I wonder if Foucault can help us understand what's going on. Are these
tortures instruments of discipline or is this maybe a kind of class
struggle, or do the gards think it's their duty to make life hell for
the prisoners? The question is not if it's right to torture prisoners,
but why it happens. Life would be a lot easier for a guard if he could
what many other Turkish employees do: just sip tea and play backgammon.
Does the panopticon entry the Turkish prison and are the prisoners
afraid to loose the safeness of being in a group? This safeness clearly
doesn't prevetn torture. Or maybe they're just resisting the system no
matter what? I always get very suspicious when people get agitated just
because they speculate something bad will happen. If torture increases
because of private cells, then you have a reason to protest, but torture
has flourished without. Nobody knows what will happen. Tho governement
seems to want a western discipline machine, but in this kind of prison
there cannot be torture, accordign to Foucault. So in the long run
private cells could be seen as a step towards abolishing torture. I've
not seen any intelligent analyses of the situation up to now. The only
thin that's in the media are these kind of torture stories, which are
sad enough, but they're not good arguments. There used to be some
Turkish Foucault readers ion the list. Have gone asleep?
erik
Asher Haig wrote:
> on 1/5/01 10:46 AM, Lind, Joshua H. at jhlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Huseyin Diri said his brother, imprisoned near the northwestern Turkish city
>> of Izmit, told of being beaten every morning for refusing to sing the
>> national anthem.
>>
>> ``When he refused, or if he didn't stand up when the guard walked in, they
>> started beating him,'' Diri said. He said his brother's face was covered
>> with bruises and that he had to be carried into a visiting room.
>
>
> Someone requested an explanation of how such performative resistance can
> explain what is occuring in the Turkish prisons. While I am not particularly
> familiar with the situation I can point out a few things from my perspective
> that can only be seen through a performative lens.
>
> Namely, the two examples given here can be read as acts of resistance only
> in such performative terms. The refusal to stand up or sing the national
> anthem, when put in this context, becomes a political act. It is a refusal
> to be part of a system that mistreats prisoners, that beats prisoners, that
> denies any other possibility for resistance within the prison. Revolution,
> per se, might be impossible, but the prisoners are not without their own
> agency. These forms of resistance become the only possible resistance and
> are traditionally interpreted as being a-political acts.
>
> ---
>
> Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dartmouth 2004
>
>
>
>
tortures instruments of discipline or is this maybe a kind of class
struggle, or do the gards think it's their duty to make life hell for
the prisoners? The question is not if it's right to torture prisoners,
but why it happens. Life would be a lot easier for a guard if he could
what many other Turkish employees do: just sip tea and play backgammon.
Does the panopticon entry the Turkish prison and are the prisoners
afraid to loose the safeness of being in a group? This safeness clearly
doesn't prevetn torture. Or maybe they're just resisting the system no
matter what? I always get very suspicious when people get agitated just
because they speculate something bad will happen. If torture increases
because of private cells, then you have a reason to protest, but torture
has flourished without. Nobody knows what will happen. Tho governement
seems to want a western discipline machine, but in this kind of prison
there cannot be torture, accordign to Foucault. So in the long run
private cells could be seen as a step towards abolishing torture. I've
not seen any intelligent analyses of the situation up to now. The only
thin that's in the media are these kind of torture stories, which are
sad enough, but they're not good arguments. There used to be some
Turkish Foucault readers ion the list. Have gone asleep?
erik
Asher Haig wrote:
> on 1/5/01 10:46 AM, Lind, Joshua H. at jhlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Huseyin Diri said his brother, imprisoned near the northwestern Turkish city
>> of Izmit, told of being beaten every morning for refusing to sing the
>> national anthem.
>>
>> ``When he refused, or if he didn't stand up when the guard walked in, they
>> started beating him,'' Diri said. He said his brother's face was covered
>> with bruises and that he had to be carried into a visiting room.
>
>
> Someone requested an explanation of how such performative resistance can
> explain what is occuring in the Turkish prisons. While I am not particularly
> familiar with the situation I can point out a few things from my perspective
> that can only be seen through a performative lens.
>
> Namely, the two examples given here can be read as acts of resistance only
> in such performative terms. The refusal to stand up or sing the national
> anthem, when put in this context, becomes a political act. It is a refusal
> to be part of a system that mistreats prisoners, that beats prisoners, that
> denies any other possibility for resistance within the prison. Revolution,
> per se, might be impossible, but the prisoners are not without their own
> agency. These forms of resistance become the only possible resistance and
> are traditionally interpreted as being a-political acts.
>
> ---
>
> Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dartmouth 2004
>
>
>
>