comrades:
Over the past few months I have been puzzling over the function of Labor
in Discipline and Punish. F refers to a book by Kerscheimer, the
frankfurt school thoerist which traces the development of the penal
system to transformations in the nature of labour with the rise of
capitalism. I've puzzled through questions of panopticism,
regimentation, examination and training, and how they differently
operate around practices that,at least empirically, look like labor,
though, F assures us, they are not actually about labour, at least not
in the Marxist sense.
One crucial aspect to consider here seems to be the difference between
training and production: while the latter is teleological, the former is
not. training, at least the sort practiced in prisons, schools and so
on, cannot be connected with exploitation, in the Marxist sense, since
there is no surplus value generated, just ongoing subjection. This is
not to say that disciplinary techniques cannot be applied or even
developed in sites where production is undertaken, only that the two are
not identitical.
In any case, a small discovery came for me the other day when I read
"Eye of Power", a well known interview, in which Foucault says: "There
is always present this triple function of labor: the productive
function, the symbolic function and the function as 'dressage' or
discipline. The productive function equals practically zero of the
individuals I am concerned with, whereas the symbolic and disciplinary
functions are very important. But most often the three components go
together." He goes on to claim that the cases he examines are on the
margins of productivity, where labour is chiefly 'dressage' or
disciplinary (i.e. corrective).
Can anyone venture a more specific analysis of these three aspects of
power?
sb
Over the past few months I have been puzzling over the function of Labor
in Discipline and Punish. F refers to a book by Kerscheimer, the
frankfurt school thoerist which traces the development of the penal
system to transformations in the nature of labour with the rise of
capitalism. I've puzzled through questions of panopticism,
regimentation, examination and training, and how they differently
operate around practices that,at least empirically, look like labor,
though, F assures us, they are not actually about labour, at least not
in the Marxist sense.
One crucial aspect to consider here seems to be the difference between
training and production: while the latter is teleological, the former is
not. training, at least the sort practiced in prisons, schools and so
on, cannot be connected with exploitation, in the Marxist sense, since
there is no surplus value generated, just ongoing subjection. This is
not to say that disciplinary techniques cannot be applied or even
developed in sites where production is undertaken, only that the two are
not identitical.
In any case, a small discovery came for me the other day when I read
"Eye of Power", a well known interview, in which Foucault says: "There
is always present this triple function of labor: the productive
function, the symbolic function and the function as 'dressage' or
discipline. The productive function equals practically zero of the
individuals I am concerned with, whereas the symbolic and disciplinary
functions are very important. But most often the three components go
together." He goes on to claim that the cases he examines are on the
margins of productivity, where labour is chiefly 'dressage' or
disciplinary (i.e. corrective).
Can anyone venture a more specific analysis of these three aspects of
power?
sb