From Marx, we learn that power dynamics and hierarchy are rooted in the economical structure. Althusser shows us the problematic that exists in ideological structures where assumptions are made based on what is presented as real. Gramsci posits a conscious adherence to “social stability” (CTPC 80) that creates a hegemonic structure. Lacan explains the psychological structure of the lack and the Real. All of these theorists connote a system of perceived reality and that which truly underlies that perception—the false consciousness, the imaginary, the assumed, the Symbolic, all undermining true relationships, reality, the actual, and the Real. The framework of these theories is exemplified in Saussure’s structure of language, explaining structure in terms of parole and langue and signifier and signified.
Post-structuralism can be thought of as what structuralism evolved into. In some ways, it does not separate itself entirely from structuralism but is a critique of structuralism and questions the “stability” on which structuralism depends. Post-structuralism does not shift it’s focus to a new subject of study (e.g. economy or the psyche), but, like structuralism, continues to examine the nature of “meaning” in terms of language. However, unlike structuralism, post-structuralism doubts that there is a reality “out there” (even though structuralism claims that reality is always fleeting). Post-structuralism demonstrates the incoherence of the systems of discourse, the dual and chaotic nature of meaning, the falsity of universal truths, the malleability of human kind or that which makes us different, and the unpredictability of “systems.” Whereas structuralism focuses on the structure and system themselves, post-structuralism focuses on the readers or speakers participating in that structure (http://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his389/differences_struct_poststruct.pdf).
Language, Power, and The History of Sexuality
To better understand Foucault and post-structuralism, I think it is important to get a grasp of his repressive hypothesis. The repressive hypothesis refers to the idea that sexuality is “something ‘essential’ that the Victorians repressed” (CTPC 129). You cannot talk about sex or have sex except within the bounds of marriage, a ceremony that was only recognized by the State. Of course, there were rebellions to this—men going to brothels, detailed confessions to religious clergy. Society (as controlled by the bourgeoisie) looked down upon sexual desires and expressions of sex, and therefore the appropriateness off sexuality was ultimately defined by the bourgeois. This led to a sexual revolution in which men and women needed to break free from such repression.
Foucault rejected this hypothesis, asking: 1) Is it reasonable to conclude that there is a correlation between the rise of the bourgeoisie in the 17th century and sexual repression? 2) Is power (or what we think of as power) expressed through repressing society? 3) Because we tend to define and analyze the 17th century as a distant culture/time apart from ours, we assume that we are different from it in terms of repression and power. Our we separate and can we make judgments about repression? (HS 10). Foucault is asking why we tend to talk about sexuality in terms of repression and rebellion. Why do we perceive sexuality like we do, and how did we get to the point of perceiving sexuality as being repressed? “What Foucault calls ‘regimes of truth’ do not have to be ‘true’; they have only to be thought of as ‘true’ and acting on as if ‘true’” (CTPC 130).
It is interesting to think about sexual repression in the context of the 21st century. Is society still fighting against the oppression just as those in the 17th century were perceived to do? If so, how have the weapons changed but continued within the same war? For example, the legalization of gay marriage is arguably the hottest debate currently in the U.S. How have gay-rights activists talked about a history of repression in terms of same-sex expression? Is even saying “gay-rights activists” a reflection of how society perceives sexual power/repression? As stated earlier, discourse produces power, and power is not necessarily something that comes from “the top” and enforced upon the “controlled masses.” It is created through discourse generated by society’s perception of repression. How could “don’t ask don’t tell” be looked at through a Foucauldian lens to demonstrate the incapacitating of power as discourse of "asking and telling" is silenced?
In the following clip, Conan O’brien pushes the envelope, or he maybe about to. Does the expression “push the envelope” reveal something about how modern-day society thinks of the boundaries of “taboo” subjects like sex?
In 1787 Jeremy Bentham designed a new type of prison, the panopticon. The basic design had tower constructed in the middle of the prison that would allow guards a 360-degree view of prisoners. The tower was constructed so that they never knew when they were being observed. Bentham stated that the panoptic was “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind…” and believed the panoptic design would be used by multiple establishments (schools, hospitals, etc.) as an inspection tool (Storey, p. 131).
The panopticon, for Foucault, represented a shift in power and social control. Prior to Betham’s design the focus was on punishment (think about the public beheadings and hangings) and then to discipline afterwards. This shift and use of surveillance “has become the dominant mode of the operation of power” (Storey, p. 132).
Take a minute and think about the following scenario:
How many of you have been speeding down the highway when you suddenly see the cop car sitting under the overpass? As you drive past you cannot see through the tinted windows. We have no way of telling if there is a police officer sitting in the car. If you are any thing like most drivers the second you see the car you tap your brakes and slow down. The same could be said for the cameras at traffic lights. Not knowing if there is an actual officer nearby we engage in self-surveillance. While this is not the panopticon these types of power and surveillance techniques directly flow from Bentham’s design and are examples of Foucault’s surveillance theory.
In the United Kingdom the use of CCTV is another example of how surveillance is used. Below is a video from the UK which addresses the issue of surveillance and power.
1.) Prison gave us ‘delinquents’. The prison system does not simply take offenders and toss them away; this type of system uses them as examples. Foucault states that panoptic society uses imprisonment as a form of defense (omnipresent armature). The delinquent is then used to transfer from discipline to law (Lemert, p. 418). For Foucault this meant that the delinquent was nothing but a product of the institution. A way to deter society from actions, which might land them in prison!
2.) The power to punish abnormal or deviant actions becomes natural; it does so by lowering tolerance for acts of deviance. Foucault raises an interesting point in the following statement, “…the authority that sentence infiltrates all those other authorities that supervise, transform, correct, improve. It might even be said that nothing really distinguishes them any more except the singularly ‘dangerous’ character of the delinquents…” (Lemert, p. 420). What sets the executioner apart from the soon to be executed?
3.) The prison system paved the way for “new form of law” (Lemert, p.420). Simply stated, it gave a judge (school teacher, government official, etc.) the ability to “assess, diagnose, recognize the normal and abnormal and claim the honour of curing or rehabilitating” (Lemert, p.420). With this new system members of society can even act as judges! Think to times when you have examined a situation or person and found the situation to be abnormal. You can thank the carceral society for this ability!
While Foucault did not wish to be classified by terms such as post-structuralism, his approach to power and the panoptic suggest that he would fall into this category. Post-structuralism suggest that meaning is unstable. After reading and exploring Foucault this reminds us of the instability of ‘normal’ society. I believe Marx would have shared some of Foucault’s theories. For Marx the panopticism would have been the bourgeoisie’s way of monitoring and exercising power over the proletariat.
Discussion Questions:
1. The textbook gave several examples of television shows and we also offered examples of panopticism. What are other modern day examples of panopticism?
2. What concerns does the use of panopticism raise?
3. Do you agree with Foucault’s views on the ways the carceral society has transformed the “entire social body”?
For all you LOST fans, here is an article that discusses Foucauldian themes in seasons one and two. You could make the argument that the entire show itself is based on notions of surveillance, particularly when Jack discovers the “lighthouse” in season six: http://loststudies.com/1.2/discipline.html
Here are a few “creeper” songs for your enjoyment.
Foucault’s panopticism as a discursive process is a widespread contributing factor to the formation of society, particularly today in our techno-infused daily lives. “Carceral continuity and the fusion of the prison-form make it possible to legalize, or in any case to legitimate disciplinary power, which thus avoids any element of excess or abuse it may entail” (ST, 419). Foucault goes on to say that this power is “sanction[ed] from below.” In other words, we are doing this to ourselves.
ReplyDeleteHave you flown out of the Memphis airport lately? There’s this awful machine at the end of the security line that requires you to stand with your arms over your head and submit to being scanned. The result is a ghostly nude image that we are not allowed to see (at least give me a photo-booth printout!). Only the inspector is allowed to gaze upon the image in an effort to protect travelers from a terrorist threat. This kind of inconvenience is just part of the terrain these days. We expect it, permit it and support it because it seems to be for a greater good. It was shocking to me how readily everyone in line just hopped into the scanner as if it were a ride at the carnival. I felt like a troublemaker when I refused to pose for my nude photo. I was promptly brought over to a holding area where a security officer roughly frisked me. What I was left with after the experience was the feeling that it would have been easier to submit to the gaze than be manhandled. There is no third option. If you want to fly, you have to submit in some manner. The body scanner represents what Foucault references when he writes “The prison does not at all represent the unleashing of a different kind of power, but simply an additional degree in the intensity of a mechanism”(ST, 419).
“Discourse transmits and produces power,”(ST, 478) but not solely as repression. By way of this all-pervading gaze, we create ourselves. It seems negative and oppressive, but within this framework we are permitted, at varying times, to be both the subject of surveillance and the inspector who judges. As Brian mentions, the carceral society essentially trains us to be judges of others based on how we have judged of ourselves. I certainly believe that panopticism has and will continue to be the agency of societal transformation, an interesting mix of limitation and growth. My greatest concern is whether we, in our receptivity to panopticism, are aspiring to a hive-mind in the tradition of insects. I’m sure such a development might have its benefits in preparing earth and uniting humanity for wars in space against hostile alien life forms, but it seems frightening at this point in time.
David, FANTASTIC comment and example of panopticism. It was actually Crystal who talked about being trained by the carceral society. I think it would be of great worth to discuss your example further in class.
DeleteReading about Panopticism brought a few things to mind for me. FIRST, I thought of Enemy of the State, the Will Smith movie from some years back in which he goes on the run and the authorities track him through satellites connected to and watching absolutely everything. That movie gave me pause back then because until that time, it had not really dawned on me how available for surveillance—how “viewable”—we are in the age of information. There is absolutely truth to the idea that we support and submit and participate in the surveillance by monitoring ourselves AND others.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought that came to mind for me in reading about Panopticism was that it reminds me a good deal of a part of my childhood. W. E. B. DuBoise referred to it as “double consciousness.” It was the idea that African Americans always had to be conscious of who they were in their own world and of the way they were perceived by White people. Growing up Black and female in the South in a newly integrated community, I received lecture after lecture about how I had to be cleaner, faster, smarter and better behaved than all of my white peers in order to be able to compete in the classroom. This built in me a sense that even if I couldn't see them, someone was always watching and evaluating me. I—a rambunctious child with a never closing mouth at home—never got in trouble at school because of the phantom white people who were watching from their hidden perches waiting for me to mess up.
Beside the conversation about Panopticism, I was intrigued by Foucault's discussion of the continuity between the “carceral mechanisms” and the other institutions in society that end up participating in the creation of the “delinquent” (ST 418). Foucault points out that it is not surprising that the person who ends up being categorized as delinquent has already been involved in other institutions that, in some way, prepare her or him for delinqency while claiming to lead away from it. Ultimately, this is the way I feel about the road down which our local public education system is headed. With the stripping of special programs and the snatching of creative play and recess, many inner city schools seem only to be training children for prison and not to be productive. Many schools are teaching children to follow orders and not much else. I could go on and on about the discursive activity around “No Child Left Behind” and similar programs and the ways in which Foucault's arguments about strategies and tactics are borne out in them, but I'll save that for class when I can ask questions :-)
Great job guys!!
Wow! was all I could say to the "Creep" video. It don't get any creepier than that! But I enjoyed it very much because it was pretty funny. Wonderful job,guys!
DeleteNow, the Panopticism mechanism is more evident in today's society than ever, especially with all the advanced technology that exist. Foucault says that the movement from spectacle to surveillance turns 'the whole social body into a field of perception'(Storey, p.132). We do live in a society where it is typical to see surveillance cameras just about everywhere or we're just being observed in other ways. Everything that we do is observed whether we agree with it or not. If you we're to enter a bank or retrieve money from the ATM machine, your face is scanned by surveillance cameras and everything that you do at that moment in time is being observed.
Due to terroristic activities, security measures have heighten and this all the more reason to implement surveillance. The government has the ability to construct a profile of anyone and there is no limit to what information is compiled. We can be located easily through a number of identification methods if someone was searching for us. Walmart is another modern day example. It is a huge shopping center that has cameras posted bird's-eye view on the exterior of the building, as well as on the inside. As you enter their doors there's a tv screen that shows you as you come in and also on certain aisles. My son would always tell me to look at him on tv, I'd allow him his moment, but I made sure he was aware that we all were being watched. There are cameras throughout the stores and some of them are visible while others are not, but there is still the feeling that you are being watched. Foucault says that inmates do not know whether or not they are actually being watched. Therefore, they learn to behave as if they are always being watched (Storey, p.132). Each of us feel as if we're being observed at any given time within a panoptic setting and it puts us in susceptible positions. We are cognizant of what is around us and we control how we act within that particular situation. In other words, it restrains any idea of committing a sinister act (for some anyways...). I'm hoping this isn't too far-fetched but what comes across my mind also is Google Maps and Google Earth. I have the ability to locate the exact location of my home, street, or other locations, although some searching is limited. The images are obtained through satellite imagery. If I'm able to locate my exact residence, I can only imagine what others (e.g., the government) are able to do. Therefore, privacy is a huge concern of mine.
What Foucault could not have foreseen in 1979, and what Bentham could not have even imagined in 1787 was the invention and rise of the camcorder and the ubiquity of video recording devices in cell phones. Perhaps beginning with the Rodney King beating, surveillance devices in the hands of the public have shifted power away from government and institutional authorities. In the panopticon, inmates’ behavior was controlled by the threat of continual surveillance. Great Brittan’s panoptic efforts may help maintain civil order; however, the cameras now point both ways. In today's society, those in power are under equal threat of constant surveillance. From obscure speeches given a decade ago by current presidential candidates, to dictators in the Middle East, the actions of the politically powerful have repeatedly been exposed to the wider public and successfully used against them. The surveillance and broadcast power given to the masses through the use of modern technology has created a dramatic shift in power relationships around the world.
ReplyDeleteFoucault argued that power is knowledge, with the spread of the Internet and other communication technologies, knowledge and thus power has been disseminated to a much wider degree than any time in history. I believe the true and profound impact of this has yet to be fully realized or understood. In an ideological sense, the spread of knowledge and power should be the greatest boon to democracy, with all people having access to information and a mechanism through which they can be heard. In reality, the spreading of power may mean a profound diluting of power to the point of anarchy. In either case, I believe we are witnessing a fundamental shift in social structure on a global scale. This shift will be far more profound than our movement from monarchies to democracies, or capitalism to socialism. It may be impossible to say what final form this new social structure will take. What can be certain is the bourgeois that depended on the previous social structure will not surrender power quietly.
“But it is not the fringes of society and through successive exiles that criminality is born, but by means of ever more closely placed insertions, under ever more insistent surveillance, by an accumulation of disciplinary coercion” (419).
ReplyDeleteIn the world Foucault describes we are always already deviant. Surveillance seems to be an anticipatory power, so institutions can proactively produce submissive individuals who have the ability to stray from the norm set by the institutions. But with an inordinate amount of rules, means to evaluate, and sanction under this all-seeing eye, every word and movement of the individual is monitored and “corrected” brow-beating us (disciplining us) into a submissive state we call normal (419). Foucault also says “there is no outside” (418). The deviant is not outside the bounds of society she is intricate part because she is its carceral product. This carceral product is also a discursive product.
Creating a criminal is discursive act. There have been many people who have encountered the police and the verbal exchange is what “escalated” the situation. I know of a woman who recently was made criminal in her experience with two police officers from the Memphis Police Department. She had an out-of-state license plate which was out of the norm, this peaked the officers’ interest. One officer came to the driver’s side and insisted she did not have her seat belt on, the woman told the officer that that wasn’t true. He insisted even while she plainly had her seatbelt on, he finally admitted it was on but improperly. Then he asked for her driver’s license which she didn’t have in her possession. She tells him “this is your lucky day; I do not have my license with me.” The officer was pissed off and opened her door telling her to step out of her car. She asked why she could not have her ticket and go home. He said she couldn’t drive because she had no license. He put her in the back seat of the car. She said all of this had to do with the fact that they didn’t like her attitude. She notes that initially they said they didn’t like the way she talked to them asking questions and not providing answers to every irrelevant question like: what was her major? How many more years does she have in school? When she asked how the information was pertinent they began to describe what was at first called an attitude as disorderly conduct. They began to use technical language: instead of being distressed she had an angry demeanor. The violations became excuses to force her speak in a particular way and take on a docile disposition. She says one of the officers quibbled, “you talked to us like we were clerks at Kroger’s.” They manipulated legal terminology to indict her and put her in the backseat of a cop car for her use of common language they simply did not like. She was described as criminal in order tweak her body and verbal responses to properly submit to officers not Kroger cashier clerks. They used technical language to cover over the acts that were not illegal but they did not like. They constructed a deviant through their description via legal jargon to justify their aggression toward her. She knew as the language changed becoming more technical and coded that her ability to respond or act intensely diminished. It was their intention to "break" or train the woman to act in accordance to their said authority.