In the early 17th century, the soldier (and man) was still as individual as he wanted to be. By the late eighteenth century, however, the soldier was starting to become shaped into a machine by the ruling bodies. They were chosen by those who ruled because of their agility, strength and abilities so that they may be as less unique as possible and as uniform as possible. Foucault refers to humans as docile bodies which can be moulded like a building material. In order to establish power over groups of people, the author suggests the use of disciplines (domination) in order to subtly orient the decision process. This method is effective because it is seen as useful by the trained individual.
Each individual is able to choose which discipline or task they wish to accomplish. This becomes a feeling of individuality while being created by a higher power. This becomes a programming of the mind where we are not asked to think individual thoughts, but to learn specific information which we will be tested on later (such as in Bible school, where children are disciplined into learning prayers and later tested on their knowledge of them). However, while they are given the impression that they are strong in unity, they are less so in political terms, that is, they do not have individual political strength. It is often said that God is in the details. In Foucault's (and Napoleon's) opinion, control over a mass public is achieved by not allowing details to be overlooked. Each aspect of a discipline's environment must be controlled rigorously. These details are of such little importance on their own that the disciplined individual does not notice it, and therefore easily mould the individuals into the desired mass shape. A successful scenario would include a system which invites the disciplined to observe each other. They therefore manage each other in an effort to maintain the desired order. Details become intertwined and include the design of the Establishment that is no longer built to be seen or to observe geometrical external space, and which encapsulates the subjects, rendering them visible from the exterior of their cells to the large spaces of the cafeteria or the courtyard. To ensure rules are respected a strict system of punishment is also created. A substructure of the court system which seeks to punish according to the offense must be established. Foucault's ultimate architecture is that which enables the governing powers to observe anyone at anytime. Finally, Foucault presents his thoughts as an apparatus which means a system of observation, punishment, architecture and discipline.
Today, society seems to be in the middle of a junction between war and peace. Police officers are socially acceptable because they are the "peacekeepers" in our cities and towns, yet they wear guns and ammunition in case of a scuffle with thugs. Soldiers are also socially acceptable "peacekeepers", but can turn into "warriors" at an instant's notice when peace has broken. Is that so right? Why do we feel safe with these double agents in our "peaceful" society? Can't they turn rogue? Can't they shoot us by accident or otherwise? What makes us feel so safe with them around? What makes us somewhat revere them? The answer is: because they're supposed to keep us safe. And yet... Changing topics: in college, we were told not to become a jack-of-all-trades but to specialise in one trade or to freelance in one trade, therefore, Foucault's theory of applying apprenticeship instead of examination in order to specialise in one discipline is true to this day. In universities, however, it seems like all thought diverges to the same ideology. The students become docile; they think they are learning exactly what they want to learn. Teachers do not encourage, but want us to believe that we all want a job strictly as coders or performance artists. When stragglers stand out of the group, it seems they want to rein us in with: "You all want to be coders / performance artists". We are aware that most of our actions are observed. Be it by cameras or wire taps or online tracking. It is not an issue of privacy, for Foucault it is a way to discipline. This omnipresent observation creates a feeling of ignorance. To think freely and to develop individuality and personal skills, we must avoid the all seeing eye of the leader. This is because when we are observed we can be disciplined to act the way the leader wishes. A group environment promotes the loss of individuality. Although we can communicate with each other, our opinions become worthless.
Foucault says that grouping individuals makes them more docile. Would we become stronger without a punishing, and therefore normalising, power?
No comments:
Post a Comment