m,
I will confess the slant I take with Foucault -- I like DP in particular
because it does have pragmatic applications. The question of initiation is
a rhetorical one dealing with a one time event. I believe that there is
some sort of initiation of the dsiciplinary machinery each time a subject is
introduced to the 'machinery.' For example (and I do like practical
examples), when a prisoner is introduced into the prison, or a student into
a classroom, or an initiate into a monestary, there has to be some sort of
reaquaintance with 'sovereign power' (see below here), a reminder, even
though the subject has internalized much of the disciplinary mechnaisms,
e.g. surveillance. This reaquaintance would not have to be something as
explicit as "Do this and I will punish you." It exists within the syllbus of
the course you are teaching, it exists in the presence of the gun on the
guard's waist as the prisoner walks in the prison door, etc.
>It seems we have different emphases in our examination of the Panopticon.
>My interst is not in its initiation (I almost don't care how it was
>initiated) but the way the system works once it is in operation (perphaps
>because of my interest in what Mark Poster calls the "superpanopticon" i.e.
>the way our society functions in the information age, where the existence
of
>a central tower is even less in evidence).
>
>The "time line" of this mechanism of power is interesting. It's as if the
>explanation of the guard in the tower (and the gaze which begins with the
>guard in the tower before it is internalized) is a story of a myth of
>origins of this mechanism of power. Again, I would emphasize that the
point
>(or--I'll qualify it--at least the point I am interested in) is not this
>"story of origins" but rather the generalizable way of functioning of this
>disciplinary mechanism in society. The importance is not on explaining how
>it may have been initiated but how it works now. And not how it works in
an
>actual prison setting but in the society at large.
I would say that there is a constant, perhaps low level, 're-initiation'
that is part of of the day-to-day functioning, and due to prevelance of
disciplinary institutions and structures in our soceity, I find it hard to
draw that line between the 'actual' and 'society at large.'
>Paying attention to an
>actual prison as the emphasis of this work falls into a certain pattern of
>reading which Foucault's work was interested in criticizing: not taking
>these things and putting them on the Other--as only asepcts of the madman,
>the prisoner, the homosexual--but seeing them in society in general. As
far
>as putting responsibility and initiation of the generalizable Panopticon on
>one sovereign--I don't see how you would go about identifying such a
>person/group.
I think this is interesting because I have used the term 'sovereign power'
loosely and I cannot easily locate the 'sovereign' as a person/entity. I
still believe that it is sovereign power operating, but I am not sure what
it means to have lost the sovereign. I'll have to think on that.
>Your point about "challenges" or if we rephrase it in more Foucauldian
>terms--"resistance"--to the system is an interesting one, because Foucault
>has been criticized for not allowing (or at least not elaborating) a space
>of resistance to this particular technology of power. (See Angela Carter's
>novel _Nights at the Circus_ for a facinating and hilarious subversion of
>the Panpopticon.) But I'm not clear on why you think one has to posit a
>sovereign in order for resistance to be imagined. Why does resistance to
>the system have to be focused on the guard in the center? That sounds to
me
>like: if in fact where power is operating is in the internalization within
>each person, then the focus of resistance should be directed here and not
>towards some fictional/absent center.
Funny, while resistence is important, I was thinking more along the lines of
"accident." In human experience, accidents happen. The door to the cell
will be left open, the teacher leaves a test on the desk, situtations where
a subject is 'obedience' is tested, or more interestingly perhaps, a subject
is forced by accident to disobey -- to go against the internal controls.
What happens when nothing happens and this is taken as counter-evidence that
'there is someone in the guard' tower? People talk. Maybe it just enters
into the myth of sovereign power and does not pose a serious threat to the
system. BUt it seems that somewhere along the line it would....
Why focus on the SP rather than the internalized disciplinary power. I
would say you would have to focus on the start with the subject and move on
to the sovereign. Not so much to be rid either, but to remain in a state of
dialogue with them.
I don't know. I just spew this stuff off the top of my head. As I said in
the beginning, I do admit that I do have largely a pragmatic rather than
theorhetical appraoch to F.
>Coming back to what i mentioned at the beginning of the message, i wonder
>how you would read the superpanopticon--would you search for the guard in
>the center of this mechanism? in terms of initiation? in terms of
>resistance?
>
>In response to atefeh:
>
>By saying that the most important part of the Panopticon is "to see without
>being seen" the second part of his description of the Panopticon is left
>out.
>He describes it as a "dyad": "in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen,
>without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever
>being seen." (202). Since most live in the peripheric ring and not in the
>central tower, and further, I would argue, Foucault moves towards emptying
>out the central tower, the "most important part" would actually be the
other
>part: "one is totally seen, without ever seeing." (which is the emphasis of
>the rest of your message anyway--and i agree that it is the interiorization
>that is important and not the existence of the external see-er. and yes, it
>takes place in the mind (but is also inscribed in self-initiated practices
>on the body--let's not forget the Foucauldian body!))
Mark Jensen
wils0253@xxxxxxxxxx
oldbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will confess the slant I take with Foucault -- I like DP in particular
because it does have pragmatic applications. The question of initiation is
a rhetorical one dealing with a one time event. I believe that there is
some sort of initiation of the dsiciplinary machinery each time a subject is
introduced to the 'machinery.' For example (and I do like practical
examples), when a prisoner is introduced into the prison, or a student into
a classroom, or an initiate into a monestary, there has to be some sort of
reaquaintance with 'sovereign power' (see below here), a reminder, even
though the subject has internalized much of the disciplinary mechnaisms,
e.g. surveillance. This reaquaintance would not have to be something as
explicit as "Do this and I will punish you." It exists within the syllbus of
the course you are teaching, it exists in the presence of the gun on the
guard's waist as the prisoner walks in the prison door, etc.
>It seems we have different emphases in our examination of the Panopticon.
>My interst is not in its initiation (I almost don't care how it was
>initiated) but the way the system works once it is in operation (perphaps
>because of my interest in what Mark Poster calls the "superpanopticon" i.e.
>the way our society functions in the information age, where the existence
of
>a central tower is even less in evidence).
>
>The "time line" of this mechanism of power is interesting. It's as if the
>explanation of the guard in the tower (and the gaze which begins with the
>guard in the tower before it is internalized) is a story of a myth of
>origins of this mechanism of power. Again, I would emphasize that the
point
>(or--I'll qualify it--at least the point I am interested in) is not this
>"story of origins" but rather the generalizable way of functioning of this
>disciplinary mechanism in society. The importance is not on explaining how
>it may have been initiated but how it works now. And not how it works in
an
>actual prison setting but in the society at large.
I would say that there is a constant, perhaps low level, 're-initiation'
that is part of of the day-to-day functioning, and due to prevelance of
disciplinary institutions and structures in our soceity, I find it hard to
draw that line between the 'actual' and 'society at large.'
>Paying attention to an
>actual prison as the emphasis of this work falls into a certain pattern of
>reading which Foucault's work was interested in criticizing: not taking
>these things and putting them on the Other--as only asepcts of the madman,
>the prisoner, the homosexual--but seeing them in society in general. As
far
>as putting responsibility and initiation of the generalizable Panopticon on
>one sovereign--I don't see how you would go about identifying such a
>person/group.
I think this is interesting because I have used the term 'sovereign power'
loosely and I cannot easily locate the 'sovereign' as a person/entity. I
still believe that it is sovereign power operating, but I am not sure what
it means to have lost the sovereign. I'll have to think on that.
>Your point about "challenges" or if we rephrase it in more Foucauldian
>terms--"resistance"--to the system is an interesting one, because Foucault
>has been criticized for not allowing (or at least not elaborating) a space
>of resistance to this particular technology of power. (See Angela Carter's
>novel _Nights at the Circus_ for a facinating and hilarious subversion of
>the Panpopticon.) But I'm not clear on why you think one has to posit a
>sovereign in order for resistance to be imagined. Why does resistance to
>the system have to be focused on the guard in the center? That sounds to
me
>like: if in fact where power is operating is in the internalization within
>each person, then the focus of resistance should be directed here and not
>towards some fictional/absent center.
Funny, while resistence is important, I was thinking more along the lines of
"accident." In human experience, accidents happen. The door to the cell
will be left open, the teacher leaves a test on the desk, situtations where
a subject is 'obedience' is tested, or more interestingly perhaps, a subject
is forced by accident to disobey -- to go against the internal controls.
What happens when nothing happens and this is taken as counter-evidence that
'there is someone in the guard' tower? People talk. Maybe it just enters
into the myth of sovereign power and does not pose a serious threat to the
system. BUt it seems that somewhere along the line it would....
Why focus on the SP rather than the internalized disciplinary power. I
would say you would have to focus on the start with the subject and move on
to the sovereign. Not so much to be rid either, but to remain in a state of
dialogue with them.
I don't know. I just spew this stuff off the top of my head. As I said in
the beginning, I do admit that I do have largely a pragmatic rather than
theorhetical appraoch to F.
>Coming back to what i mentioned at the beginning of the message, i wonder
>how you would read the superpanopticon--would you search for the guard in
>the center of this mechanism? in terms of initiation? in terms of
>resistance?
>
>In response to atefeh:
>
>By saying that the most important part of the Panopticon is "to see without
>being seen" the second part of his description of the Panopticon is left
>out.
>He describes it as a "dyad": "in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen,
>without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever
>being seen." (202). Since most live in the peripheric ring and not in the
>central tower, and further, I would argue, Foucault moves towards emptying
>out the central tower, the "most important part" would actually be the
other
>part: "one is totally seen, without ever seeing." (which is the emphasis of
>the rest of your message anyway--and i agree that it is the interiorization
>that is important and not the existence of the external see-er. and yes, it
>takes place in the mind (but is also inscribed in self-initiated practices
>on the body--let's not forget the Foucauldian body!))
Mark Jensen
wils0253@xxxxxxxxxx
oldbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx