Mergers and Acquisitions in Pharmaceutical Industry

Mergers and Acquisitions in Pharmaceutical Industry Organizations develop remotely by procuring, or joining with, other continuous organizations. At the point when two organizations join, the getting organization for the most part pays for the procured business either with money or with its own protections, and the obtained companys liabilities and resources are moved to the securing organization. A merger is in fact a mix of at least two organizations in which everything except one of the joining organizations lawfully stop to exist and the enduring organization proceeds in activity under its unique name. A solidification is a mix where the entirety of the consolidating organizations are broken down and another firm is framed. The term merger is commonly used to portray both of these kinds of business mixes. A procurement is likewise utilized reciprocally with merger to depict a business mix. 1.1 Types of Merger Mergers are commonly arranged by whether they are flat, vertical, or aggregate. A Horizontal merger is a mix of at least two organizations that contend straightforwardly with each other. A vertical merger is a blend of organizations that may have a purchaser merchant relationship with each other. An aggregate merger is a blend of at least two organizations in which neither contends straightforwardly with the other and no purchaser vender relationship exists. 1.2 Form of Merger Transactions A merger exchange might be a stock buy or a benefit buy. The getting organization purchases the supply of the to-be-procured organization and expect its liabilities. In an advantage buy, the procuring organization purchases just the benefits (a few or the entirety) of the to-be-gained organization and doesn't accept any of its liabilities. Typically, the purchaser of a business inclines toward an advantage buy as opposed to a stock buy, since obscure liabilities, for example, any future claims against the organization, are not brought about. 1.3 Joint Ventures A few organizations who dont need to consolidate are picking an alternative of joint endeavors. In joint endeavor two (unaffiliated) organizations contribute money related and additionally physical resources, just as staff, to another organization shaped to take part in some monetary movement, for example, creation or advertising of an item. 2.0 Pharmaceutical MA Mergers are not new in the pharmaceutical business; nonetheless, in most recent couple of years there is parcel of warmth at the degree of pharmaceutical merger action and numerous organizations are utilizing joint endeavors and vital associations to create and advertise new items. The pharmaceutical business is profoundly directed, very mind boggling, and loaded up with money related and monetary difficulties and focal points. Fund directors in the business are confronted with numerous issues including; oversaw care, protection, repayment, licenses and nonexclusive rivalry, permitting, sovereignties, co-advancements, joint endeavors, co-promoting rights, high hazard and significant expense innovative work, equal import issues, and global guidelines. These issues should be investigated with an end goal to comprehend the purposes behind the industrys current structure and how that structure is driving expanded solidification through mergers and acquisitions. The pharmaceutical business is by most guidelines a develop industry and exceptionally beneficial for those organizations sufficiently fortunate to create blockbuster clinical medicines which are patent ensured for protracted periods to assist organizations with recuperating their innovative work ventures. The pharmaceutical business has encountered a high pace of MA movement during the 1980s and 1990s. The greater part of the main firms in 2003 are the aftereffect of at least one even mergers for instance, GlaxoSmithKlines merger incorporates GlaxoWellcome and SmithKline Beecham; Pfizer is the mix of Pfizer, Warner-Lambert, and Pharmacia, which included Upjohn. 3.0 Reasons for MA To expand advertise shareâ To deal with a blockbuster drugâ existing or potentialâ To pick up section into a high development restorative areaâ To improve RD productivityâ Access to new innovation platformâ To extend Geographic extension Patent termination Pipeline Stuffing At pharmaceutical firms both enormous and little, benefits are feeling the squeeze since blockbuster sedates that have made colossal benefits for a long time in the end lose their patent security and face tremendous rivalry from nonexclusive adaptations. In the U.S., conventional medications currently hold between a sixty and 70% piece of the overall industry by volume. This squeezes enormous examination based medication firms to grow new roads for benefits. One such road is organizations with and interests in youthful biotech organizations, however benefits from such endeavors will, much of the time, be delayed to show up. In the mean time, the major, worldwide medication firms are putting billions in-house on biotech innovative work ventures, however new blockbusters are tricky. For instance, Pfizer generally contributed about $7.8 billion yearly on RD. That cash is put resources into deliberately structured exploration programs with explicit objectives. Starting at mid 2010, Pfizer had around 500 tasks being developed, with 133 of those in Phase I preliminaries or past. Biologic medications represented 27 activities a work in progress, and they were a piece of the organizations contribute to win territories that attention on potential blockbuster drugs. A significant part of things to come accomplishment for the universes significant medication organizations will lie in outfitting their gigantic budgetary force alongside their armies of sales reps and showcasing experts to permit and sell imaginative new medications that are created by littler organizations. There are many energizing, littler biotech organizations that are centered around best in class research that do not have the advertising muscle expected to adequately disperse new medications in the worldwide commercial center. To an enormous degree, these organizations depend on agreements and associations with the universes biggest medication makers. Notwithstanding cash to back exploration and sales reps to elevate new medications to specialists, the significant medication creators can offer skill in controlling new medications through the complexities of the administrative procedure. While these courses of action may not prompt blockbuster sedates that will offer billions o f pills yearly to treat mass market infections, they can and regularly lead to energizing focused on drugs that can deliver $300 million to $1 billion in yearly incomes once they are popularized. A string of these mid-level income medications can mean a lot of yearly pay. One of the most clear motivations to combine or obtain is a deficiency in the RD pipeline. This was the position Glaxo looked in 1995 when Zantac, the universes best-regularly selling drug at the opportunity was approaching to the furthest limit of its life expectancy. Following its opportune obtaining of Wellcome, the organization reestablished its pipeline to make a generous and creative resource, which included medications like Seroxat still in the worldwide top ten seven years after the arrangement. Astra and Zeneca accomplished geographic extension and expanded minimum amount and, most importantly, shored up two progressively helpless portfolios with their 2000 merger. 4.0 Risks of MA The result of development coming about because of a merger can be huge for pharmaceutical organizations. Be that as it may, a few insights about mergers and acquisitions across ventures and when all is said in done impart the inalienable dangers in deciding to continue with the mix of two distinct organizations. A portion of the investigated measurements, noted in Pharmaceutical Executive in January 2001, are as per the following: 75% of huge mergers neglect to make investor esteem more prominent than industry midpoints Efficiency drops half after the declaration of a merger Administration weakening takes off to 47% inside three years following a merger Worker fulfillment drops 14% after mergers 80% of workers feel senior administration thinks more about financial aspects than about item quality or individuals 5.0 History of Pharmaceutical MA In 1927, Merck converged with Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten, which used to create antimalarial quinine. In 1959, Johnson gained McNeil research centers and added Tylenol to its item list. In 2000, Pfizer procured Warner-Lambert Company and Lipitor was added to Pfizers portfolio.The pattern proceeds till today with Sanofi and Aventis and a year ago, we saw super mergers like Pfizer gained Wyeth for $68 billion and following a month and a half of the uber merger, Merck obtained Schering Plow for $41.1 billion. Additionally, Roche inked an arrangement of $47 billion arrangement with Genentech and little player Biotech heavyweight Gilead (GILD) likewise paid $1.4 billion for CV Therapeutics (CVTX). 5.1 Merck and Schering-furrow Merger Merck has gone into a complete merger concurrence with Schering-Plow. As per the understanding, Merck and Schering-Plow has joined, under the name Merck, in which the enduring substance is Schering furrow and in light of that the merger is known as opposite merger exchange. This exchange esteemed at roughly $41,100 million ($41.1 billion) payable in real money and stock. Under the details of the understanding, Schering-Plow investors get 0.5767 offers and $10.50 in real money for each portion of Schering-Plow. Each Merck offer will consequently turn into a portion of the joined organization. In the merger, Merck investors own around 68% of the joined organization, and Schering-furrow investors own 32%.The total thought will be included a blend of roughly 44% money and 56% stock. This merger had profited Merck in a few different ways. It signified 18 items in Mercks pipeline. This merger is organized in a surprising way, this is commonly accomplished for charge sparing purposes yet here is some other explanation. Schering Plow and Johnson and Johnson has contract over the offer of Ramicade and Sympony. The agreement said that on the off chance that responsibility for of the organization changes, at that point the other organization is entitled for both the items however as the merger is contrarily organized and Schering Plow is the enduring enterprise the odds to penetrate the agreement is less; however the enduring corporat

Demonstrate Leadership in Your Mba Application

Show Leadership in Your MBA Application When confronted with any cycle of the administration question on MBA expositions, numerous business college candidates go nuts since they think they need to concoct a model that is their most noteworthy life or expert accomplishment. Truly, it's not about terrific signals or formal initiative titles. The objective is leaving an impression on whatever circumstance you're in and accomplishing in excess of a great job. Candidates need to thoroughly consider their past encounters to discover the scenes that best represent their administration skills.Sometimes, the best models are not the primary that ring a bell. Your authority article will regularly be not quite the same as a â€Å"accomplishment† or â€Å"achievement† arranged paper. Because you accomplished something extraordinary doesn't generally mean authority abilities were included, particularly on the off chance that you did most or the entirety of the work. [Learn how to sen d out the correct vibe in MBA articles. ] One of the focal precepts of initiative articles is indicating that you can electrify the activities of others. You draw out their interests. You teach them. You assist them with seeing authoritative needs in new ways.And then they share in the accomplishment. Crafted by a pioneer initiates or improves crafted by others, so discover accounts in your expert and extracurricular foundation that delineate this sort of example. What sort of encounters will make the best stories of administration? Consider difficulties where the accompanying became possibly the most important factor: †¢ Identifying/characterizing an issue †¢ Resisting traditional methodologies; testing the state of affairs †¢ Marshaling assets to address an issue †¢ Motivating others †¢ Making great utilization of others' gifts †¢ Being available to new data and information Building accord with fitting partners †¢ Guiding solid midcourse redresse s; defeating botches †¢ Building on progress [Get more tips on composing MBA confirmations expositions. ] Remember: Leadership isn't just about the titles. A few applicants assemble their initiative articles around the way that they were chosen for or chosen for specific positions where they had a significant level of power and duty: supervisor in-head of a school paper, brotherhood president, commander of the hockey group, executive of item advancement, or VP of marketing.But what did you do with this position? A proofreader of a school every day could expound on how the individual in question was continually tested to keep up significant levels of publication greatness, oversee staff assignments, and hit all cutoff times. This is unquestionably a regarded position with numerous duties, yet in the event that you depict your job that way, it sounds precisely equivalent to different many editors-in-head of school papers likewise applying this season. Characterize the initiative difficulties you confronted, not the administration ones.Did you need to manage a specific essayist who distorted meeting notes? Was there a clingy grounds outrage that constrained you and your staff to walk a moral tightrope? Did you need to fire understudy editors? Did you lead a change from a week after week to a day by day with the entirety of the booking and HR rigors that involves? Gathering amazing titles doesn't make somebody an incredible leaderâ€helping a group beat extraordinary difficulties does. [Avoid seven savage sins of MBA candidates. ] The most grounded initiative expositions will have saints other than yourself.If you helped Terri in money due understand her maximum capacity on a venture you drove, exhibit her as a legend in your authority story. In the most ideal situation, candidates should delineate a decent parity toward the start of their application procedure between accomplishment arranged papers and those concentrating explicitly on initiative. Fortunat ely, in numerous occasions, you can at present alter your application genuinely late in the process to accomplish the fitting harmony between singular accomplishment and leadership.Adding in a couple of sentences about empowering others, or instructing and characterizing needs for bunch attempts, will go far toward balancing your profile. Numerous accomplishment papers can be changed into heavenly instances of administration when you sparkle the focus on other people who were a piece of an extraordinary aggregate achievement. Remember that initiative is never an independent exertion. With regards to MBA expositions, you can't turn out badly on the off chance that you show how you've attempted to move others and draw out the best in them

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.