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 this essay, I will compare two forms of power, sovereign and disciplinary power that Foucault explains in his book. First, Foucault explains that sovereign power is enforced through public punishment, i.e. public execution and corporal punishments, in order to instill fear to people (pg. 9). He describes that these punishments are public, passionate, and organized. These punishments are carried out by the executioners based on the knowledge of law, which centralizes the power of the King. In addition, these public punishments are enforced to reestablish the authority and power of the King. So in sovereign power, Foucault points out that the main object of punishment is the body, and its main focus is the public by repressing individuals (pg. 24).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Foucault states that the form of power progresses from sovereign power to disciplinary power. Unlike sovereign power, disciplinary power enforces punishments where no eyes can be found (pg. 9-10). In disciplinary power, the body and pain are not the ultimate objects of its punitive action. Its ultimate objective is to transform/rehabilitate the soul, because Foucault believes that the soul must be changed in order to discipline the body. Also, Foucault states that the “whole army of technicians” in disciplinary power has replaced the executioners in sovereign power (pg. 11). Within disciplinary power, Foucault introduces three elements: hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment and examination and emphasizes that observation and the gaze are the key instruments of power.
I believe that both sovereign and disciplinary powers are being enforced in the military. The sovereign power is enforced when a military personnel convicts a serious crime. For example, Marines who are arrested for DUI, assault, or larceny are punished in front of the entire command to remind all other Marines the consequences of those actions. It also reestablishes and reminds the authority and power of the commander, because the commander also determines the level of punishment.
On the other hand, disciplinary power is enforced in daily basis. Marines are put into formation everyday and have to march in formation everywhere they go. This formation gives the commander a view of entire platoon. Also, in the boot camp, a barrack is organized where the drill instructors’ office is located in front of the room in order to have a better view of every Marine. The windows in the office are tinted so that Marines cannot see inside of the room. Therefore, it makes Marines to always be in a good behavior because they believe someone is always watching them. In addition, one drill instructor always sleeps in the middle of the room, which gives a notion of panopticon where the prisoners are observed from central tower. Furthermore, Marines always follow the schedule that is given by their superior everyday. They are also placed in a hierarchy based on their ranks, and early promotion is a way to encourage Marines to do well on their job and training.
I think the military is a fascinating lens to apply Foucault’s theory of power. As Kenny points out, there is no central force in disciplinary power. Instead, it is in some intersection between the State, the institutions, and individuals that together perpetuate discipline and punishment (power). However, in the military, I think there a blatant enforcer of power even if it is “disciplinary.” While there may be the different officers stationed every in boot camp – in the barracks, in drills, etc – they are still all part of the military. While an argument can be made that there are various branches or “institutions,” they are still under the overarching military institution.
ReplyDeleteSo how does that work? How can disciplinary power be very blatant? I think that it is because the military itself is subject to disciplinary power in our over-arching country, in which it is an institution of. People who join the military sign a contract that lawfully binds them to the military. Those laws, the recruits, the military, and that process is all part of disciplinary power.