On Fri, 8 May 1998, Aaron Balick wrote:
> Dear Fellow Foucault People,
> I'm hastily writing an essay on a foucaultian perspective on power
> structures in Orwell's 1984. I'm basically basing the work on the
> panopticon, and the way in which people are watched and controlled in
> the Oceanic society. The problem is that I think the power structures
> in 1984 are too open and apparent to discuss on a Foucaultian
> perspective.
But what makes you think things aren't open and apparent in the
Foucaultian notion of the exercise of power? Everyone can see the Guard
tower set up in a panopticon!
Another way to approach this might be: to the extent that Orwell talks
about totalitarian Stalinist regimes where people lie and reshape history
to fit ever-shifting current needs, to that extent Orwell is out of date.
But there's plenty of other stuff in 1984 that would fit quite nicely with
an exaggerated kind of Foucaultian vision.
It is true, however, that conditions in 1984 are bleak -- not just in a
panoptic sense but also in terms of just economic conditions. A lot of
slums, no supplies, no socks or underwear, not enough food.
The real problem I imagine is the existence of a kind of sovereign center
in the form of Big Brother. Orwell is talking at least in part about
socialism and so quite important elements of his dark parody are directed,
not unreasonably, against that particular manifestation of twentieth
century oppression.
Surely twentieth century totalitarian regimes sought to reduce the body as
a political force and enhance its power as a productive force. In this
sense they do not differ from Western versions of biopower discussed in
_DP_ and _Will to Knowledge_ . But there's a clumsiness and
heavy-handedness in the Eastern bloc version that forbids us including
them in the more up-to-date and less centrally culpable Western regimes.
You'll remember that the protagonist in 1984 questions, then hates, then
loves Big Brother. This excessive focus on the leader consigns 1984 to a
kind of "passe" status from a Foucaultian perspective, I would imagine.
For one thing, opposition is made too easy, too "traditional."
Perhaps the task is to separate out the "negative religious" overtones
from the more enduring techniques of control introduced in 1984.
--JSR
Does anyone have any suggestions, or know about any texts
> that would be relevent to Orwell?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Aaron
>
>
^><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><
< John S. Ransom, Political Science; Denny 107; 245-1716 <
< Prelaw Adviser; Bologna Coordinator >
< Office Hours: Monday 11am-Noon, Tuesday, 10-11am, >
< Thursday, 2-3pm >
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Dear Fellow Foucault People,
> I'm hastily writing an essay on a foucaultian perspective on power
> structures in Orwell's 1984. I'm basically basing the work on the
> panopticon, and the way in which people are watched and controlled in
> the Oceanic society. The problem is that I think the power structures
> in 1984 are too open and apparent to discuss on a Foucaultian
> perspective.
But what makes you think things aren't open and apparent in the
Foucaultian notion of the exercise of power? Everyone can see the Guard
tower set up in a panopticon!
Another way to approach this might be: to the extent that Orwell talks
about totalitarian Stalinist regimes where people lie and reshape history
to fit ever-shifting current needs, to that extent Orwell is out of date.
But there's plenty of other stuff in 1984 that would fit quite nicely with
an exaggerated kind of Foucaultian vision.
It is true, however, that conditions in 1984 are bleak -- not just in a
panoptic sense but also in terms of just economic conditions. A lot of
slums, no supplies, no socks or underwear, not enough food.
The real problem I imagine is the existence of a kind of sovereign center
in the form of Big Brother. Orwell is talking at least in part about
socialism and so quite important elements of his dark parody are directed,
not unreasonably, against that particular manifestation of twentieth
century oppression.
Surely twentieth century totalitarian regimes sought to reduce the body as
a political force and enhance its power as a productive force. In this
sense they do not differ from Western versions of biopower discussed in
_DP_ and _Will to Knowledge_ . But there's a clumsiness and
heavy-handedness in the Eastern bloc version that forbids us including
them in the more up-to-date and less centrally culpable Western regimes.
You'll remember that the protagonist in 1984 questions, then hates, then
loves Big Brother. This excessive focus on the leader consigns 1984 to a
kind of "passe" status from a Foucaultian perspective, I would imagine.
For one thing, opposition is made too easy, too "traditional."
Perhaps the task is to separate out the "negative religious" overtones
from the more enduring techniques of control introduced in 1984.
--JSR
Does anyone have any suggestions, or know about any texts
> that would be relevent to Orwell?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Aaron
>
>
^><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><
< John S. Ransom, Political Science; Denny 107; 245-1716 <
< Prelaw Adviser; Bologna Coordinator >
< Office Hours: Monday 11am-Noon, Tuesday, 10-11am, >
< Thursday, 2-3pm >
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^