The Construction of the Indivitual Among the books discussed over the duration of the course, the most recurrent theme has been the dominance of power relationships and the construction of institutions driven by power. The framework for these socially ingrained power relationships that has been transformed over time has been laid out by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. According to Foucault, power is everywhere, dispersed in institutions and spread through discourses. The state functions on a number of dispositions which are hierarchical, naturalized and are the modes of power for the power elite. The result of this social and economic control is observed in nations and across nations through the beauty myth, the prison system, the creation of informal systems or the overarching cultural hegemony and attempted reform of the non-western world. The key to the success of this has been through the misrecognition of the constructed systems of power which are instated through very fundamental mediums that they are not questioned. These structures of control by the state are adopted and reproduced from the base of the familiar, through arrangements and dispositions that pose themselves as natural, as they are embodied and programmed in the play of language, in common sense, and in all what is socially taken for granted. In this essay I will examine these above mentioned structures of the power and how these models are used to discipline individuals and states. According to Foucault, the individual is created and removed from the society by subjecting him to certain norms. This ensures that the individual is created to fit into an already constructed power hierarchy as opposed to creating a society in which individuals a... ... middle of paper ... ...taken the form of universalization of those same structures across the world through reforming measures or through discourses in the Muslim world, thus creating conflicts as noted by Majid. The main weapon of this power relationship is observing and differentiating between good and bad, thus ingraining binary oppositions with the western values at the superior end. Thus, the western hegemony is like a beauty myth which is an unattainable western standard which is not only undesirable but harmful for the non-west. Still, they are coerced to adopt this standard due to a constant gaze and pressure from the West. Therefore, there is a need to revert this gaze and dismantle the western hegemony and power structures through the proliferation of ideas; ideas that take root not merely from the power elite or existing structures but stem from individual and provincial needs.
This essay focuses on two theories of Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault on how society is ordered; it will attempt to show how these two theorists approached understanding society and how it is ordered, as well as look for any similarities or differences between the two theories. When looking at how social order is constructed, it is not only important to study the role of the individual, but also the role of the state or government. The part they play in the order and rules of every day interactions. Social order refers to unspoken rules of conduct in everyday life, or stable social situation in which connections are maintained without change or if change occurs it is in predictable way. (Taylor, 2009, p.173). in addition these case studies; Buchanan report (1963), Monderman thesis (1980) will be linked to Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, to help us to understand how order is attained and maintained by individuals, authorities and institutions, in certain places, and in different contexts as well as how social order is constructed at different historical moments. This essay concentrates on Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, claims, and concepts, by comparing and contrasting their ideas on social order and who makes the order, the evidence that they draw upon, and the different levels of social life each theorist chooses to focus upon. Both Goffman and Foucault are concerned with the wider questions of how society is produced and reproduced, but specifically how social order is made and remade. At the same time, both also seek broader ways of understanding singular issues in interaction. Goffman focused on the individual, interactional order, and performances, while in contrast Foucault focuses on discourses, power, knowle...
Foucault starts out the first chapter, The body of the condemned, by contrasting Damiens gruesome public torture with a detailed schedule of a prison that took place just eighty years later. Foucault is bringing the reader’s attention to the distinct change in punishment put in place in less than a century. It gets the reader to start thinking about the differences between how society used to punish people and the way that we do today. Foucault states that earlier in time the right to punish was directly connected to the authority of the King. Crimes committed during this time were not crimes against the public good, but a personal disrespect to the King himself. The public displays of torture and execution were public affirmations of the King’s authority to rule and to punish. It was after many years when the people subjected to torture suddenly became sympathized, especially if the punishment was too excessive for the crime committed.
3. Foucault argues in the conclusion that discipline is not just about control—it also produces new kinds of knowledge. He cites the rise of psychiatry and clinical medicine as examples. Apply Foucault’s ideas to your everyday life. How has discipline and surveillance produced who you are today and your ability to take action?
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
Foucault discusses the whole idea of power stressing much on the positions of those people who hold power in any societal setting and how they relate with their subjects to try and ensure that the power is exercised effectively without abandoning or neglecting a section of the subjects being ruled. He also discusses the issue of sex and connects it to power giving details of how sex and politics interrelate. Foucault, in his discussion, gives a detailed analysis on the relationship between power and objectives that those holding power seek to achieve in the long run. He goes ahead to describe the tactics that those in power and generally politics need to employ in order to realize results in view of both the governors and the governed. In his
In his 1975 book, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, French philosopher Michel Foucault proposed that the prison system -- along with other social institutions like the hospital, school, and army barracks – acts as a form of social control. Rather than being punished or rehabilitated, inmates are reeducated into an obedient docility, thus maintaining the social hierarchy. Though Foucault’s claims may appear rather reductive and dystopian, he is careful to note that the sole reason the prison (and other social institutions) are able propagate this induced docility is because their true purpose is kept largely clandestine: the prison’s ideal function is to punish and rehabilitate; however, its actual function is the establishment
In Foucault’s analysis, the concept of Panopticon is developed based on the manipulation of knowledge and power as two coexisting events. He believes that knowledge is obtained through the process of observation and examination in a system of panopticon. This knowledge is then used to regulate the behaviors and conduct of others, creating an imbalance in power and authority. Not only can knowledge create power, power can also be used to define knowledge where the authority can create “truth”. This unbalance of knowledge and power then marks a loss of power for the ends being watched, resulting in an unconditional acceptance of regulations and normalization.
His impressive career Foucault became known for his many demonstrative arguments that power depends not on material relations or authority but instead primarily on discursive networks. This new perspective as applied to old questions such as madness, social discipline, body-image, truth, normative sexuality etc. were instrumental in designing the post-modern intellectual landscape we are still in nowadays. Today Michel Foucault is liste...
Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?
In "Truth and Power" Michel Foucault revisits the major theoretical trends and questions of his career. He is a thinker who knows no bounds of subject or field. His ideas stretch from literature to science, from psychology to labor. He deals in a currency that is accepted everywhere: truth and power. Foucault spends much of his career tracing the threads of truth and power as they intertwine with the history of human experience. He especially loves to study asylums and prisons because they are close to an encapsulated power structure. Using techniques culled from psychology, politics, anthropology, sociology, and archaeology, Foucault presents a highly politicized analysis of the flow of power and power relations.
Foucault’s conception of power differs from the Critical theorists conception of criminal violence in the fact that Foucault believes that power is used as a deterrent against crime and is used to keep people in order due to the fear that they are constantly being watched from the “viewing tower” and that power is everywhere. However critical theorist conception of criminal violence is that, “Both crime and the criminal law are shaped by the structure of the political economy, with particular emphasis on the importance of class, ethnicity, race, and gender.” This meaning that unlike Foucault’s power, the power in the Critical theorists is controlled by a select few and its creates crime rather then deter it and
Most have heard the classical paradox of the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The same question can apply to the individual and society. Which comes first? To answer the question, a concept of the individual must be established and the origins of society must be explored. Only then can one compare and contrast their roles in relation to the other. Two revolutionary thinkers, Soren Kierkegaard and Bertolt Brecht, will give their arguments of opposition to try to determine whether the power between society and the individual is pulled in one particular direction than the other. In conclusion, an answer will be produced to the question: the chicken, society, or the egg, the individual? The concept of the individual is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability. Th individual is a historical being in that he developes a personality as he grows and circulates within his or her family, peer group, neighborhood and eventually within the society as a whole. He developes in the process patterns of feeling, thinking, and habits. An individual is also a cultural being. Culture includes religion, philosophy, science, technology, art, education, politics, etc within a given society. The concept of the individual emerged, across western society at the end of the middle ages (1200-1400), with the rise and expansion of a new social class: the bourgeoise. During the historical emergence of a new social class, the bourgeoisie, co-developing was a new form of society. The feudal society, which had come to an end, saw the emergence of the hierarchy of social groups, making people dependent on others. On the shoulders of the common man grew an enormous parasit...
On the other hand, an advantage of Foucault's record of disciplinary force is that it works in a great manner. It helps a single person to shape as particular subjects. Control through force authorizes and torture crushes the primary purpose of the discipline while control through order and preparing points the spirit and helps a single person to generate new activities, propensities and abilities and turn into another better individual to come back to social order.
Power plays a very important role in society and is closely tied to other key concepts such as knowledge and freedom. It is therefore important to investigate its origin and operation. The conventional view of power as something that is law-like and is primarily restrictive and negative is a limited view of its real form, which Foucault claims is far more dynamic and omnipresent. Power is not just contained in the state, its institutions, and the law but is a multiplicative force that is inherent in the relations existing at all levels of a society. It is complex and productive and circulates in every direction, producing all sorts of results.
This essay will attempt to look at the above view in depth, to answer the question of what the characteristic of modern punishment is for Durkheim. The essay will then move onto Foucault and his views. I will deal with each view separately, as is not easy to contrast and compare their views because they have a very different outlook on society.