Sunday, March 15, 2009

Foucault: Discipline, Sovereignty, and Coops

Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. ChuckMarch 15, 2009 at 5:08 PM

    Sovereign power was strict and direct in its methods of punishment. Discipline was implemented by the state in public settings where the individual was dealt with in an organized and passionate manner. The state enacted violent punishments, including torture, or being drawn and quartered in the middle of town for all to watch. (Foucault Pg. 3) Sovereign power is a prime example of Durkheim’s definition of repressive law under organic solidarity; the state oversees and enacts punishment on those deemed criminal but does not to restore what was damaged by their actions or attempt to rehabilitate the criminal into society. (Durkheim Pg. 42-43)
    Disciplinary power exercises three instruments in its rule, hierarchical observation, normalization, and examination which all act to remove the focus of punishment from the body and focus on the soul. (Foucault Pg. 9) These three instruments keep and ever vigilant unseen watch over people, attempt to enforce conformity among societal and institutional norms, and punish those who deviate. (Foucault Pg. 178 & 189) Under disciplinary power, power is no possessed by the state but rather exercised by those in dominant positions. The process of punishing changed as well, from using an executioner to using a team of technicians and doctors who remove bodily pain from the disciplinary process and instead focus on punishing the soul. (Foucault Pg. 11 & 16)
    Sovereign and disciplinary power have little in common aside from the fact that they both serve to punish and in turn correct the crime or individual that is in the wrong. Sovereign power is acted out by the state and serves to punish the body in public, passionate, and organized displays. Disciplinary power is exercised by institutions in efforts to punish the soul which will have the same effect on the body.

    My Institution:

    In the coops, I see sovereign power having a greater influence. Disciplinary power, at least in the coop that I’m part of, is only displayed in one facet. This is the idea of punishment acting as a tool of rehabilitation, although rehabilitative punishment happens rarely. Individuals are subjected to easy but very undesirable chores, punishing the soul and leaving the body unharmed. If the individual isn’t rehabilitated by the end of the semester (hasn’t completed their rehabilitation chores) then the body is punished (they are fined).
    In the coops, sovereign power is controlled by the state of each individual coop; this is represented by either the House Manager or the House President of the coop. These two can enforce the house bylaws and issue out fines/punishments. They do posses the power to fine each other but I’ve yet to know of a case; usually they’re united and ensure the coop operates properly. The punishments occur under specific instructions and are performed in full view of the house members, mainly because people are constantly around and never in their rooms. However public the punishment may be, there was only one instance where people have stood up and united against the “state.” Someone was being unjustly punished for a long period of time, a few months. This became so blatant that other members of the house united against the oppressive “state” forcing them to change their ways or else be impeached.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)