Michel Foucault

The present research was done to conceptualize the open pedagogy in the thought of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida and its progression in the distance education system. In terms of the type of research, the present research is theoretical, the statistical population includes all sources and documents related to open pedagogy, the educational perspective of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, and distance education, which contains all electronic and written books, articles, magazines, sites and reliable databases, theses, and doctoral theses. The statistical sample is all available sources and documents related to the subject. The method of data collection is the library and the researchers studied and analyzed all electronic and written books, articles, magazines, sites, and reliable databases, theses, and doctoral theses to the extent of sufficiency. To answer the research question, the collected information was classified, analyzed, and interpreted. Education experts’ opinions have been used to determine validity and reliability. Nine key categories were extracted from the collected information: 1. Aim, 2. Teacher, 3. Student, 4. Teaching method, 5. Content and topic, 6. Planning, 7. School, 8. Evaluation, and 9. Resources. The results of the research reveal that the concept of open pedagogy existed in most of the main subcategories, except for the two categories of planning and resources. Open pedagogy is the most suitable pedagogy for distance education.

This study pursues a study of radicalism in Hare’s most radical play, Fanshen, and in Foucault’s mode of radicalism within his theory of power relations. From a specific perspective, this study borrows from the new wave of reevaluating and reinterpreting Foucault, which is concerned with irrationalism in his mode of radicalism. This analysis helps us comprehend the changes in the social trends and the specific pattern of radicalism in both Hare and Foucault. What concerns this study gravely, is the absence of the other side of reality or possibility in Hare’s Fanshen and in Foucault’s claims on power relations. The aim of the study is to depict how adopting radicalism and revolution by Hare and Foucault results in the justification of malfunctioned experiments. Furthermore, the way political tendencies are manifested to the audience is proved to be a key factor in the analysis of British political theater and in the shaping of British society. Finally, it is found that a Foucauldian reading of Fanshen results in the recognition of Hare’s specific pattern of radicalism which is in line with Foucault’s.

This study attempts to examine Tom Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test in the light of the ideas of Michel Foucault, specifically the notions of normalization, institutions, and surveillance that tackle the relationships among power, institutions, and literature. The analysis posits that, in the context of the 1960s, the American government took advantage of all the institutions which were supposed to guarantee the freedom of individuals to curtail their freedom. Seeking to create a normal, ordinary, and homogeneous society, these administrations have employed the police, law, prison, and other overlapping institutions that work in tandem to create circuits of institutions which guarantee to reduce  human beings to simpletons who are docile, meek, and ready to fit in place properly. The normality and ordinariness favored by the authorities are also implemented since the novel starts by depicting free individuals whose identities hinge on their being abnormal while it ends when their movement is shattered, and the protagonist is seen as a simpleton serving the forced labor sentence of the judges of both the government and normality. Freedom emerges as a mirage than truth as there seems to be no outside through which individuals can live outside the domination of controlling apparatuses.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual and, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14 th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power and domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. And in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah and industry of religion in Ibn Khaldun's thought and social control through self-technology and discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah and Foucault's late works

I will look at Immigration from persepective of phenomenology and its somewhat foucauldian understanding of governmentality in third way marxism that integrates phenomenology. The term economism has been kept as a primary reason to close the state borders from immigration. There are different ideas of which sector of being clearly defined kind of legitimizes the sovereign. My hypotheses is that in the economic times of third way economic policies just behind us economic is the most clearly defined category to legitimize sovereign and its borders in many senses. Economism as reason to keep borders closed is paradoxical since economic activity most clearly penetrates the borders. Poststructuralist analysis of flows like in Gilles Deleuze or of hospitality in political sense and context in Jacques Derrida are important. Phenomenology helps to understand governmentality as I will argue/show. It can also help to see keeping people out of sovereign - like the state as question of governmentality. The question becomes technical question of governmentality. the point and argument is to sketch out the technical governmentality concerning the immigration question mostly after all phenomenologically.