RE: The power of one

This is interesting but if ia m not wrong, Foucualt says that one of
the most important element of " panoptique" is to see without being see
(chapt. III) I have the french text so forgive me if the reference is in
french:

"La visibiliti est un pihge" p. 202. Want is necessary id that the
prisoner THINKS and BELIEVES that s/he is being gazed/watched: "Induire
chez le ditenu un itat conscient et permanent de visibiliti aui assure le
fonctionnement automatique du pouvoir" (idem) one the process of
"interiorisation" ( internalisation) takes place within the mind ( un
<bold>itat </bold>conscient et permanent) the power will function
without being seen ( and even better).


Here I found the exact reference:


P.203: " le panoptique est une machine ` dissocier le cuple voir-etre vu:
dans l'anneau pirifirique , on est totalement vu sans jamais voir;<bold>
dans la tour centrale on voit tout sans etre jamais vu</bold>." And the
power is <bold>expected </bold> to reside in the central tower. To me
this explain how people can belive in god. Do they need/ask to see
it?

(It's about seven pages after the beginning of the chapter. )


atefeh




At 06:08 22/05/1998, you wrote:

>My take on this is that there has to be some aspect of sovereign power
that

>acts as an "engine" for disciplinary power -- an empty guard tower in
the

>Panopticon would not work; it has to be occupied at some times and a
guard

>has to appear at some times in order for disciplinary power to work. It
is

>an efficient use of power, not one where the "traditional" uses of power
are

>nonexistent. Somewhere in DP Foucault writes something like: the
mechanisms

>of disciplinary power (he used another word) do not *replace* the

>traditional mechanisms of power, but rather takes them over, or co-opts

>them.

>

>Here is the quote I was thinking of (yes, I got up off my lazy butt):
"Not

>because the disciplinary modality of power has replaced all others; but

>because it has infiltrated the others, sometimes undermining them, but

>serving as an intermediary between them, linking them together,
extending

>them and above all making it possible to bring the effects of power to
the

>most minute and distant elements. It assures an infinitesimal
distribution

>of the powers relations (DP 216)."

>

>To extend something is not to get rid of it.

>

>Mark

>

>

>On Fri, 22 May 1998 02:04:26 -0400 (EDT),

>foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote...

>>On p. 138 of the Vintage edition of D&P, the following passage
appears:

>>"A 'political anatomy', which was also a 'mechanics of power', was
being

>>born; it defined how one may have a hold over others' bodies, not only
so

>>that they may do what one wishes, but so that they may operate as one

>>wishes, with the techniques, the speed and the efficiency that one

>>determines." This makes it sound as if this "mechanics of power"
involves

>>someone who has power exercising it, for a certain purpose, over
someone

>>who does not; i.e. it sounds like a more traditional view of power,
where

>>power is just a matter of one person (or group) forcing another person
to

>>do something.

>>

>>So I'm wondering: is the translation somehow misleading here (which is
my

>>guess), is this just sloppiness on Foucault's part, or is it evidence
of

>>some kind of equivocation?

>>

>>----Matthew A. King------Department of Philosophy------McMaster

>>University----

>> "The border is often narrow between a permanent temptation to
commit

>> suicide and the birth of a certain form of political
consciousness."

>>-----------------------------(Michel

>>Foucault)--------------------------------

>>

>>

>

>Mark Jensen

>wils0253@xxxxxxxxxx

>oldbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

>

>

Partial thread listing: