In your message of 5:09 Jul 9 1996, you write:
> Deleuze had recently begun to write on the notion of 'control
> societies,' which operate by the constraint of circulation and flow,
> rather than the focus on training and inscription so stressed by
> Foucault. A control society is a society of the password, not the
> prison.
>
> I don't really read this as being opposed to Foucault's writings on
> discipline; rather, a refinement. The story of discipline is largely
> the story of the 19th and early 20th century. The ability of control
> as such to become a primary aspect of society, rather than
> discipline, also would seem to depend on the refinement of techniques
> of power--not their penetration into society, as if power were apart
> from society, but the invention and development of fragmented,
> micro-concepts like niche marketing...
>
> ///connor
>
> >
> > Okay, I guess my point is this: that I would think the disciplinary
> > efficacy of panoptic surveillance in such locations as prisons has been
> > decreased due to the fact that we are already such highly disciplined
> > creatures. So...I'm not sure that we ought not to be wondering what
> > other form of power besides disciplinary power is now being used, i.e.,
> > a form of power that we are not aware of. I know Deleuze talks about
> > some of this stuff, but I just wondered what others think.
> >
> > I suppose that I'm concerned that we are now so adept at recognizing
> > disciplinary power, thanks largely to Foucault, that those of us "in the
> > know" about such things are in danger of thinking we've solved the
> > problem of power.
> >
> > And, being a student of F's, of course that concerns me. We have
> > learned to surveil disciplinary power; so no doubt power has morphed.
> >
> >
> > Blaine Rehkopf
> > York University
> > CANADA
> > --
> >
> _________________________________________________________
> E.M. Connor Durflinger Philosopher for Hire
> "Have Forestructures, Will Travel"
> Reverend, Universal Life Church
> bc05319@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx PIC Program at B.U.
> _________________________________________________________
Connor,
Yes, this is the stuff by Deleuze that I was thinking of. (If anyone is
following this thread of discussion, you might be interested in reading
a short piece by Deleuze about the societies of control -- it is
untitled, so far as I can tell, and it is in _October_ Issue 59 (Winter,
1992)).
I think what you've written here is pretty much correct. I wonder if
you could say just a bit more, though. Are you suggesting (or do you
think Deleuze is) that Control is conceivable as a sort of perfection of
Discipline?
I'm asking because I've written a paper contrasting Mark Poster's work
in _Critical Theory and Poststructuralism_ with Deleuze's work in the
above essay. I argue that Poster's version of events is that electronic
information (loosely a catch-all term for modern forms of surveillance:
everything from video cameras to computer databases compiling
information on one's spending habits) is simply a continuation and
refinement of the panoptic metaphor, ultimately comprising what Poster
calls a Superpanopticon.
On the other hand (or so I argue) Deleuze is proposing something
different than simple panoptic extensionism and perfection. I suggest
that for Deleuze, the transition from Discipline to Control is a
qualitative shift more than a quantitative one, more reminiscent of the
change from Sovereignty to Discipline. Sure, some of the techniques of
Discipline played upon and refined some of the techniques of
Sovereignty, but that's not to say that Discipline was simply a
perfection of Sovereignty -- surely pointing out that discontinuity was
part of the ingenuity of Foucault's entire corpus.
I think something is lost if we assume that Control is simply
theorizable through the metaphors and terms of Discipline. Of course
I've been wrong before, though!
So, my question is this: supposing we are now dealing with Control
rather than (or, in addition to?) Discipline; is Control best
theorized as an extension of Discipline, or as something more-or-less
altogether different than Discipline? Or is asking the question in this
way itself to misunderstand what is going on?
Blaine Rehkopf
Philosophy
York University
CANADA
--
> Deleuze had recently begun to write on the notion of 'control
> societies,' which operate by the constraint of circulation and flow,
> rather than the focus on training and inscription so stressed by
> Foucault. A control society is a society of the password, not the
> prison.
>
> I don't really read this as being opposed to Foucault's writings on
> discipline; rather, a refinement. The story of discipline is largely
> the story of the 19th and early 20th century. The ability of control
> as such to become a primary aspect of society, rather than
> discipline, also would seem to depend on the refinement of techniques
> of power--not their penetration into society, as if power were apart
> from society, but the invention and development of fragmented,
> micro-concepts like niche marketing...
>
> ///connor
>
> >
> > Okay, I guess my point is this: that I would think the disciplinary
> > efficacy of panoptic surveillance in such locations as prisons has been
> > decreased due to the fact that we are already such highly disciplined
> > creatures. So...I'm not sure that we ought not to be wondering what
> > other form of power besides disciplinary power is now being used, i.e.,
> > a form of power that we are not aware of. I know Deleuze talks about
> > some of this stuff, but I just wondered what others think.
> >
> > I suppose that I'm concerned that we are now so adept at recognizing
> > disciplinary power, thanks largely to Foucault, that those of us "in the
> > know" about such things are in danger of thinking we've solved the
> > problem of power.
> >
> > And, being a student of F's, of course that concerns me. We have
> > learned to surveil disciplinary power; so no doubt power has morphed.
> >
> >
> > Blaine Rehkopf
> > York University
> > CANADA
> > --
> >
> _________________________________________________________
> E.M. Connor Durflinger Philosopher for Hire
> "Have Forestructures, Will Travel"
> Reverend, Universal Life Church
> bc05319@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx PIC Program at B.U.
> _________________________________________________________
Connor,
Yes, this is the stuff by Deleuze that I was thinking of. (If anyone is
following this thread of discussion, you might be interested in reading
a short piece by Deleuze about the societies of control -- it is
untitled, so far as I can tell, and it is in _October_ Issue 59 (Winter,
1992)).
I think what you've written here is pretty much correct. I wonder if
you could say just a bit more, though. Are you suggesting (or do you
think Deleuze is) that Control is conceivable as a sort of perfection of
Discipline?
I'm asking because I've written a paper contrasting Mark Poster's work
in _Critical Theory and Poststructuralism_ with Deleuze's work in the
above essay. I argue that Poster's version of events is that electronic
information (loosely a catch-all term for modern forms of surveillance:
everything from video cameras to computer databases compiling
information on one's spending habits) is simply a continuation and
refinement of the panoptic metaphor, ultimately comprising what Poster
calls a Superpanopticon.
On the other hand (or so I argue) Deleuze is proposing something
different than simple panoptic extensionism and perfection. I suggest
that for Deleuze, the transition from Discipline to Control is a
qualitative shift more than a quantitative one, more reminiscent of the
change from Sovereignty to Discipline. Sure, some of the techniques of
Discipline played upon and refined some of the techniques of
Sovereignty, but that's not to say that Discipline was simply a
perfection of Sovereignty -- surely pointing out that discontinuity was
part of the ingenuity of Foucault's entire corpus.
I think something is lost if we assume that Control is simply
theorizable through the metaphors and terms of Discipline. Of course
I've been wrong before, though!
So, my question is this: supposing we are now dealing with Control
rather than (or, in addition to?) Discipline; is Control best
theorized as an extension of Discipline, or as something more-or-less
altogether different than Discipline? Or is asking the question in this
way itself to misunderstand what is going on?
Blaine Rehkopf
Philosophy
York University
CANADA
--