 In this module, we'll move our discussion from discourse to ideology and from ideology to power. Poukous is a French philosopher. Intestinely, he has talked about different fields of knowledge. He was interested in anthropology, in sociology, in history, in feminism even. And that's why he has quite relevant ideas about this subject that has somehow some origin in feminism. That's why Poukous is very much relevant here. And in coming discussions when we will talk about gender discourse and discourses, his ideas would be very much relevant for our understanding. So he says that discourse is ideology. There is no difference between the two. They are two sides of the same coin. But for some scholars, the discourse that shows power, that is called ideology. Every discourse is not ideology. They differentiate it as they say when there is some power struggle, there is some tug of war for power, then a discourse becomes ideological. Every student, for example, every student-teacher talk is not discourse according to this point of view. It would become discourse when we look upon it with reference to power difference between student and teacher and how we know their power difference from their roles. So when teacher has upper hand and student is dependent on the teacher, there is power difference, then this talk would become a discourse. Because here the element of power is involved with talk. But this conversion of discourse to ideology, Poukous idea was that discourse is ideology. And now after this recent addition that every discourse is not ideology, so how discourse converts into ideology, we have to know that. For this purpose, we have to further explore how it happens that a discourse turns into ideology. Because it is not always evident from talk. As we talked about student-teacher conversation, there it was obvious, it was clear. But there are cases when discourse is turned into ideology with addition of power element and we can't feel it, we can't see it explicitly, it happens invisibly. How this happens, let's talk about this. Suppose men talk about their inability to deal with kitchen work. They think that we are incompetent for cooking and for other kitchen activities. And they do so, for example, just in a lighter mood, just in a jocks. And these jocks spread around through media, through writings, etc. So what happened? Gradually, this light talk will become an established opinion. People would take it as something natural that doesn't require any explanation why women are fit for kitchen work and why not men. It started just from jocks. But over the period of time, the jocks were spread in everyday conversation and when they went to everyday conversation, they were taken as something established, affect and leads to positioning men inside kitchen, outside kitchen and women inside. The conclusion is that, first of all, there is some talk that is just a talk. This talk separates, for example, in this case, the talk started from jocks. First, it changed the situation at home. Later on, it goes outside the boundary of home. For example, it went to office, some place work. And if there too, we have some, for example, a secretary or any assistant who is a female. As we now think that women are much better in cooking, in preparing tea and other things for men. This is automatically understood that your secretary must know how to make it good and find tea for the officer. Also noticed the same attitude, the same thinking when men do kitchen work When somehow they are forced to do this activity in kitchen, what happens? Because of the influence of this talk that has become a discourse, people think that the person is doing what is not expected of him. He is given more support and whereas if the same work is being done by women, we think that this is part of their routine job. They don't know any kind of support. Even when they generally need it, even then men don't help them in kitchen work. This is the influence and here power is involved.