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)
Sovereign and Disciplinary Power
ReplyDeleteFoucault presents a society in which its transition is not that of a change in modes of production or solidarity, but that of a change of power. Sovereign power reigned in society as the monarch power exercised their power in front of the masses. As society developed there was a change from sovereign power to disciplinary power. The change was magnificent as not only punishment changed, but the source of power also changed. Although Foucault acknowledges change in power he does not offer a transition, for to Foucault, one must be outside of history to theorize a transition. Though he does not offer a transition theory, he does attribute the change to the fear of revolt (9).
Sovereign power’s main function is to demonstrate the power possessed by the monarch through intimidation. Punishment is public, passionate, and organized. The gruesome executions serve to deter the public from committing any crime similar to that of the criminal. The body of the criminal is tortured and punished. Executioners carry out the punishment as the sovereign watches from afar. In a society with sovereign power it is obvious to see that the power lies in the hands of the sovereign.
Disciplinary power functions in a completely different manner. There are three main elements of disciplinary power: hierarchical observation, normalization of judgment, and examination. The three function together to create the panopticon, the perfect example of disciplinary power. Hierarchical observation allows the subject to be visible to the observer, but not vice versa (171). Normalization of judgment allowed for the conformity of the subjects. Examination is the culmination of both hierarchical observation and normalization. It allows for the comparison of all subjects, which facilitates the process of ranking. With the ranking system, the deviant from the non-deviant can be identified. While in sovereign power the purpose is to punish the individual, in disciplinary power the purpose is to punish the soul. The punishment is a lot more private, for its purpose is not to humiliate but to correct the behavior (19). Executioners no longer carry out the punishment, instead technicians worked with the subject to rehabilitate him (11). The greatest difference between the two powers is the visibility of the source of power. In disciplinary power the source of the power is never visible. Power is operationalized into the institution and therefore functions automatically.
In my sorority I definitely see disciplinary power functioning. As a sorority we have a board of directors who oversee all of the chapters. Every chapter is responsible for reporting their activities of the month to the directors. The purpose of the reports are to ensure that the chapters are following the guidelines in our constitutions. Hardly ever do the directors physically visit the chapters, but the chapters always follow the guidelines. As the president of my chapter it is my duty to send these report and make sure everything is functioning well. I make sure that every sister is following the guidelines. This is a clear example of disciplinary power. The directors do not have to be present to ensure that the guidelines are being followed. We presidents serve as the officers who subjugate themselves and others to the invisible power of the directors. The directors need not be present to remind every sister of the repercussions of a broken guideline, for they have been deeply rooted into us.
In the sorority power is exercised at different levels. At the chapter level, the president exercises the most power. However, when other officers are directing the chapter, it is that officer that holds the power as she is presenting. This is proof of Foucault’s argument that power is exercised, not possessed. At the higher level, it is the directors that exercise the power. There is no one person that can be appointed as holding total power of the sorority. Each year there are elections and the members of the board change. The person changes every year, but the power remains.