Foucault suggestions
that the existence of some practices, notions, forms of knowledge, social
institutions and systems of government have led to the pavement of modern day
culture. Examples such as the plague are used during Foucault’s explanations;
he speaks about how the sick were isolated from society, with the purpose of
creating a perfect community. The plague is just one example of the regulatory periods
throughout history that were used to discipline society.
Foucault states
that these practices were first created in secluded institutional settings such
as prisons, hospitals, and schools but steadily have become methods of social
regulation and control. The main reason for disciplinary power is to directly aim towards body
(physical and mental) which can include endless amounts surveillance
and examination that can allow a constant control of individuals conduct. Panoptism
is a form of perfect discipline, an involuntary way of building a self-disciplined
group of people or society. Panoptism installs the nervousness or anxiety of
been watched onto unconscious individuals. Panoptism is almost a secret mental
control, enforcing each mind to try to be the best person they can be and this
way of discipline and surveillance, is everywhere in today’s society. Panopticism
can be seen currently in many areas of NYC…at almost every high end shopping corner.
Security cameras are located in many shops, but are they real or fake? The
answer does not matter, in order for the security cameras to work; they must to
be visible. Tall mirrors located around shops are an excellent effective way of
monitoring both customers and staff. By seeing yourself perhaps shop lifting,
or not doing your job you instantly feel that other people see your actions and
you automatically self-discipline yourself. If you are to feel human emotions
such as shame, then you try to create yourself into someone who would never
have to be shameful of their actions; but only if you felt as if every action
of yours was been watched…
My questions for you all are... Are we all 'docile
bodies'? Do you think our lives are ordered or does it seem natural?
Do you think the recent access of the US government
has gained via the Patriot Act (this Act increases the ability of law
enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical,
financial, and other records gathering within the United States), could easily
look at it as acting like a panoptican?
Oh look below! It’s a cute kitten wearing a tiny
hat! But wait - someone’s watching, and that someone is not happy! Poor kitty! Why
this sudden violence? By using Foucault’s bases of the idea on the Panopticon, explain
why this kitty was attacked? Is it because wearing a tiny hat might be cute,
but goes against the institutional code that cats should not wear hats,
and kitty is appropriately punished for failing to obey to a ‘docile body’?
13 comments:
Imtashal, thank you for your post.
With terms such as “self-policing” and “control” sounding incessantly during Thursday’s class, we reached a consensus that the institutional exercise of power is subtle and effective. That said, the discussion at this point should about how we can apply this newly gained insight in our daily lives. Now that we have the luxury of understanding the nature of the exercise of power in our society, how can we use this information to change the ways we think, feel and act in society? How does this knowledge influence our endeavors in social justice?
My interpretation of the cat video is quite different. In my view, the cat with the hat appears to have reached a level of understanding that is threatening to the dominant large cat. Hence, to retard any silly ambition that this enlightened cat may have, the large cat resorts to violence. This video reminds me of the notion that political leaders cherish an unenlightened electorate. It also reminds about the persecution that Winston, in Orwell’s 1984, suffers because he learns about the vices of the ruling party. Should we be willing to commit thoughtcrime?
Dare to think!
Thanks for starting off the blog Imtashal.
In an attempt to answer your question, I will say that we all are 'docile bodies' to a degree because we have been groomed by one institution or another, such as family, school, religion and even society. Therefore, we have been formed (developed) by these institutions. After a while, we choose what values we want to keep and what we want to change, alter or just ignore. Our behavior eventually becomes and feels natural for us. As we become mentors for others, the cycle continues.
With regards to the Patriot Act being viewed as a panopticon, it is but the Government can argue that it is necessary. The fact that the Government has the power to monitor our every action and conversation and we do not know when we'll be monitored makes it like the panopticon. However, it can be argued that if we have nothing to hide, we should not worry. It may also be argued that such surveillance has helped to find terrorist or potential terrorist activities. On the flip side, people's words and actions can be taken out of context and twisted to fit our preconceived ideas. I am of the firm view that the US Constitution is a double-edged sword.For example, we have the freedom of speech on one hand, but on the other hand, when we exercise that freedom we run the risk of being profiled under the Patriot Act, also part of the Constitution.
With reference to the cat video, I just saw a mean dominant cat being nasty maybe because of jealousy, after all the woman was giving a lot of attention to the cute kitten. He sees a rival for affection.
Thank you for your post, Imtashal!
I'm having a little bit of an issue as regarding one as 'docile', especially when speaking of our bodies, both physically and mentally. Although, like Simonne has stated above, I agree that we are "groomed" by institutions that exist in our culture, and obviously until we are capable of individual thought, our Bodies are shaped by those raising us. But what I would like to believe is that we aren't just docile beings awaiting guidance and some sort of structure from an outside institution. We all have the capability for individual thought and action, and whether or not you choose to go with the norm or not, is your own choice.
But, as we all know, this isn't often the case. This requires one to be analytical and to learn how to be analytical. This comes with education, which is a privilege not many people have. This contributes to a society wherein we become docile bodies because we know no better. It's similar to the idea of a person being raised in a household where domestic violence was present, and then growing up to be in a relationship where domestic violence is involved, and accepting it because this is how one learns what 'love' and how to show it is. (Of course, this is a general overstatement!)
By having education become something of a luxury and not a necessity in this country, we have effectively created docile bodies with which we are able to control using nothing other than their own naïveté.
In response to the cat video, I had the exact reaction that James had, and so in trying to avoid reiterating his '1984' reference, I will only say this: hear, hear!
Thank you for the interesting post and hilarious video Imtashal!
As I mentioned in class, I do agree with the fact that Panoptism (mental enslavement) culture in New York City has created an environment in which citizens police themselves because of their consciousness of cameras and the overwhelming feeling of always being watched. This feeling is often unwarranted as these cameras planted all over the city (and even our own school) often do not record anything. This form of policing is very troublesome to me because of the implications this false feeling of security has on us in certain situations. For example, someone who may find security in knowing a camera is in a specific location, such as a school stairwell, may fall victim to a violent or sexual crime without any film recording to identify the culprit. The deterrence of the criminal may not always work as those who understand the system of false security surely find ways to take advantage of it.
The Panoptism scare tactic only works for those who are willing to enslave themselves to the idea that their every move is being watched. For those who do subscribe to this idea, the rude awakening of finding out that these mythical eyes don't exist can cause a great distrust in the system implementing it. With my knowledge of false eyes watching, I do not fear cameras but instead welcomes it as the gamble it is in protecting my safety. Still, I myself am still weary of the true purpose of having cameras and mirrors around that may extend past Foucault’s theory.
Thank you for your post, Imtashal!
I too would like to agree with Apple's post. I would like to think that we are not docile bodies in society, though others may like to argue otherwise (those others being the elite, power-holders, government officials, stakeholders, etc). The benefits of molding society into a desirable fit wherein there is no opportunity for revolt must be something held in high regard. As Apple high lighted as well, the importance of education, is paramount. But we must remember that education can also lead us in the wrong direction because we may be taught according to a system built to keep us under control and in fear of questioning the material. For instance, how many of us were taught that Christopher Columbus was this great person who discovered this new found land - how many of us were also told of the grave atrocities committed on the natives of the land? This may be too far fetched, but I feel it is important to consider.
Foucault when speaking of power (which I'm sure was addressed in class) states, "Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so". Applying such notion to a world outside any penitentiary is scary to think that in fact this may be the same roles security cameras and mirrors play. How do we know that they are working and that they will be checked in case of any emergency? Does it make a difference? This reminds me of a homicide which occurred just a block from where I live.. Despite the fact that there were several security cameras from the corner stores that may have assisted in arresting the perpetrator, according to the storeowners, they were never approached by law enforcement. Then, does this discredit what panopticism attempts to create, which is a feeling of security?
This is such a great discussion.
Your collective discussion raises many important points for theory and analysis:
1) The tensions between/dialectics of individual will/agency and institutionalized, structural constraint/habitus
2) Critical consciousness and its dangers to the status quo (James: "dare to think!").
3) Ana's interesting suggestion that inherent to the "Panoptican" are elements of its own undoing or potential ineffectiveness. I wonder if this last point can be explored further??
All throughout Thursday's conversation, poet William Blake was in my head. His poem, "London"(1794) was written around the same time that Jeremy Bentham was designing -- and explaining in writing -- the idea of the Panopticon. It is very much of the same cultural moment. What is interesting to me is how, even in the different context of poetry (it is from his SONGS OF EXPERIENCE collection) we see some of the same concerns we express today in relation to the Panopticon/Panopticism.
While there is an abundance of social critique -- laws restricting nature ("charter'd Thames," the Thames being the river that runs through London), child labor, religious hypocrisy, unnecessary wars, poverty resulting in prostitution and spread of disease -- what he hears are "the mind forg'd manacles." Such a rich and thought-provoking phrase, and very much suggesting that the key to understanding social problems is our own role in creating/perpetuating these problems. We aren't at all docile bodies; we just have to unthink our manacles.
London
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow.
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.
In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear
How the Chimney-sweepers cry
Every blackning Church appalls,
And the hapless Soldiers sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls
But most thro' midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlots curse
Blasts the new-born Infants tear
And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse
Thanks for starting up the blog Imtashal! Great recap of the weeks discussion.
Are we all "docile bodies"? Perhaps the majority of us are the majority of the time. The human condition, however, requires us to feel free, or at least perceive the illusion of freedom. To this end, many people may break minor laws to spite the institution which suppresses this urge of freedom. Ironically, we do this in order to disrupt the mundane order and routine of our lives, but we quickly immerse ourselves back into the same comfortable system we sought to undermine. Our desire to organize and create routine is widely believed to be biological, even considered to be hardwired into our brain. What is the desire, however, to occasionally disrupt the rules we find comfort in? That question has been the bane of every sovereign's existence.
I believe this balance, finding comfort in the law and needing to release the pressure of conformity by acting out against it, will always exist. The panopticon, however, is an ingenious way to check these urges to disobey. What happens, though, when we suppress these small urges for too long and the pot builds up boils over? Are the little acts of "disobedience" healthy releases?
This is a great discussion! Thanks for getting us started, Imtashal.
I have always felt so strongly about Foucault. I loved the his idea of the panopticon and it was something that resonated so strongly with me as a Muslim-American. Growing up and being so involved and interested in politics was something that my father saw as dangerous and scary. Every time he saw me on the internet he warned me to be careful about anything political that I say, even if its a joke, because "someone can always be watching." To me, the panopticon is a form of control and conformity, reminding people never to get out of line or to deviate from the norm. I agree with Simmone and with Apple as well because even though education does encourage critical thinking, there still remains a limit to what we can do in the pursuit of our education. These borders of our thinking, as James implied, are still defined by the limits of society. We can be politically aware, but we dare not act on this awareness and dissent.
Hello All,
Thanks Imatashal for getting us started on the blog this week!
To the question of “Are we docile bodies?” I believe we are to a certain extent. I say this not to offend but many people see certain types of injustice and stay silent. The silence of people is what allows many dehumanizing events to strive such as the Holocaust, slavery, and Apartheid. A survivor of the Holocaust Elie Wiesel states, “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” I believe the quote sums up that being docile does not help anyone but, the person or institution forcing compliance on a group of individuals. When one does not choose a side, they are in fact choosing one and allowing injustice to perpetuate. Fear is an intrinsic motivator for not speaking out or not taking action. Whether fear attributes to weakness is not the concern but the way it paralyzes actions. In class, I spoke about “infiltrating the wrong side of the system.” I believe that one can remove being docile by living through certain events. The story of a researcher about isolation is very different from the story of a prisoner in isolation. The prisoner has a firsthand account unlike the researcher, who is on the outside looking in. I do have two questions for the group. Has your perception changed about how effective systems are now that you have infiltrated one? On the other hand, do you feel that you have become docile because you are working to push an agenda other than your own?
Thank you for your post Imtashal.
I would like to explore the question regarding the Patriot Act that you raised. When discussing the Patriot Act, I would have to say that I disagree that it is a form of panopticism. To steal a quote from Ana’s comment, "Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so." My understanding of this quote in relation to the Patriot Act is that for the Patriot Act to be a form of panopticism, it must be a visible method of surveillance. But what does it mean for a law like the Patriot Act to be visible?
In my opinion, for the Patriot Act to be visible, in a way that gives it the same effect as the panopticon, it must be understood, as well as consistently present on the minds of individuals. I do not think the Patriot Act fits either of these criteria.
Although the Patriot Act has been heavily criticized since it was passed, and it has been discussed quite extensively in the media, I believe we could refer back to our discussion of language to explain this one. As we learned weeks ago in class, legislation is often worded in ways that are meant to exclude the general population from the law making process. Go ahead and google “Patriot Act pdf” and you will be guided to an unbearable to read 132-page document. Although we can have the document summarized to us by the media all we want, we can never have the true understanding of what the Patriot Act is for it to truly be panopticism, without actually understanding the full text, and this is something the majority of people just won’t read. Having a method of surveillance the majority of the population simply doesn’t understand cannot be regarded as panopticism, for if nobody understands what a security camera does, how could putting one up in your store influence people’s behavior around it? The political apathy in this country is astounding, this is not news to anyone, and with this apathy comes a lack of knowledge. As academics we often think that issues like the Patriot Act controversy are common knowledge, but in reality, the majority of Americans are simply unconcerned with these issues and therefore not influenced by them.
Although I am unfamiliar with how you can be penalized for different actions under the Patriot Act, I would assume that you cannot be punished for suspicious activity and you therefore would have to be monitored until the point at which you prepare to commit a crime, before you can be penalized. With this in mind, even if we assume the majority of the population actually understands the Patriot Act, it still is not powerful enough to modify people’s behavior. If people know that you cannot be penalized for suspicious activities, they will not fear the surveillance that comes along with the Patriot Act. If they do not fear the surveillance that comes with the Patriot Act, they will not modify their behavior because of its existence, therefore making it irrelevant to the daily lives of most citizens.
Imtashal's use of the cat video to illustrate this point is eery, brilliant, an invitation to both expand and make intimate our associations.
Becoming so suddenly ill has made me think a lot about my "docile" body. I wonder whether or not I have the physical agency I have always taken for granted. I find myself in the shadow of the massive institutions that surround that body, including both industrial (medical, pharmaceutical, insurance) and cultural (how we define an attractive or even useful body).
There is a classic text by Elaine Scarry, called The Body in Pain, that provides perhaps the best map ever of how political interrogation and torture shape internal consciousness. What is key to the tyrannical narrative is that, first, everything must be broken down until the individual is rendered empty of self. Only then is the body truly, irrevocably violated... ultimately replaced by the consciousness of the regime. It's what happens to Winston at the end of 1984, too.
Because the prison makes the actual body the site of invasion (from the first strip search to the loose pants to the high carb diet to the, well, you fill in the blank) it represents the very essence of totalitarianism. We can fight, seek agency, rebel, riot, insist on wearing a too small hat. But raw power can still render us helpless at the most unexpected times.
Continuing with my theme of literary chains and how literature attempts to show us how we are agents in our own imprisonment, here is a scene from A CHRISTMAS CAROL, in which Scrooge (surely today's 1%er) meets the ghost of his old business partner:
‘‘You are fettered,’’ said Scrooge, trembling. ‘‘Tell me why.’’
‘‘I wear the chain I forged in life,’’ replied the Ghost. ‘‘I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?’’
Scrooge trembled more and more.
Post a Comment