he says within the discourse of nationalism there is a self-awareness that includes a critique of its limitations which can “develop to triumphalism and, … a kind of anti-democratic structure… And this has usually carried with it a great deal of militarism, and a lot of it has included intolerance” (Ibish, 2002, P. 100). So, it is important to pay attention to the critics of nationalism within nationalism and the more universal goals of emancipation and social equality, in other words social consciousness, over and above the national consciousness; on that point, most of nationalism have failed. Said argues that oppressed individuals—such as colonized peoples or workers—can collectively imagine and work toward alternatives to their present conditions. The focus is on collective action; transformation is possible only as part of a group, not through isolated individual efforts. He thinks what we need is statism; he argues nation state is insufficient, however he does not fully dismiss it like neo-liberal tendencies to discard the state entirely in favour of market-driven communities. He thinks there are some functions of the state, like providing welfare, health, and education, that are crucial and must be preserved, but in more enlightened forms. He suggests for this there are some models that transcend nation state, such as regional or community-based frameworks like the European Union approach where the state retains certain responsibilities but is complemented by smaller, more cooperative, or regional systems. He finds hope in more community-based solutions that address collective needs without giving in to domination or market absolutism. “The syndicalist model strikes me as very useful as Chomsky talks about it and Chatterjee, in a different way, talks about it also” (Ibish, 2002, P. 101).
Understanding Structural and Institutionalized Violence for crafting effective resistance strategies
Arendt emphasizes that violence may appear when power structures weaken or fail, but violence itself cannot generate true power because it does not foster consensus or voluntary cooperation. Violence is a means of gaining control but how is this violence practiced in neoliberal or capitalist context? Patricia Hill Collins (2017) argues that violence operates on both individual and structural levels, embedded within institutions like the legal system, media, and education. This institutionalized violence perpetuates inequality, as marginalized communities face not only physical violence but also structural exclusion. In “On Violence, Intersectionality, and Transversal Politics”, Collins emphasizes that violence cannot be understood in a singular or simplistic way. Instead, it must be analyzed through an intersectional lens, which reveals how multiple systems of oppression, such as racism, sexism, classism interacts and shape individuals’ experiences of violence. For example, the violence experienced by Black women is not just racial or gender-based but occurs at the intersection of these identities, making it distinct and often more complex than other forms of violence. Collins discusses how cultural representations and dominant narratives impose harmful stereotypes and justify the mistreatment of oppressed groups. Central to Collins’ analysis is intersectionality; Intersectionality reveals how various forms of inequality are interconnected and cannot be separated into distinct categories. Collins argues that violence itself is intersectional, meaning that experiences of violence vary depending on a person's position within intersection of identity and oppression (e.g., race, gender, class, sexuality). This framework is essential to fully understanding and addressing the complexities of violence. For Collins, understanding violence through an intersectional lens is crucial for crafting effective resistance strategies. She stresses that empowerment comes from the ability of marginalized groups to articulate their experiences and to resist not only physical violence but also structural and symbolic forms of oppression. Empowerment, in this sense, means reclaiming knowledge, building community, and fostering resilience in the face of intersectional violence. “Without human oversight or agency, social institutions routinely replicate power hierarchies where violence is vested less in speech but rather in bureaucratic action and custom. Racism, sexism, class exploitation and homophobia become hegemonic when they become uncritically embedded in the rules and regulations of normal society” (Collins, 2017, P. 1464).
Spivak (1988) suggests by focusing on "concrete experience," Deleuze and Foucault ignore how ideologies (big systems of ideas and beliefs) shape those situations, and they dismiss the need for counterhegemonic ideological critique, which is essential for challenging systems of oppression. Spivak argues this perspective aligns with positivist thinking which focuses on surface-level experiences and ignores the deeper ideological forces that sustain oppression.
Thinkers like Deleuze and Foucault reject the idea that intellectuals should "speak for" oppressed groups or represent their struggles. They believe oppressed people act and speak for themselves and don’t need intellectuals to explain or represent them. Spivak believes Foucault and Deleuze act as if intellectuals are outside of power, neutrally observing. But intellectuals (like Foucault and Deleuze themselves!) are part of the system. Their work shapes ideas and reinforces certain power dynamics. For example, when they reject "representation" (speaking for others), they fail to address critical questions about how intellectuals leverage their own privilege. While Foucault and Deleuze extensively analyze how systems of power function and how individuals resist them, Spivak challenges this focus by asking: What about those who are so deeply oppressed that they cannot resist or speak for themselves, such as subaltern women in colonial contexts, as highlighted in her work?
Alternative Frameworks
In highlighting transversal politics from Nira Yuval-Davis’ work, Collins (2017) introduces the idea that groups can maintain a rooted sense of identity while also shifting in ways that facilitate alliances across differences. This concept contrasts with rigid identity politics by enabling groups to collaborate across lines of difference without sacrificing their unique perspectives. This approach has been crucial to movements like Black Lives Matter, where leaders built alliances with diverse sub groups and avoided hierarchical structures to maintain inclusivity. Ultimately, flexible solidarity recognizes that intersecting oppressions require intersecting forms of resistance, allowing a movement to be both inclusive and strategically focused on specific goals. This model of solidarity is therefore not only about unity but about the strength that comes from embracing diversity and addressing internal and external power dynamics. It is a way for movements to stay resilient, as it accommodates a broader spectrum of experiences and supports sustained resistance to embedded systems of violence and oppression. For example, Black Lives Matter movement intersectional mandate deepens analysis of how different sub-groups within Black communities experience racial domination. It is rooted in a collective Black past, but not the one that is uncritically celebrated. Significantly, as the movement has grown, its organizational practices also illustrate the goal of drawing upon flexible solidarity to strengthen both its own organizational capacities as a political community as well as those of other Black political communities. “As the movement has evolved, it rejected the hierarchical bureaucracies of traditional organizations in favour of a more fluid decentralized organizational structure that allows it to draw upon the flexibility of networks” (Collins, 2017, P. 1472).
Gordon Laxer (1995) argues that society's direction has changed a lot since the 1970s. Back then, many believed the world was moving toward socialism, with governments using tools like income redistribution and public ownership to challenge capitalism. But by the 1990s, this idea faded, replaced by the dominance of globalization and neoliberalism. These new ideas promoted liberal democracy as the final and natural stage of progress, leaving little room for alternatives. Globalization connects the world through technology, culture, and trade. While it brings people closer in some ways, it also creates inequality. Capitalism thrives on this inequality, concentrating wealth for a few, while leaving many with fewer opportunities. Democracy, which ideally gives everyday people control over society, has been co-opted to serve corporate interests. For example, corporations use globalization to avoid responsibilities like paying fair wages or protecting the environment while threatening to leave communities if their demands aren’t met.
True democracy, as envisioned by activists like Gandhi and Rosa Parks, involves ordinary people having real power over decisions in all parts of life. History shows that progress toward equality and rights often comes from grassroots activism, not from corporations or elites. However, globalization undermines this by favouring corporate power over people’s needs. To resist this trend, new approaches are needed. Social movements today must look beyond class alone and build inclusive coalitions that address race, gender, and other identities. While these movements can sometimes feel fragmented, they share common values like equality and justice. The key challenge is finding unity without demanding that everyone think or act the same. Movements need to balance diversity with shared goals, creating strong, democratic communities where people feel they belong and have equal opportunities. Achieving this won’t be easy, but it’s necessary to counter a global system that prioritizes corporate interests over human well-being.
Jessica Gordon (2023) talks about the concept of solidarity economics, a people-centered alternative to the profit-driven framework of capitalism, particularly racial and gendered capitalism. Capitalism, especially in its racial and gendered forms, has deeply harmed African Americans, women, and many others around the world. By focusing on profit above all, it exploits people and the environment, leading to discrimination in labour, credit, housing, etc. For example, Black unemployment has always been about twice as high as white unemployment, and Black workers are often stuck in low-wage jobs with little opportunity for advancement. These patterns of exclusion show how mainstream economic systems fail marginalized communities, keeping them at a disadvantage. In response, solidarity economics offers a different path that values cooperation, fairness, and human well-being over profits. This approach focuses on equity, sustainability, and democracy in how economies are run. It is flexible and adapts to different communities, aiming to create systems that support people instead of exploiting them.
Solidarity economics draws on the history of how communities of colour have organized themselves to fight economic exclusion. Solidarity economies help people work together, pool resources, and take control of their own economic futures. These systems challenge the injustices of capitalism by building community wealth and promoting fairness. Feminist scholars add another layer by focusing on how women’s work, especially caregiving and unpaid labour, has been undervalued. It also highlights the importance of creating equality in wages and opportunities. Black feminist theory goes further, showing how race, gender, class, and sexuality combine to shape economic inequalities. Together, these ideas create a vision of an economy that puts people first, challenges oppression, and builds systems where everyone can thrive.
Conclusion
Understanding how social control works, as theorists like Foucault, George Ritzer, and Judith Butler explain, helps us see how power shapes our identities and deepens inequality. However, change is possible through ideas like solidarity economics, feminist theory, and grassroots movements. These approaches focus on fairness, diversity, cooperation, and empowering communities instead of enforcing conformity. By questioning rigid systems and imagining better ways to organize our economies and societies, we can break down unfair structures and create spaces for diversity, multiplicity, and meaningful connections. Achieving this requires critical thinking, working together, and the courage to imagine a more inclusive world.
References
Arendt, H. (1969). Reflections on Violence. The New York Review of Books.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531.https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893
Chakravorty Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak?. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, 271-313.
Collins, P. H. (2017). On violence, intersectionality and transversal politics. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(9), 1460-1473.https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1317827
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control.” 1990. Cultural Theory: An Anthology, 139-142.
Smith, D. E. (1975). What it might mean to do a Canadian sociology: The everyday world as problematic. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 1(3), 363-376.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books.
Goffman, E. (2002). Front and back regions of everyday life. In B. Highmore (Ed.), The everyday life reader (pp. 50–57). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1959)
Gordon-Nembhard, J. (2023). Black political economy, solidarity economics, and liberation: Toward an economy of caring and abundance. Review of Radical Political Economics, 55(4), 525-538.
Ibish, H. (2002). Nationalism, Secularism, Postcoloniality: An Interview with Edward Said. Cultural Dynamics, 14(1), 97-105.
Laxer, G. (1995). Social solidarity, democracy and global capitalism. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 32(3), 287-313.
Marcuse, H. (1991). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Beacon Press.
Ritzer, G. (1983). The(quote) McDonaldization (quote) of Society. The Journal of American Culture, 6(1), 100-107.
Smith, D. E. (1975). What it might mean to do a Canadian sociology: The everyday world as problematic. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 1(3), 363-376.