Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for a community of students in Mike Levien's sections of Sociology 101B: "Sociological Theory," in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, Spring 2009.
Theory Rocks!
This is the informal blog spot for Mike Levien's section of Sociology 101B. For the rest of the semester, we'll use this blog to clarify the work(s) of Durkheim, Weber, Foucault, de Beauvoir, MacKinnon, and Collins. Feel free to endlessly post, and don't forget: Theory Rocks!
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(64)
-
▼
March
(22)
- Warning over narcissistic pupils
- Spirit of Capitalism in America
- Foucault's Sovereign and Disciplinary power in Mar...
- Sovereign Power Vs. Disciplinary Power
- Foucault on the Human Rights Campaign
- Foucault: Discipline, Sovereignty, and Coops
- Disciplinary Power and Welfare
- Memo #2
- Sovereign and Disciplinary Power
- Sovereign vs. Disciplinary Power
- Possibilities of Sovereign and Disciplinary Power ...
- Foucault, Sovereign v. Disciplinary Power and the ...
- Power and discipline in the slums of Guatemala
- Foucault: Sovereign and Disciplinary Power
- Sovereign and Disciplinary Power
- Sovereign and Disciplinary Power and Dictatorship
- Sovereign and Disciplinary Power in the inner-work...
- Foucault in the Classroom (frightening thought)
- Foucault on Sovereign Power vs. Disciplinary Power
- Sovereign versus Disciplinary Power
- Foucault!!!
- Foucault Paper
-
▼
March
(22)
In sovereign power people are judged in relation to the law. The general focus is if someone has broken the law the consequence is passionate and organized punishment. It is carried out by executioners and displayed publicly to instill fear among the people in society. It demonstrates power and represses those who violate the law (13).
ReplyDeleteDisciplinary power is privatized and focuses on the individual instead of punishment (170). Disciplinary power allows a person to be “fixed” to be part of the norm instead of suffering through a painful death. There are three strategies of power to “train” a person to the norm (170). Hierarchal observation is a form of discipline that is enforced through “gaze”, so the idea of being watched inflicts self discipline (171).
Normalizing judgment contains several elements to encourage or help people move towards the norm. The elements are having small penalties for those who are disobedient and to evaluate others to see the degrees they deviate from the norm and give “corrective” punishment so they can become less deviant. Normalization also includes positive encouragements where punishment is mostly avoided and people are distributed by ranks (181). Foucault discusses the “double role” of ranking because awards could be rewarding and punishable. People can work towards an award, but at the same time be punished by not receiving anything (181). Foucault also says there is a dual between homogenization and individualization because even though we are trying to conform to a norm, being recorded, and put into a hierarchy, people are still never going to be the same (184). Lastly, examination is the combination of the first two where power is transferred into visibility. People are documented throughout their life by attending school or going to the doctors. Human sciences turn people into objects of knowledge because they study people through their documentation so they can better normalize and examine.
Disciplinary power exists in my institution because the president is trying to normalize and “correct” the people who use welfare. Welfare has hierarchal observation because everyone that applies is being watched by the government. When people apply for welfare they are surrendering any sort of privacy they have because the application process is very strict. They want to know every little detail about the person’s life, assets, family, and history. They have about a hundred questions because they want to know everything the person owns, their plans to find work, and any little jobs they may do on the side for money.
People on welfare are being normalized because President Clinton passed a bill that required that all welfare recipients spend two days a week in education or job training, so people can develop skills to be part of the norm. Someone who can pay their own bills and does not seek financial assistance is the norm so, the government is trying to “correct” people on welfare so they are able to find work and become stable. President Clinton said he did not want welfare to be a way of life, but a “second chance” for people who need help from injuries or lost of a job. He felt people were too dependent on welfare, so he created new laws to normalize people.
The welfare recipients are being examined constantly because once someone has welfare; they always have to check in with a social worker. They have to show proof of looking for a job, going to some sort of training twice a week, and being documented throughout the whole process. Their whole lives are on paper because the government is trying to weed out the people who are just lazy and do not care to work from the people who are really in need of help. They want to see people are making an effort and are not trying to manipulate the program for their own benefits. The process has become very visible and strict because welfare recipients are constantly monitored by the social worker, the government, and documents.
Hey Jenny,
ReplyDeleteInteresting application of Foucault within the welfare system. It is true how welfare recipients are engaged within disciplinary power because they are being normalized through training and observation, in addition to an excessive documentation process-- both of which are done privately by the individual. It seems that the social worker and the government resembles the 'technicians' that analyze human knowledge that Foucault refers to. Overall, nice work and good application of Foucault to welfare, yet perhaps there could be more focus on the microphysics of power, in the case that there are possible positive rewards for individuals who undergo and pass the training, along with how power acts throughout institutions outside of just the legal realm, and its impact on them.
hello Jen
ReplyDeleteI just noticed that you mentioned about President Clinton enforcing the bill that required all welfare recipients to spend two days a week in education or job training, and stated that it is part of disciplinary power. But I was thinking that it could also be a sovereign power since the President passed the bill, no?
and I also agree on what Winnie mentioned above. It would be really interesting to see some example of positive rewards in your institution.
I really like the example and analysis too. It's a good recent case of how disciplinary power can expand into new institutions and really become a part of the institution's functioning. The whole idea of welfare "reform" is to make welfare a productive, positive institution. It wants to train people as workers in a more efficient way, with the hope being that those "Cadillac queens" internalize their own sense of inferiority so that they work harder on their own to meet the norm. But in cases like this, the lack of a stronger economic and class analysis seems to really be lacking from Foucault. Yeah, disciplinary power was expanding. But in this case it definitely seemed to be prodded by bourgeois neoliberal "reforms".
ReplyDelete