In this paper I describe and compare sovereign and disciplinary power as Foucault describes it an see if these are present in a day-care center in Guatemala City.
Sovereign power is first and foremost repressive and is exemplified by Foucault in the public execution. The power of the omnipotent ruler is exercised publicly, explicitly and passionately on the body of the condemned man (9f). This spectacle serves to show the power of the sovereign and generates public fear to keep the public from committing acts of crime. The centre of attention is on the one exercising power.
In contrast, in disciplinary power the centre of attention is on the individual, and following Foucault’s example, the rehabilitation of the criminal (19). Although punishment is still exercised on the body, usually in the form of restraints, the main focus is the soul (16). The deviant is not mainly punished, but corrected (19). Disciplinary power therefore has a positive, creative aspect. As opposed to sovereign power that is centralised, disciplinary power is diffuse and scattered. Foucault calls this “the micro-physics of power” (26). In the same way as the handling of the criminal was transferred from the executioner to a team of technicians (warders, doctors, chaplains, psychiatrics etc.), power is not exercised by one entity, but exists as a more differentiated and more or less intangible and sometimes hidden force throughout society and it’s institutions (26). Disciplinary power trains the individual through three main instruments: hierarchical observation, normalizing judgement and their combination, examination (170). Hierarchical observation functions as a piece of machinery and is coercive by nature; observation is itself an exercise of power and control over the ones kept visible (170f, 177). Inherent to punishment lies an evaluation of normality (20f): it “compares, differentiates, hierarchizes, homogenizes, excludes” (183). Combined, these two instruments constitute examination. Individuals become “cases” that are constantly held under surveillance and evaluation (192).
My choice of organisation is Camino Seguro / Safe Passage, a non-profit in Guatemala City, that takes care of the children of the families working at the garbage dump. CS has day-care centre that is both a school and a medical facility. Functioning as a school, this institution has an inherent corrective and rehabilitative aspect, i.e. disciplinary power. Hierarchical observation, by both teacher and volunteer, is used to keep the children in line at their desks. Normalization takes place through both tests and homework and correction of behaviour. Deviance is occasionally punished by a verbal reprimand in front of the class, an exercise of sovereign power. Generally, volunteers are told to take a troublesome child aside and “talk to them”, that is instructing them how to behave like “normal”. This is disciplinary power.
This institution is interesting because it exercises disciplinary power in several domains: It aims to “foster hope, good health, educational achievement, self-sufficiency, self esteem and confidence.” One part is the examination of the body: At one point the entire mass of children were treated for lice, very much like plague victims. On the other hand, such qualities as self-esteem and confidence are abstract and part of the soul. Although these qualities are generally held to be good, one could easily argue that they are part of the discourse of the individual, and have a normative quality (compare to the normative pressure in parts of present society not to conform and to have and stand for ones own opinions). The children’s families are also examinated. To get their children accepted, they must fulfil certain requirements, for example abstinence from alcohol. Would Foucault say that this holistic approach is just an extreme and even more extensive exercise of disciplinary power, examinating and forging every part of the individual? Are these children giving up liberty to gain the advantages and possibilities of education and health service, even if that is the liberty to roam the streets and most likely staying in the slums indefinitely and possibly become criminals?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You pose a really good question about whether it's better for the children to give up their freedom to be disciplined or possibly grow up as delinquents from the slums because the facility makes it seem like it's the only option to a better life. Would you say their aims to foster children, build self-esteem, etc. create within them all a collective way of thinking i.e. Durkheim's collective consciousness? Or does it allow children to become unique individuals on a case-by-case basis?
ReplyDeleteI like your examples of disciplinary power within the institution. And like Super Stacy I am interested in whether it would be better for the children or not in the eyes of Foucault, is there another choice?. I would also like to know what Foucault would think about the requirements of the family in order to gain acceptance. Would he argue that this is an exercise of power over the families in the name of education?
ReplyDeleteDamn, that's a very similar question to what I ask myself almost every time I tutor kids. After reading Foucault and realizing how far-reaching, subtle, and really powerful this DP can be, I sometimes hesitate to enforce discipline on the kids even when it seems to be the right thing as taught to me by all my bosses, coworkers, own experience, and society in general. Really it seems more and more like I'm imprisoning kids and not helping them to progress. But also I can't just let them run wild, at least not in the society we have. So... if anyone knows a third way, please inform me.
ReplyDelete