In Truth and Power Foucault offers a commentary on power, and he questions the idea of speaking of power as simply repressive and negative. What example of power does he offer to show that power isn't merely negative and repressive? In order to understand why Foucault questions the idea of speaking of power as simply repressive and negative, it is important to understand Foucault's point view on power. According to Foucault, power holds ground with members of society because it "traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse" (203). Furthermore, he asserts that power can also be seen as negative and repressive by some individuals within our society because they view on power is inaccurate description of how a state forces things to be prohibited or how things are not allowed within our society. He asserts that individuals seems power as repressive because they might identify "power with a law which say no, power is taken above all as carrying the force of a prohibition" (203). Furthermore, he argues that this is a negative understanding of power because its "narrow, skeletal conception of power" and a notion which widespread to individuals within our society.
An example Foucault uses to illustrate power isn't merely negative and repressive is "sexuality" and more specifically, if children have one. Foucault argues that "the purpose of these discourses was precisely to prevent children from having sexuality" (204). Moreover, he asserts that parents who wanted to prevent their children from having a sexuality created a fundamental question in terms of "parental educational and responsibilities". In addition, from the children's perspective, the problem of sexuality were their "own body and their own sex was to be a fundamental problem as far as they were concerned" (204). With this dilemma of sexuality, from one side questioning the "parental responsibility" and on the other, the "sexual exciting" that's occurring within the bodies of their children leads to a "sexualizing of the familial domain" (204). In other words, sexuality reinforces the parent and the child's sexual understanding. Furthermore, this was possible to occur between the parent and the child because it helps both of them to learn and understand sexuality together as a family. Moreover, this dilemma was possible to occur because it questions the formation of power as merely negative and repressive. It is not repressive in which the parent does not enforces their rules to the child but rather, it strengths both parties duties and outcomes. In conclusion, this illustration of powers works both ways in which it reinforces both the parent and the child sexuality understanding. Furthermore, it also shows how power can be passed down from one person to another person but also have a huge impact on how it plays out at the end. Moreover, it shows how power is exercised as not repressive and negative but rather as positive without any prohibition. For instance, within our society, a child can read anything about sexuality, however, it is not only their parent's responsibility to keep that from happening, but it is also their job to educate and discus such matter about sexuality with their children.
Recently in [4-02] Foucault I: Power, Discourse, and Knowledge Category
In the History of Sexuality Foucault writes about "power over life". What is "power over life"? Do you agree with Foucault that this is how power manifests itself today? Can you feel its influence in your own life?
"The History of Sexuality" by Michel Foucault had many key points in discussing the progression of power. The question do I agree with Foucault definition it depends which time period we are discussing. In the 17th century I do agree with Foucault that "privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death" (Foucault 200). I do not think that definition can be used today to describe power.
The main reason I do not agree with the 17th century definition of power over life because in American society we do not individually own people like slavery, and we do not believe we have defend ourselves, or go to war because we feel that our power is threaten. However, people have tried to exercise this right and have failed and some have been incarcerated. An example I can think of is the recent Trayvon Martin case. The aggressor George Zimmerman thought it was his neighborly duty to pursue the young man and gun him down because he looked suspicion in the neighborhood. As pieces to the puzzle have been added many activist and normal people in the community believe that this is a horrific event. They believe that nobody has the right to kill another person. So we can see that this definition does not suit the modern society.
As time has progress, the definition has changed and I do agree with Foucault's modern definition. He uses the term bio-power to refer to "numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations, marking the beginning of an era" (194). What Foucault means by this is that we no longer try to authorize our power over life by to kill or not to kill but we use our power to prolong death and keep people alive. From this we can say that we create laws to make norms but we pick the power. We pick power by choosing the method. The text states, " A power has to qualify, measure, appraise, and hierarchize, rather than display itself in its murderous splendor" (196). He later says that power over live has given rise to capitalism.
I do think it may be a little extreme to say that power over life has given rise to capitalism. I do see the influence of power over life today. I see it expressed in modern debates over birth control debates and abortions. The reason that I see it in these debates is because mainly an outsider "government" is dictating whether or not your action as a woman to get an abortion or use birth control is your right or morally right. The government has created these laws to be normal and has stigmatized a woman that has had an abortion as a bad person. If she cannot provide necessary nutrient, clothing, and a home for her child then she is a bad mother. If she uses birth control she is affecting her reproductive system causing her to not care about her future family. So then this leads to the question who is regulating the population? So yes I see Foucault definition prevalent today .
This new power over life that Foucault is talking about is called "bio-power." Bio power takes place in two different ways. The first way that bio-power is exercised is through discipline of the body. This is where the body is treated like a machine and used to be the most productive it can be and the most politically useful. This form of bio power is used to create a more disciplined and effective society and can be seen in places like school or the work place. The second form of bio power that Foucault refers to is the regulation of the population. This form of bio power tries to control the population on a statistical level. I think that this shift of power over life, from blood to sex, is best stated when Foucault says " The old power of death that symbolized sovereign power was now carefully supplanted by the administration of bodies and the calculate management of life." (P. 194)
I do think that Foucault presents a very good theory on how life functions today and I agree with him in many cases. I liked how he spoke about how in modern times laws are not needing to be enforced as much and as harshly as they previous had because people were not abiding by them because it was the norm and for the good of the entire population, which I think is very apparent for most cases today. When I look at everyday life I find it easy to point out areas of life that would be governed by the first form of bio power, discipline of the body, and I can especially see it in the work place and at school. There are many days when I have work and school and when I look back at my day I actually begin to realize that I went through the day almost as if I were in fact a machine. I would be so busy on those days that I would just have to move non stop until the end of the day. I can easily see how Foucault would see bio power as the driving force behind capitalism because in the first form it basically says that you use your body in the most productive way possible, and that is exactly was capitalism calls for, division of labor! Foucault says it best when he says " The bio-power was without question an indispensible element in the development of capitalism; the latter would not have been possible without the controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjustment of the phenomena of population to economic processes." (P. 194)
1. Foucault first describes a panopticon as a prison with special architectural features. On the outside there is a circular building, and in the middle there is a tower. The circular, outside building is made up of cells. These cells have two windows: one facing the tower and one to let the light in. The tower in the center is also lined with windows. This type of prison, Foucault argues, accomplishes a new type of order because the supervisor in the center tower can see everything. Foucault likens the cells to small theaters where each individual is individualized and constantly visible. Order in a panopticon is established because visibility is a trap. Essentially, because the tower supervisor is able to see the inmates at all times and the inmates are not capable of knowing if they are looking, the inmates are forced to behave. In short, the panopticon provides power that is visible and unverifiable. The inmate can always visibly see the dark outline of the center tower, but he never knows when he is being watched. The first thing that comes to mind when applying the panopticon concept to every day life today is traffic law. The police force in the United States has striven to seem omnipresent by patrolling around cities in their patrol cars. Civilians, then, have the impression a policeman is around every corner. Because of this center tower of power, people are less likely to commit traffic violations especially in towns or cities. The intersection cameras recently being added by the government also add to this panopticon effect on the driving habits of others. Though this may not be a perfect parallel to Foucault's prison panopticon allusion, I feel the enforcement of traffic law does have some similarities. Another example I thought of is simply every action a person makes in public. You would never do something in appropriate in a public place in fear someone was watching you. There isn't necessarily a punishment or disciplinary action from this type of panopticon power, but I suppose the power of society to shun someone for doing something inappropriate is a strong punishment within itself.
3. Foucoult explains that the accumulation of men and the accumulation of capital cannot be separated. I understood this as the emergence of disciplinary power and the emergence of power happened simultaneously and both influenced each other. The growth of power and accumulation of men could not continue without an economy that could sustain and use them. The growth of capital and industries, though, could not continue without disciplinary power to sustain production. On one hand, disciplinary power provided unity to the newly multiplicity of society. It also provided efficiency for production of capital. It provided a way to ensure each worker of a company was being utilized to its fullest using the least amount of time and resources. On the other hand, the growth of a capitalistic economy gave rise to a specific culture in which disciplinary power could be used. The way in which factories and other institutions were laid out in an early capitalistic economy provided the perfect environment for disciplinary power to thrive. In short, the emergence of disciplinary power and the emergence of capitalism were directly related. "Each makes the other possible and necessary; each provides a model for the other" (214).
In Truth and Power Foucault offers a commentary on power, and he questions the idea of speaking of power as simply repressive and negative. What example of power does he offer to show that power isn't merely negative and repressive?
• In truth and Power reading, Foucault makes a commentary on questions asked regarding power. For his discussion, Foucault discussed the notion of repressive and ideology in the same category of question asked regarding Marxist phenomenology. According to Foucault, the notion of repression is an insidious one. Meaning that it corresponds on the effects of power when he wrote the "Madness and Civilization". He differently thinks now that the notion of repression as the productive aspect of power. For example, Foucault asserts that an individual adapts to a power with a law which says no. To that extent, power is taken as it producing the force of prohibition. According to Foucault, if power weren't repressive, there would not be anyone to obey it and follow with its laws. Not only that power produces laws that say no which sounds negatively to the civilians of a country or the proletariats who are the working class but according to Foucault, "It traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, and lastly power produces discourse" (Foucault 203). Additionally, Foucault suggests that power should be well thought-out as productive network which runs through the social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression (203). In other words, Foucault is affirming us that we shouldn't look at the negativity more like the repression side of it but rather we should give credit to the larger picture of it. The positive side that power perpetuates is more like the things such peace, harmony, inducement of pleasure but not always looking at it as repressive. An example of repression that Foucault affirmed is how the concept of repression is used a relation to sexuality. He uses example of how bourgeois society repressed sexuality. For example, " The campaign launched against masturbation in the eighteenth century, or the medical discourse on homosexuality in the second half of the nineteenth century or discourse on sexuality in general, one does seem to be faced with a discourse of repression" (Foucault 204). Ultimately, Foucault brings up a point of why the western world has insisted for so long on seeing the power it exercises as juridical and negative rather than as technical and positive? I have dissimilar example of my own parent's motherland. My parents are originally from the horn of Africa Somali "east Africa". Back in 1977, there was a war between Somali and Ethiopia. Somali had won that war back then but since then the two governments and the civilians had been rival to each other "hate-rish among themselves". Approximately five years ago, there was an interim government in Somali fighting against warlords. The interim government had asked help from the neighboring country Ethiopia for their troops "soldiers" so that they could help clear out the warlords. The Ethiopian soldiers landed in Somali to help the interim government for bringing peace. From what I heard, the Ethiopians had raped the women in the course of bringing peace to Somali. The government came up with a repression laws against the civilians. The civilians were thinking what the Ethiopian troops "soldiers" were doing as a revenge of the 1977 war. In pursuit of bringing peace, they killed the men, raped the women with the power they had. So, the connection I am trying to make here to the Foucault arguments of that power having more than to do with the repression it comes with; is that the civilians of Somali looked the aid of the Ethiopian troops as negative impact sort of revenge thing which is the repression "Negative" but they didn't looked at the positive of side of it which was bringing peace back.
In The History of Sexuality, Foucault describes how the sovereign (whether a monarch, state, or other authority-wielding body) has evolved over time from wielding a power over death to a power over life. In the past, the state was a moderating, restraining force. It controlled by suppression, and exercised itself through the taking of lives. Life was a precarious situation, and survival had to be ensured through cooperation. It was the sovereign's job to eliminate those who threatened survival.
The transition to power over life occurred around the time when technology advanced enough for people to look beyond the bare fact of survival and examine the quality of life. When people ceased worrying about being alive and began worrying about living, the state's job became the promotion of life itself. The right to kill became contradictory and was phased out; thus, most governments no longer practice a death penalty and war has taken a drastic connotation. Instead governments fight for life through "anatomo-politics of the human body" and "bio-politics of the population" (193). Governments have become "a power whose highest function [is] no longer to kill, but to invest life through and through" (194). This is evidenced through modern programs such as public schooling and public works.
I believe Foucault has a very good point. I can clearly see that the goal of political power is the promotion of life. Everything our government stands for (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) is about life. The right to kill has become quite scarce. Even when we wage war, it is no longer for the purpose of eliminating a certain group of people, but for restoring peace to or protecting the lives of a group of people. The results may be the same, but the motive is different. Thus, the Crusades were about seizing the holy lands from unworthy peoples; about waging war *against* them. The conflict in the Middle East today is about protecting the liberties of oppressed civilians and reducing the risk of genocide.
On the other hand, this focus on life does not seem universal. I feel that some sovereign authorities still wield a power over death. I am by no means an expert, but I know that the Yazidi people still practice stoning as a means of social control. This is not about preserving a quality of life; it is about the survival of a culture.
I would also imagine that power over death versus life exists on a spectrum correlated with modernization, since Foucault claimed the transition from the one to the other was related to modern technological advances.
I experience sovereign power in my life every day. As an individual, I feel the state's efforts toward anatomo-politics strongly. I have gone through 12 years of public education provided by the state. I have grown up with the state's ideas on how to manage my health, analyze history, do math, drive, etcetera. All of these things have helped optimize my individual potential. As a member of populations, I have felt the state's power more indirectly. I have received state-mandated vaccinations, followed laws concerning food safety and safe driving, and benefitted from federal efforts to eliminate diseases such as polio and hoof and mouth disease. In these cases, I am part of a population-level effort to increase vitality.
In Truth and Power Foucault offers a commentary on power, and he questions the idea of speaking of power as simply repressive and negative. What example of power does he offer to show that power isn't merely negative and repressive?
In Truth and Power Foucault criticizes the French Communist Party and of Marxist ideas in general (base/superstructure, etc.), particularly in their reference to power. Why?
In the History of Sexuality Foucault writes about "power over life". What is "power over life"? Do you agree with Foucault that this is how power manifests itself today? Can you feel its influence in your own life?
