Foucault and the Panopticon

Social and Political Philosophy

 Social and Political Philosophy
examines the question of how we ought
to govern ourselves. Inherent to that
question are issues of equality, rights,
freedom, justice and power.
Political philosophers study the basis of
social authority; they examine the
grounds on which the exercise of
power is justified; and they examine the
criteria by which power is distributed
among human beings.
Typically political philosophers propose
answers to such questions as, what is
the best way to achieve a good life?
What is a good society? What is the
proper relationship between those who
rule and those who are ruled?
Plato held that the fundamental
purpose of the state was to create
order in human affairs. Platos
Republic is not democratic.
Individuals should assume their
natural stations in life and play
their assigned roles in society.
 Politics for Aristotle is meant to explain the purpose of
the city. (The Greek word for city is polis, which is the
word that gives us English words like "politics" and
"policy"). The main concern of politics is to engender
a certain character in the citizens and to make them
good and disposed to perform noble actions."
The most authoritative and highest good of all, for
Aristotle, is the virtue and happiness of the citizens,
and the purpose of the city is to make it possible for
the citizens to achieve this virtue and happiness.
Hobbes argued that unless we contract with
each other life will be solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short. For Hobbes all citizens owe
their allegiance to the government that will
provide security and order. Society becomes
superior to its members and necessarily
imposes restrictions on the behavior of
individuals.
Power is often thought to be a property of something. It
is interpreted to be power of.
For example, the power of wealth, the power of positive
thinking or the power of love if Celine Dion is right.
Power has often been described
in a negative manner insofar as it
can be power over something or
someone. The King or Queen has
power and dominion over their
subjects.
Very early on in human history, power
is linked to strength, to force,
conquest, to wealth and oppression.
 The German philosopher Hegel showed that the one with
power rules and the one without is ruled over. Power
belongs to the Master and impotence belongs to the slave.
 The French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault
demonstrated that wherever there is power, resistance is always
already on the scene. His main thesis is that power produces reality.
What does it mean that power produces reality? There are
numerous examples of how power produces rituals, beliefs,
practices, institutions etc. Philosophy asks, are these beliefs
and rituals true? What is the point of such beliefs and rituals if
they only lead to a further control of our life-world?
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks
something to be the case, with or without there
being empirical evidence to prove that something
is the case with factual certainty. This means that
philosophy is concerned with what uncovering
what is ACTUALLY the case. It is concerned with
facts, not beliefs and opinions.
If I am born into a suburban home, I likely do not
really understand what life is like in the inner city. If
I am born in Canada, I likely to not have a good
understanding of how very privileged my life is,
compared to kids born in third world countries.
Beliefs produces the truths we live by. Foucault
writes, Each society has its own regimes of truth, its
general politics of truth, that is, the types of discourses
it accepts and functions as true.
These rituals of truth for Foucault do
not have to be true, they have to be
thought of as true People act, live
and organize the space of their lives
as if they were true. This is called
disavowal. For example, before it was
discovered that the earth was round,
the notion that the earth was flat was
true. Saying that it was round could
get you killed.
Discourse for Foucault is about the imposition of power. They
are instruments and effects of power. Because of the
imposition, Foucault believed that power could be undermined;
it could be exposed and shown to be impotent. Think here of
the story, The Emperors New Clothes where the crowd is star
struck by the Kings new wardrobe. They are still held in check
by the power of the Kings discourse. The child however reveals
that the King is in fact naked. He shows that there is nothing
special about the King.
Taking his cue from Nietzsche, Foucault argues that
power relations must be disrupted for the sake of justice.
Institutions should not serve the interests of dominant
groups. They should not function as mechanism that
control the population but should however, become sites
of transformation. For Foucault, institutions only keep
certain groups in power. Foucault advocates local, small
scale resistance to power.
French theorist Gilles Deleuze argued that those in power
want the status quo to remain fixed. Deleuze shows us
that there is no fixed subject unless there is repression.
Repression happens through language when we are told,
You have no other choice than this way of life or This is
what you must study or This is the job you must do
based on your socio-economic situation etc.
Here he follows Franz Kafka who
realized that to change society
involves transforming its bureaucracy.
Max Weber, a German sociologist was one of the first people
in modern times to think seriously about the importance of
bureaucracy. The term actually comes from the French word
"bureau," a reference to the small desks that the king's
representatives set up in towns as they traveled across the
country on king's business. So bureaucracy literally means
"government with a small desk."
Weber emphasized the importance of the bureaucracy in
getting things done and believed that a well-organized,
rational bureaucracy is the secret behind the successful
operation of modern societies. Bureaucracy is behind the
success of power.
Lyotard who sees power in terms of repression and
suppression thinks that supporting difference would
mean acknowledging the rights of exploited peoples and
minorities to be heard in such a way that their
grievances are not framed according to the rules
established by the stronger party.
As it stands for Lyotard, minority groups must play the language game
established by the dominant party even when they are unable to play
the game. As such they are discriminated against and have no chance
of entering a level playing field. It is much like expecting someone to
play hockey in bare feet holding a twig while the other team is fully
equipped and coached by Wayne Gretzky and Don Cherry.
Even if minorities are helped it is never really
the help they need. The dominant group could
claim, Yes, we did teach you how to fish. We
even bought you the newest technological
fishing poles equipped with sonar. The
minority group could reply by saying, Yes, this
is all true, but we live in a desert. Thanks so
much for all the help.
Most French and German theorists believe that
there can be an Event that would disrupt the
current state of affairs. This type of thinking is
very messianic. I see it as not being very
practical. Hannah Arendt defines the event as
occurrences that interrupt the routine
procedures.
The event is the unexpected that short circuits
the established power grid. The question is
how can power be disrupted? The typical
response for theorists like Slavoj Zizek have
been more violence. He follows the insights of
Mao who wrote that Power grows out of the
barrel of a gun. And Voltaire who claimed that
power consists in making others act as I
choose.
Arendt is one of the first theorists to make a distinction
between power and violence. She argues that violence needs
implements, tools and technology to keep the structure of
command and obedience in place. She argues, Power
corresponds to the human ability not just to act, but act in
concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it
belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as
the group keeps together. Arendt gives the Vietnam War as
an example. The American army was superior in terms of its
means of violence ( Agent Orange, the massacre of civilians,
warplanes dropping cluster bombs etc, warships) but is was
confronted with an ill-equipped, well- organize opponent who
was much more powerful.
She argues, rule by sheer violence comes into play where
power is being lost. We can witness these insights at work
today in Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. Arendt argues that
violence can destroy power. In order for a ruler to keep
power, violence must be minimized and used selectively.
Arendt argues, the practice of violence, like all action
changes the world, but the most probable change is to be a
more violent world.
If Hollywood and Plato are to be believed
overcoming power is as simple as finding a
magic ring and then taking it to the fiery pit at
Mordor to be destroyed. But power is not a
burning hemorrhoid that wants its ring back.
Foucault shows that the space of power is
Culture according to Foucault
aims at the creation of docile
bodies.
Docile Bodies could work on the new production
lines in factories, adapt to the social environment
of the new cities and create new behaviors
suitable for life in public spaces.
Foucaults view is that culture is a
mechanism of repression. Culture
is a system of discipline based on
surveillance. This is especially true
in the United States
Without sounding too Zen we may be reminded that while the hurricane
wreaks havoc, its eye is calm and empty. Is this a correct description of
power, namely that at its source and center there is nothing there? One
model of this emptiness according to Foucault is the Panopticon. The
Panopticon or All Seeing Eye was a type of prison developed by Jeremy
Bentham.
How we build determines the type
of society we live in.
Foucault suggests that a "carceral continuum" runs through
modern society, from the maximum security prison, through
secure accommodation, probation, social workers, police, and
teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives. All are
connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance,
application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by
others.
 The emergence of prison as the form of punishment for
every crime grew out of the development of discipline in the
18th and 19th centuries, according to Foucault
One of the more interesting points made by Foucault is
that power is a machinery that no one owns. He writes,
Power is never localized here or there, never in
anybodys hands, never appropriated a commodity or a
piece of wealth. For Foucault, it is not simply that
knowledge is power. The problem for him is not how we
should educate so that others are aware of the
problems of power but how do we change the political,
religious, economic, institutional regimes that continue
to produces systems of belief that so many buy into
without thinking. Going back to the thesis that Power
produces reality, Foucault shows how power
determines what makes sense to believe.
He is very clear that a society without power is an abstraction. The question
becomes what kind of power can give rise to the best possible society? The
power that seeks to reinforce, optimize and organize the forces under it is a
continuation of the status quo for Foucault, Deleuze and Lyotard. He
wonders and it is a question for us to ponder, How do we open a new
world? In other words, how do we reconfigure our practices so that old
cycles, patterns and habits are avoided? It is not simply thinking that
jumping from Earth to Mars will solve our problems. This scenic shift will
only bring old baggage along for the trip. This move is what Nietzsche calls
the eternal return of the same. These theorists ask, What kind of practices
can avoid the totalizing effects, the current efficiency and order under which
power operates?
 Discipline, he suggests, developed a new economy and politics for
bodies. Modern institutions required that bodies must be individuated
according to their tasks, as well as for training, observation, and
control. Therefore, he argues, discipline created a whole new form of
individuality for bodies, which enabled them to perform their duty within
the new forms of economic, political, and military organizations
emerging in the modern age and continuing to today. This means that
the focus is on training alone rather than training and education.
To educate means to make sovereign so that
you can stand on your own, so that you can
lead yourself.

Training is discipline and instruction to

develop powers or skills.
 Do we live in a culture of
surveillance and control or in a
society where we have actual
freedom?
Resistance, Foucault thinks happens when we know how to
govern our own life in order to give it the most beautiful form
possible. To achieve this, the question become how do we go
beyond what my teacher, French philosopher Jacques Derrida
calls machine like repeatability so that we can arrive at a
place of irreplaceable singularity.
The problem of power within modernity is that we are all
forced to conform to the laws or rules of the grid in a way
that eliminates or erodes our singularity. Justice demands
a way that upholds the dignity of the person rather than the
dignity of the dollar.
What kind of society will we build?
Who does our technology serve?
Can we build (tekt) from the source
(arche) so that our societies are
just?