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 his book, Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault explores the way power operates within modern society. Specifically, Foucault identifies two different models of such power within societies: “sovereign” and “disciplinary.”
ReplyDeleteFor Foucault, sovereign power is marked by its public and centralized nature. Power operates through punishment by the state and reinforces the power of the sovereign. In a society governed by sovereign power, punishment functions “as a spectacle” and is used to reinforce the power of the king and instill fear among spectators (8). Sovereign power is marked by highly visible, passionate, and demonstrative punishment and an ascending individualism, or constant emphasis on the sovereign as an individual who yields the power within society.
Disciplinary power is decentralized and characterized by a system of surveillance where restitution rather than punishment is emphasized. Punishment becomes a “hidden part of the penal process,” and instead power operates and is promulgated through micro institutions such as “the workshop, the school, [and] the army” through mechanisms of regulation (9; 178). Power operates through three mechanisms: hierarchical power, normalization, and examination. These strategies are established within institutions and act to create an automatic surveillance system that regulates and restores individuals to the hierarchy of society. These processes require high visibility and a “descending individuality,” where each individual is subjugated to surveillance. Thus, a society where disciplinary power exists uses panopticons so that each person is “individualized and constantly visible” (200). “Power becomes more anonymous” as it is internalized by individuals, and becomes an inescapable part of everyday life (193).
Foucault examines different societies as well as the institutions within them in order to understand what type of power exists and how exactly it is exercised. Such analysis of power can be applied to the institution of a sorority and the ways in which it operates to maintain order and control.
It appears that the power that operates in sororities is predominately disciplinary. Distinction by way of grade, position, and involvement in activities help create a standard that becomes a norm individuals are expected to achieve. House points are awarded to members who take on positions, are upperclassmen, and participate in house or community activities. This method acts as the basis for a system in which individuals are evaluated in comparison to the norm, given privileges for exemplifying it, and singled out for deviance from it. The accumulation of house points allows for the examination of individuals and regulation of order, in that it determines privileges such as bids to social events, the ability to live in and park at the house, and priority in room picks. Also, room checks are done weekly, where the cleanest room is rewarded by the right to choose meals for a day the following week, and, as such, exemplify the positive reinforcement Foucault sees as part of discipline. If a member deviates far enough from the norm, the “Policy and Standards Committee” will meet with her to find out what went wrong and to restore order by way of restitutive punishment. Additionally, any member can anonymously send another member to meet with this committee, leading to increase self-regulation and internalized surveillance. The outcome of such meetings is kept confidential, reflecting the hidden nature of punishment in disciplinary power. A final example is the way in which members must supply information to the house. Contact information, transcripts, receipts of payment, and contracts are compiled, stored in an online database, and put into files that are held even after graduation, illustrating how disciplinary power makes individuals into cases.