At 06:08 AM 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.
>Mark Jensen
>wils0253@xxxxxxxxxx
>oldbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
I would have to disagree. The point of the Panopticon is not the presence
of the guard. Foucault starts out by indicating the supervisor in the
tower, and then slowly begins to elimiate this position. First he moves to
the unverifiability of the presence of the guard: "it is at once too much
and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an
inspector" (201). Then he indicates the disindividualization of power: "it
does not matter who exercises power. Any individual taken almost at random,
can operate the machine" (202). Then he moves to the position that in fact
the way the panotpicon works is not that the disciplinary gaze comes from
the guard tower, but in fact, moves to within the prisoners themselves, i.e.
the external gaze becomes internalized: "He who is subjected to a field of
visibliity, and who knows it, assumes resposibility for the constraints of
power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in
himself the power relation in which he simultanously plays both roles; he
becomes the principle of his own subjection" (202-3). Thus the "guard" is
within the prisoner themselves (as one of the "roles.") (Also note how the
"guard" becomes "a field of visibility," thus dehumanizing this technology
of power.)
m
****************************
Margaret Toye
English Department
University of Western Ontario
mtoye@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>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.
>Mark Jensen
>wils0253@xxxxxxxxxx
>oldbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
I would have to disagree. The point of the Panopticon is not the presence
of the guard. Foucault starts out by indicating the supervisor in the
tower, and then slowly begins to elimiate this position. First he moves to
the unverifiability of the presence of the guard: "it is at once too much
and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an
inspector" (201). Then he indicates the disindividualization of power: "it
does not matter who exercises power. Any individual taken almost at random,
can operate the machine" (202). Then he moves to the position that in fact
the way the panotpicon works is not that the disciplinary gaze comes from
the guard tower, but in fact, moves to within the prisoners themselves, i.e.
the external gaze becomes internalized: "He who is subjected to a field of
visibliity, and who knows it, assumes resposibility for the constraints of
power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in
himself the power relation in which he simultanously plays both roles; he
becomes the principle of his own subjection" (202-3). Thus the "guard" is
within the prisoner themselves (as one of the "roles.") (Also note how the
"guard" becomes "a field of visibility," thus dehumanizing this technology
of power.)
m
****************************
Margaret Toye
English Department
University of Western Ontario
mtoye@xxxxxxxxxxxxx