it is about the application of overwhelming psychological power aimed at the
utter disintegration of the character and resilience of a personality - in
Ireland it was successfully resisted by a counter power, that of the hunger
strike
----- Original Message -----
From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
> The (homo)sexualization of torture might be new to the Iraqis, but I doubt
> it, mainly because the Iraqi torturers were trained by the US government
in
> the 1980s, as the famous 'Michael Jackson' scene in the film _Three Kings_
> points out. US-trained torturers throughout Latin America - notably in
> Argentina under the military junta, but in many other places as well -
used
> all of these techniques, from the materials I've read. It's an attempt to
> literally destroy the self, a technology of destroying the self, aimed at
> destroying the capacity for resistance.
> DM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
>
>
> > hmm . . .since the panopticon is supposed to be *pan*optic, what we are
> > seeing is the beginning of panoptics in Abu Ghraib, not its 'reversal'.
> > Indeed, many of the complaints are precisely that the panoptic
principles
> of
> > imprisonment were not observed, although there was a level of
visibility,
> in
> > that prisoners themselves saw what was going on as did the guards, and
so
> > did their superiors (apparently), and copious photography was done,
which
> > has now made the practices of the prison visible to the world at large.
> > The interesting question about Abu Ghraib is what sort of power is in
play
> > here? It would not seem to be disciplinary, but nor is it the sovereign
> > power, as practised by Saddam Hussein, which involved marking bodies by
> > violence etc. While the Americans certainly have inflicted brutality,
this
> > aspect of humiliation of inmates is something rather new. The use of
dogs
> > and homosexuality is an attack on the inmates via their cultural norms,
> > doing things which were unspeakable to them, and as some inmates have
> > pointed out, were things that the Ba'ath regime would not have done,
> despite
> > itssavagery. It seems like an attack at the level of culture, but more
> than
> > that I don't feel immediately able to characterise it, or ts objectives.
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "max neill" <meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:34 AM
> > Subject: Panopticon Reversed
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Any opinions on the apparent reversal of the 'Panopticon Effect' at
Abu
> > Ghraib, where now the gaze of the world is focussed on the jailers?
> > >
> > > "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which
we
> > had
> > > not conceived of" Gadamer
> > >
> > >
>
>
utter disintegration of the character and resilience of a personality - in
Ireland it was successfully resisted by a counter power, that of the hunger
strike
----- Original Message -----
From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
> The (homo)sexualization of torture might be new to the Iraqis, but I doubt
> it, mainly because the Iraqi torturers were trained by the US government
in
> the 1980s, as the famous 'Michael Jackson' scene in the film _Three Kings_
> points out. US-trained torturers throughout Latin America - notably in
> Argentina under the military junta, but in many other places as well -
used
> all of these techniques, from the materials I've read. It's an attempt to
> literally destroy the self, a technology of destroying the self, aimed at
> destroying the capacity for resistance.
> DM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
>
>
> > hmm . . .since the panopticon is supposed to be *pan*optic, what we are
> > seeing is the beginning of panoptics in Abu Ghraib, not its 'reversal'.
> > Indeed, many of the complaints are precisely that the panoptic
principles
> of
> > imprisonment were not observed, although there was a level of
visibility,
> in
> > that prisoners themselves saw what was going on as did the guards, and
so
> > did their superiors (apparently), and copious photography was done,
which
> > has now made the practices of the prison visible to the world at large.
> > The interesting question about Abu Ghraib is what sort of power is in
play
> > here? It would not seem to be disciplinary, but nor is it the sovereign
> > power, as practised by Saddam Hussein, which involved marking bodies by
> > violence etc. While the Americans certainly have inflicted brutality,
this
> > aspect of humiliation of inmates is something rather new. The use of
dogs
> > and homosexuality is an attack on the inmates via their cultural norms,
> > doing things which were unspeakable to them, and as some inmates have
> > pointed out, were things that the Ba'ath regime would not have done,
> despite
> > itssavagery. It seems like an attack at the level of culture, but more
> than
> > that I don't feel immediately able to characterise it, or ts objectives.
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "max neill" <meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:34 AM
> > Subject: Panopticon Reversed
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Any opinions on the apparent reversal of the 'Panopticon Effect' at
Abu
> > Ghraib, where now the gaze of the world is focussed on the jailers?
> > >
> > > "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which
we
> > had
> > > not conceived of" Gadamer
> > >
> > >
>
>