A document by Gkrkrflkf. Click on the document to view its contents.

The concept of symbolic power was first introduced by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to account for the tacit, almost unconscious modes of cultural/social domination occurring within the everyday social habits maintained over conscious subjects. Symbolic power accounts for discipline used against another to confirm that individual's placement in a social hierarchy, at times in individual relations but most basically through system institutions, in particular education. 

For Baudrillard, absolute Evil today comes from an excess of Good, of technologcial development, of totalitarian morality, of the desire to do Good without opposition. The attempt to force the world into a globalized and integrated society merely has the opposite effect of generating an ideological “Axis of Evil” in the form of terrorism. But there can be no axis of Evil, Baudrillard insists, because evil does not have a direction; only Good–i.e. the global dominance of the free market, etc.–can have a forward, linear direction. Evil is more of a parallax, or a deviance, so it cannot even be opposed to the Good. Only Good can have an axis, a direction, so the “axis of evil” is something that is projected upon the Evil in order to justify the Good as ideology. When you fight Evil militarily with a frontal attack, you can only miss it. 

Latour does not seek any “hidden” reasons behind actions; there is not a dictionary or encyclopedia explaining the sources of the behaviors of the actors. No meta-language is in question. The analyst cannot address any invisible agency. If an agency is invisible, then it has no effect, therefore it is not an agency. If an analyst says: “No one mentions it. For Latour, agency is not limited to human beings, but objects should also be counted as agents which is one of the most attractive aspect of actor-network theory.