Monday, March 16, 2009
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)
Foucault outlines two distinct forms of power. He argues that the first type was in place earlier and later turned into the latter. This conversion occurred because there was a growing sense of sympathy among the viewers of the spectacle of punishment. The savagery of the retribution was observed as being too severe and/ or equating the severity of the crime that had been committed by the convicted (9).Therefore, Foucault argues that in order to maintain control over society, those in power (i.e. the state, and the king) had to transition into a form of power that was less visible but nonetheless effective.
ReplyDeleteUnder sovereign power, the earlier of the two structures, punishment was meant to be a spectacle for all to see the consequences of incorrect actions. It involved an individualism that requires the audience to look up to the criminal being chastised. The first two pages of his book outline, in great detail, an example of one such reprimand. This instance illustrates the importance of torture as a form of demonstrating physical power over the bodies of the criminals (11). Additionally, as seen with Damiens, pain was administered by an executioner.
Disciplinary power on the other hand, relies on a punishment that is less visible and less torturous. The aim is to “cure” the individual of his mistakes (10). He is corrected by professionals such as psychiatrists (11). Like with sovereign power, the body is still being regulated, but there is a greater aim to control the soul (24-25). Additionally, since torture is no longer permissible, power must be enforced in alternative methods. Therefore, there are tactics in which power is carried out. These are hierarchies, surveillance, and examination. Institutions such as education use these strategies to maintain control over individuals, such as students, without their conscious knowledge thus preventing them from resisting.
Foucault’s theory of power is quite useful when dealing with the institution of marriage. He talks about the importance of institutions in the maintenance of disciplinary power. He would likely consider marriage as one such institution.
In marriage, by California standards, a man and woman meet and eventually become joined legally. This current arrangement can best be explained through Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power. Although it is assumed that both partners are equal in such a union, it is clear that a gender hierarchy is present. If both partners work outside the home, it is most likely that the man’s income will be greater. It is also assumed, and has become normalized, that the woman is still responsible for caring for the home in addition to her employment responsibilities. The raising of children, when present, is normally done using this same concept of discipline as they are being made to fit into society. If their manners are ill adapted to those of mainstream society, is the job of these parents to correct and “cure” their children.
Furthermore, if observed in the historical context, marriage can also be understood through sovereign power. Prior to the current arrangement, women were confined to the home while men were allowed to venture out for work. Under this structure, women were entirely dependent on their men for food, shelter, and any other expenses. They were also not allotted the same rights as their male counterparts. Due to this, women’s bodies were subject to their partners. Beating of wives was not widely reported but nonetheless did occur and went unpunished. In fact, it was not until recently that forced penetration between married couples was legally considered rape. Therefore, women who suffered domestic violence; were publicly tortured on occasion in front of children, were the “Damiens” of their households.
Foucault would argue that it is impossible for certain people to 'have' power. Power is not something that can be held or weilded by someone or something. Instead, there are people with society that have the ability to 'act out' this power more than others. In effect, these people are viewed as having more power than others, but since power can not be held by any one person, Foucault would rather argue that there are certain positions in society that provide way for people to more acceptably act out or portray their level of power.
Delete