Thursday, March 12, 2009
Foucault's Sovererign vs Disciplinary Power, and its application within East Bay Consortium
First, I will differentiate Foucault's differences between Sovereign and Disciplinary Power, where sovereign power is a power of ascending individualism and disciplinary power is a power of descending individualism. In addition, disciplinary power has three mechanisms: hierarchical observation, normative judgment, and examination. Secondly, I will the powers within East Bay Consortium, which uses disciplinary power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Foucault focuses on two main forms of power: Sovereign and Disciplinary. While sovereign power is characterized by ascending individualism and repression, disciplinary power is characterized by descending individualism and rehabilitation. Under sovereign power, the punishment is public, passionate, torturous, and organized (3-6). The power is situated and carried out in the sovereign, as the masses gaze up at the king and the executioners punishing the body of the criminal (16). The purpose of punishment is to reaffirm the sovereign power by instilling fear in the public. The public punishment of the individual is intended to affect the public masses. The knowledge relies on the law, which centralizes power to the king.
In disciplinary power, however, punishment is hidden from the public, to avoid public rebellion as the masses may associate the criminals as victims and the executioners as a criminal (9). The purpose of punishment is to “correct, reclaim, and ‘cure’” the individual to produce a person that can function in society (10). The body is used as the vehicle to target the soul under disciplinary power (16). Power is decentralized throughout society into institutions, where knowledge relies on the human sciences rather than laws. The punishment is carried out by technicians of human subjects that judge people against the norms, relying on the knowledge of scientificio-juridicial complex (11, 19). The three major instruments of disciplinary power are hierarchical observation, normalization, and examination. Disciplinary power “compares, differentiates, hiearchizes, homogenizes, excludes, and normalizes” (183). Hierarchical observation is the power that operates through visibility because those who are under surveillance fear being watched (171, 177). Micro-penalty mechanisms exist in various institutions to correct and rank individuals according to a norm through positive sanctions (171, 178, 183). Examination of individuals, which combines hierarchical observation and normalization, produces knowledge and thus more power over the individuals (191).
When examining East Bay Consortium (EBC), it is clear that there are more disciplinary power and no sovereign power. Sovereign power doesn’t exist because punishment is more of a rehabilitary process than a public, repressive process against the individual who acted against the societal norm. Individual employees are often corrected through discussion with the managers or face being fired, instead of being punished publicly to act on individuals. The characteristics of disciplinary power are visible since it’s easier for the managers in the office to surveil the actions of the employees who sits in front of them, based on the placement of the furniture of the room. In addition, employees face both positive and negative sanctions through conforming to behave as productive employees to ensure a positive relationship among everyone so the job is something for everyone to look forward to. While employees like me are observed and judged by the managers, we are also examined through having documentation on us. To qualify for the job, we had to apply, which is how they have documentation about who we are and what we have been through, just as they have documentation of how long we worked when we turn in our timesheets in exchange for a paycheck.
The four elements of microphysics of power are also visible within my institution. Firstly, there are positive effects of conformity when people are obedient to the managers to have the possibility to work more, which means they get paid more. If the employees were disobedient and does not conform, then they would most likely be warned and the fired. Secondly, punishment is found throughout the institutions associated with EBC, whether it’s at high schools or in the office, instead of just the legal sphere. The employers have access to the information of employees through the new technology of documentation, which leads to how employees are regulated.
this essay is for the most part very well written. You encompass Foucault's arguments very well. I did find some of your sentence structures a bit confusing but the essay flows well overall. Furthermore, the institution that you chose is analyzed very well. I particularly enjoyed your mention of paychecks and other forms of documentation as methods of regulation. :-D
Post a Comment