Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Foucault on Sovereign Power vs. Disciplinary Power

In my essay, I compare sovereign power to disciplinary power as defined by Foucault. I also show how these forms of power exist within the American Red Cross non-profit organization.
Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Super StacyMarch 10, 2009 at 11:42 PM

    This essay explores Michel Foucault’s theory on how discipline and punishment is implemented in society. Foucault attempts to explain why people conform to norms in society and how different institutions exercise power to correct people’s behaviors. He explains that these are carried out in two forms of power: sovereign power and disciplinary power. I will ultimately show how Foucault’s theory of power to discipline and punish is seen in the Bay Area Chapter of the American Red Cross.
    In Discipline and Punish, Foucault defines that sovereign power is centralized in the state, or the king, where the people are to abide by the laws and regulations. When someone desecrates a law, punishment of that criminal is made into a public execution that is passionate, violent, and repressive (7). It is carried out by an executioner to demonstrate the sovereign’s power and with the intention to create fear and discourage further crimes by the citizens (9). Essentially, punishment is done unto the body in forms such as the gallows or decapitation (13). A century later, however, the forms of punishment evolved to become more corrective and less public and violent in nature.
    Disciplinary power is defined by the restoration of the criminal to normative standards (179). As history proceeds, power is decentralized into institutions, such as prisons, hospitals, and the educational system, where knowledge relies on the human sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, and psychiatry) rather than laws. These networks of power are exercised over the individual’s soul by disciplining the body (30). In essence, these institutions execute corrective forms of punishment in order to rehabilitate the individual and reduce the gaps between the deviants and the norms in society (19). Upon doing so, punishment under disciplinary power becomes rationally organized through hierarchical observation, or the surveillance of individuals (i.e. the subjects), normalization, or correcting and ranking them according to a norm (171, 183), and examination, which combines hierarchical observation and normalization in order to use the subjects to gain more knowledge and thus more power over the individuals (191).
    The American Red Cross non-profit organization exhibits disciplinary power over sovereign power. This organization has a set of seven fundamental principles it upholds (e.g. humanity, impartiality, and universality), which Foucault would define as a set of laws the volunteers must abide by. On the other hand, the principles that represent the Red Cross have been passed down throughout history and have become the norm that the organization follows. With that said, deviance from these principles is not punished in a violent nor public manner nor is punishment directed toward the body to create fear among the volunteers. Punishment takes a more corrective and rehabilitating path toward disciplining the individuals under these norms so that they may continue to uphold the humanitarian values of the Red Cross.
    The Red Cross has many branches of hierarchy, but I will focus just on the Bay Area region. As the blood drive coordinator and officer of the on-campus organization, I exercise disciplinary power over the volunteers under certain guidelines. For example, in order for the members to volunteer inside the blood drives, I orient them under strict mannerisms, which explains how they should cater to the donors before they donate and when they rest at the canteen. I supervise the volunteers, and if a volunteer is not being courteous or appreciative toward the donors, I simply correct their behavior on the spot. Foucault would assess this as examination because the volunteers are under my surveillance, and if they are not acting according to the guidelines, they are restored back to the norm. Lastly, donors are made into cases because the nurses have vital information such as their blood type and health condition as well as their contact information. This information allows us to continue contacting the donors to give more blood. This is an example of disciplinary power, specifically examination, because the donors are made into cases and used to continue acquiring more blood donations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Greg De BenedictisMarch 14, 2009 at 7:17 PM

    It is interesting that Stacy is observing how even in non-profit organizations there is disciplinary power to be upheld. But couldn't there be sovereign power within the American Red Cross because not only do the volunteers and club members look up to you (ascending individualism) but also you are looking up the American Red Cross headquarters? Otherwise, great insight!

    ReplyDelete
  3. KristinaMarch 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM

    Greg's comment leads me to wonder how an organization could gain such sovereign power. Sovereign power in this case seems to be renown and a good name, since the American Red Cross title and symbol gives it power.

    Also, if there is disciplinary power enacted upon the volunteers, are they also being made into cases, not just the blood donors? Is the red cross extracting information on how volunteers work?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Becca CasterlineMarch 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM

    Along with what Greg commented, I hadn't thought about disciplinary power, or any type of power really, in a non-profit organization. The amount of power all around us continues to surprise me.

    As to what Kristina said, I definitely think that the volunteers are being made into cases. While it may not be in the same way as the blood donors, volunteers are still expected to behave in a certain way and show up at a certain time, so while the organization may have minimal information on them, they are still cases.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)