My objective is to analyze certain forms of knowledge, not

Question

My objective is to analyze certain forms of knowledge, not in terms of repression or law, but in terms of power. But the word power is apt to lead to misunderstandings about the nature, form, and unity of power. By power, I do not mean a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizenry. I do not mean, either, a mode of subjugation that, in contrast to violence, has the form of the rule. Finally, I do not have in mind a general system of domination exerted by one group over another, a system whose effects, through successive derivations, pervade the entire social body. The sovereignty of the state, the form of law, or the overall unity of a domination are only the terminal forms power takes.
It seems to me that power must be understood as the multiplicity of force relations that are immanent in the social sphere; as the process that, through ceaseless struggle and confrontation, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them; as the support that these force relations find in one another, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions that isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.
Thus, the viewpoint that permits one to understand the exercise of power, even in its more â€œperipheralâ€

anandsebastin · Answer

My objective is to analyze certain forms of knowledge, not in terms of repression or law, but in terms of power. But the word power is apt to lead to misunderstandings about the nature, form, and unity of power. By power, I do not mean a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizenry. I do not mean, either, a mode of subjugation that, in contrast to violence, has the form of the rule. Finally, I do not have in mind a general system of domination exerted by one group over another, a system whose effects, through successive derivations, pervade the entire social body.  The sovereignty of the state, the form of law, or the overall unity of a domination are only the terminal forms power takes. 
It seems to me that  power must be understood as the multiplicity of force relations  that are immanent in the social sphere; as the process that, through ceaseless struggle and confrontation, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them; as the support that these force relations find in one another, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions that isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus,  in the formulation of the law,  in the various social hegemonies.
Thus, the viewpoint that permits one to understand the exercise of power, even in its more â€œperipheralâ€

tennis1ball · Answer

I like C from 2nd paragraph.

brufarber · Answer

My vote goes for D.
"The sovereignty of the state, the form of law, or the overall unity of a domination are only the terminal forms power takes."(D) Law is a product of power." Sounds like a mutation to me.

sangarelli · Answer

Even the second paragraph states that "whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies"


meaning to say the general design of power is embodied in the formulation of the law.Law is derived from power.
Anser should be (D)

ak_idc · Answer

Good Work :-D OA is D.

My objective is to analyze certain forms of knowledge, not

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards