History 3152: British History Since the 17th Century

as foucault demonstrates, the discipline and direction of society (panopticon) is inescapable. from the plague arose order and regulation, under this order and regulation everyone is involved. foucault states that the point of the panocpticon is to become as effective and self sufficient as possible. it does not take a magistrate or any "real" person of authority to run the panopticon because authority lies in the belief in the regulation of the panopticon. am i making sense? in other words, it doesn't matter who is in charge, what matters is that everyone follows and believes in the prinicpals of panopticism. thus, whether you're elite or not you are still confined to the same principals as everyone else.

My opinion is that we should not judge these authors works upon the moral standards of our own time. Their world dictated how they viewed the societies in which they lived. Their works have led to a more perfect moral standard as they were reinterpreted to encompass those in society without power (women, minorities, slaves). Foucault I think is simply giving a more martial law view for during times of crisis which ironically enough is still an issue in our time (War on Terror, Torture). Is it permissible to deny certain people of their human rights for the "greater good"?

I'd like to comment on the Foucault reading and discussion. While the panopticism he is discussing would be probably rather amazingly effective, especially in a society as technilogically advanced as is possible today. However, I really believe that the human individual and collective will could overcome the efficiency of the system. Real existing socialism, practised in the former USSR and soviet bloc really had to engage a panoptic system to maintain control and function in society. Instead of towers, they relied on unknown members of society called informers to report information to the secret police. So you never knew when people were watching you-even within your own family sometimes. It was quite effective. I think that the will of individuals and of the group was part of the reason why those regimes collapsed (obviously also you can't rule out the economic end). In addition, personal story: I used to work at a telephone survey company, doing health care surveys over the phone (kinda like telemarketing). The set up was exactly like the one from class! Rows of cubicles facing the walls, and a center post where the supervisor watched you. This system was so oppressive, and I grew to hate it so intensely that I stiffed it to the company as often as I could. Small means of rebellion, ie taking extra long bathroom breaks, pausing between calls, socializing whenever you could get away with it- all were important to me. One acquaintance I had there actually told me if he could get ahold of something, he would not hesitate to "take out" the management... People pushed to extremes are willing to do anything to relieve the pressure that panopticism places upon you. So in the end, if you desire control, and you end up with someone or several someones going postal- have you succeeded?

I agree with the above post. People that feel oppressed will naturally attempt to find some means of retaliation or retribution. It has been said that even the tiniest mouse will fight back when cornered. As far as societies and Panopticonism, we can look at the United Kingdom where almost every public area is under video surveillance. This is done in the name of safety and security at the expense of some personal freedoms. Of course with freedom comes responsibility. It's a quite Libertarian view I realize. As far as "secret police", that's not an American institution because of our personal freedoms that this country is founded on. Granted the Nazis used their secret police (Gestapo) to observe and arrest enemies of the state and the former Soviet Union also had some form of this as well. Again we are brought back to ideas that some people have to suffer or be without freedoms to that the common good benefits.

Having this panopticon works very well for the prison system, however having a panopticon to that degree or severity will not work in society. Once the government tries to limit the people it just forces the people to fight back and find ways around it. This is why a capitalist society works so well. If you leave people alone, the best outcome will be generated (to some extent). The government is needed to protect its people, but only to a certain degree. Claiming that having video cameras in every household for their own safety is a great way to over control a population and cause them to try to get around it and eventually overthrow the oppression of their government.

There are a number of inherent problems with any type of government put into place. The main problem being that man isn't perfect. Man in a "state of nature" follows the "survival of the fittest" mentality. Even the authors we're talking about here acknowledged that there were "contrasting passions". Some of which were really bad and had to be counteracted by the ones that were not so bad.

No matter what system of govenrment is in place there will be people who will end up being oppressed and/or dissatisfied. If we're talking about a system that's supposed to be egalitarian we run into even more problems. Maybe it's just my cynicism showing itself, but I have a hard time believing a truly egalitarian system is possible. There will always be some people that have more power and influence than others. There will always be those people at the bottom of the heap who won't have enough and there will always be those people at the top of the heap that will have more than they could possibly ever need.

One of the posts mentioned the socialist society in the former USSR; it proves to be a great example of what doesn't work. If you look at it even a little closely it wasn't a truly socialist system. There was an extremely pronounced hierarchy in place. The people in high positions had priveleges no one else had.

Considering the Panopticon... it makes for possibly a very good way to make people behave. The unfotunate circumstance of reality however, doesn't take into account what another one of the posts mentioned: the idea that people in an evnironment that controlled and oppressive may have exactly the opposite effect one desires -> Rebellion. It also doesn't take into account the fact that some people just don't care. It doesn't matter to them whatsoever whether they are being watched or not, they will do exactly as they want to do - just like someone mentioned in class during the discussion. If it were truly effective we wouldn't have the problems that exist in our prison systems that use this premise.

I think that the ideas of a civil society and the documents written about it had little to do with the ability of people to move up in society. I believe this because how many people of middle or lower class actually read anything by Locke, Smith, or Jefferson? The people of high society that did read these works did not necessarily believe that civility and natural rights applied to everyone, so they had no reason to just allow people to climb up the social ladder. I think it is a bit of a coincidence; at the time of these publications, Great Britian had gone through the "market revolution" and people had more opportunities to participate in commerce and there were many job opportunities. People entered higher realms of society by hard work, not by the pen of a writer, racist or not. As for Foucault, I question whether he believes discipline should be administered equally to everyone. He discussed criminals; is this limited to the back alley murderers or does it include the tryannical ruler or bribing MP? In theory, the Panopticon would level the playing field and discipline everyone, reducing their worth to their moral character and behavior.

I believe that some of the practices of the people who devised our current idea of democracy were wrong and often immoral. However, it is their documents that help us to form our modern conception of what man is entitled too and what government should ideally be. Our government and its society do not always follow these good ideas as closely as they should. Especially in our present state of war and domestic turbulance. One reason I think our country is so unhappy is because the nation as a whole is starting to believe that our current administration is not doing its duty in maintaining these ideas that we put so much stock and pride in to.

I do not believe Foucault meant to imply that the actual panopticon was being used in society. The theory however can be observed in every social institution and in our daily lives. Through panopticism we control/discipline ourselves. This theory really can be applied to everything. Panopticism infiltrates our public institutions, our homes, our relationships, and our minds. Am I crazy or did reading that make anyone elses skin crawl. We are so enveloped by it we can neither see or escape its grasp. As for the political philosophies of the 17th century, they appear as if they encompass all men (and women) but of course do not. They are writing as privaleged and scholarly men, therefore inequality is written all over these writings. I don't think we should excuse this but I also don't think we should bash them for being prejudice. After all, no one can pretend that we do not live in a prejudice society today. I think liberal civil society will always be a work in progress; we have come a long way, but also have a ways to go.

In reading the texts on liberal ideas, it helps to remember the circumstances of the time. Justin's analysis makes the point that we should not judge them based on our contemporary moral standards. Jefferson's own writings have shown that he felt slavery was a horrible moral dilemma. The ideas of civil society would certainly be assumed to be universal. Arguably, the United States still makes these assumptions to this day. Americans are quite divided over the direction of their government, and many feel we have made a great investment in our ideas. Foucault made the point that the panopticon exists in society regardless of whether we realize it or agree with it.

I believe that the only place equality is necessary is in the political process where everybody has an equal chance to participate within their government. Although early democratic institutions had inequality overtime, democracy has changed because in order to be fully effective it needs widespread participation. When people consented to money is when inequality began. De Tocqueville, in his writings, found equality of condition is what produced an effective democracy and civil society. However, equality of condition is not a necessary to having a truly effective democracy. Democracy creates a greater civil society because it brings "others" together for dialogue. When we do this it opens new ideas and dispells prejudice. Democracy allows people to open their conscience to others and makes people think. Thus, it can move people to create a better civil society.

It is hard to criticize and/or judge a political system in which most of us had live our whole lives ( I lived four years of Franco’s dictatorship, but I remember nothing), a system that has been elevated and praised as the best of the political systems. However, political equality does not mean social equality. Making an analogy, society could be like a car race. An equalitarian democracy would make the track equal for everybody, but it does not provide the cars to race in. Some people will drive a Ferrari while other people will ride a VW Beetle, or a bicycle. Is also important to address that the people who wrote the equalitarian documents had goals that where not only provide access to politics to everybody. The main goal of the Bill of Rights is to get more power to the Parliament, or the Declaration of Independence precisely that, to be independent of England. Also, for people in that time is was unthinkable of slaves or women voting (just think that we are a generation apart from total universal suffrage in this country!), so it take a long time to introduce and accept new ideas like vote for minorities and women.

I think that the ideas of Foucault are perfect in the debate, as one of the thinks that equalitarian societies proclaim is equal justice for everybody, and is probably one of the thinks that really work in democracy. The best example is the Watergate escandal, where high political people were charged for conspiracy, implicating even Richard Nixon, president of the United States.

I think that liberal civil society is still a work in process and that although it started with many faults it has been interepted into a different form of liberty for the masses. I do not think that there will ever be a perfect organization of peoples, but as new leaders take the ideas of Locke, Bruke, and other enlightment writers and apply them to benefit the people they represent one gets a more liberal orgaization. In the Haiti Revolutions the slave leaders used Locke's ideas even though Locke did not believe that slaves should be free. The electoral system in the United States political system is another device that the founding fathers set up to make sure that the masses could be controled. Even in societies that are seen as being free still have safe guards in place to keep the masses under control.
I think that Foucault was just illustrating another form of control over the masses. His idea to keep the people of the world in line is to threaten them with discipline while Locke and the Founding Fathers of the United States used access to key civil functions as a way to control the masses. Inequality is illustrated everywhere in the world then and now. People will always see themselves as being better than others, so one can say that liberal civil soceity is still in the process of bringing equality to the world, but it has already given freedom to a lot of other people who would not have been free if civil society had not developed in the first place.

I would like to comment on Foucault, I am torn as to wether or not I like or agree with the idea of panopticism. I liked the idea for keeping watch over the criminals of a society. Although, should we limit the idea of panopticism to just the criminals? The idea of knowing you could be being watched at anytime keeps people in order. This may not be true for today's society in America for example we know that certain websites, book, key phrases said over a telephone are all flagged by the government, but yet it doesn't stop people from doing or saying those things. The modern day panopticism at least in America doesn't seem to carry the same fear it did during Foucault's time. Although, what right does our government have to impose on our freedom? People may agree with the idea of panopticism until it infringes upon them.

Ha ha ha. I thoroughly, whole-heartedly believe in the former. Liberal society is a lie! Pledge your life and your spouse to warlords with clubs! CANNIBALISM 4EVAR!

Here's a lil' historical synopsis of human power structures that I find handy.

Humanity demands tribalism.
An economy demands monarchy.
Politics demands democracy.
Russian idiots who actually think that it'll work on a population that's diffused over 17 million square kilometers demand communism.
The soul demands anarchy.

I don't know if Foucault really corrupts the argument for law so much as he argues for bigger and better societies having more and more of a need for observation and control of their subjects. It's kind of a no-brainer though, isn't it? We go to a school swimming in CCTV and UMPD and get our cell phones and emails recorded if we say something bad about George Bush/Karl Rove or something good about Osama bin Laden/Cat Stevens, and if we do we become part of the biggest prison population in the world... We're IN the Panopticon, and we're the "Land of the Free". It's gotta happen to everyone else sometime.

Still think it's the coolest-sounding thing an architect ever came up with, though. Panopticon. Yeah, I dig it.

I think that, while the individuals who first expressed the ideas in such documents as our constitution were far more prejudiced and elitist than we are now, we should indeed keep the documents. If you look at most of the wording (ie all men are created equal) it still holds true today, we've just reformed our idea of who counts as a man. Now we use it to mean mankind as a whole regardless of skin color or gender. Of course, there are still plenty of circumstances where people are marginalized and more than enough prejudice to go around, but the fact that we can still use the SAME words that were written in the 1700s as an ideal for today speaks volumes. Each generation has seen more clearly that we are all equal. 100 years ago, I couldn't have voted. Now, I could run for office. I realize that our political system and the individuals in it are not representative of our population, but it is a work in progress. The federal government has even started to take away barriers to a better education and more opportunities. I'm here on grant money. My parents do not have college degrees. I have a chance to move up in the world and leave my working class background behind. Yes, we lived in an expensive neighborhood, but my parents both had their normal job (my dad was a landscaper, my mom worked retail) AND they delivered pizza in the evenings to make ends meet. I had to start contributing to household income at the age of 12 so we could stay where we lived and our house had 2 bedrooms and 5 people-but my parents wanted us to have an education that would give us the chance to do whatever we wanted in life. The fact that our country allowed me to do that speaks volumes for how good the ideas it was founded upon are.

I want to warn everyone that this it a terribly long post. Sorry.

The near-perverse beauty of the theory of panopticism lies in the fact that, when established within a given group, it is completely subversive. Although its effectiveness as an actual physical establishment has been justifiably questioned by many people on this blog, its use as a means of social control is undeniable.

The usefulness of the panopticon as a means of social control lies in the fact that it is subconscious once established. The people who live within any society are more-or-less beholden to the standards of said society. Why is this? We as humans, as essentially gregarious (social) creatures need to be able to interact with others of our ilk. We need the interactions that come with daily life in order to maintain our mental well-being. That being established, it soon becomes evident that each social group must develop and implement certain limitations on the individual in order to ensure that the whole will proceed and flourish. What are the mechanisms of this social shepherding?

The obvious answer is to state the limits of what is considered to be socially acceptable and to punish those that transgress these rules. However, as mentioned earlier, the strict regulation of human behavior by a totalitarian and aggressive force often results in rebellion. In light of this, how, then, can a society maintain a relative state of order?

Panopticism, as a social theory, presents a novel approach. What if the population internalized these controls? What if the people, as individuals, became so attuned to the standards of their society that they instinctively adhered to these limits? It cannot be said that this is completely full-proof as humans, by virtue of their capacity for individual and abstract thought, can consciously decide to buck societal expectations. Yet there remains that initial flicker of doubt, that momentary recognition of their potential action as being beyond the pale.

Furthermore, panopticism does not need to be interpreted as operating on the macro level. How much of our daily lives, our everyday choices are dictated by the society in which we live? How are our choices in music, in literature, in food, in clothing dictated by the society at large? I know that many people will assert that they are self-aware individuals who reject the hallmarks of current American popular culture, but I ask you to think on the following:

Who makes the clothing that you wear? Where do you get it? How do you decide not only what to buy, but also how to match what pieces you will wear on a day-to-day basis? Even your refusal to adhere to the more mundane (and seemingly insignificant) social norms proves that you ARE aware, on some level, of the established attitudes.

If you're still not convinced, then I want to challenge you to prove this wrong. Tomorrow you should wear a big, pink, fluffy tutu. The day after that, rent a hotdog costume from a costume from a costume rental store, et cetera, et cetera. Do this for one week exactly and come to class next week dressed as the Pillsbury doughboy. Share with everyone your honest thoughts and feelings about yourself.

Documents such as the Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, while sexist, racist, and lacking a bushel of things we would consider necissary in a free society, were the stepping stones to the universal freedom and suffrage we enjoy now. Whether or not this process was done intentionally as to not upset the more moderate political leaders of the time is up to debate, but keep in mind that the original drafts of the Declaration of Independance freed the slaves.

While early civil society aided racism, sexism, and the explotation of the poor, it has surely come a long way since then. It is a work in progress and civil society is needed for order and a feeling of national pride within a country. I believe that no civil society will ever be perfect, however since they were first formed in the 17th and 18th centuries they have continued to improve and I believe will continue to do so.

As for Foucault and the methods of the Panopticon, I believe that this type of "invisible watch" is necessary to run any society smoothly. There needs to be a higher power, a possible punishment for wrongdoings within a society. Laws and those that inforce them are a necessity for keeping people in control. I think the idea of not always watching, but not knowing when they are watching or not is a brilliant idea that is used very effectively in our civil societies today.

Alex brought up a good point when discussing the control of subjects. The Panopticon is a perfect metaphor for society. Society is not simply the natural state of man - it is a way for the elite leaders to control those they rule. While we are not under as strict of a rule as in earlier centuries, the issue of control still exists. The Constitution, while written for freedom, is also written for control. In any society there has to exist RULES or the society would spin out of control and the leaders would have no power. I do not necessarily see this as a negative thing, however. Rules and control are good - they help create a productive group of people (i.e. a society) that will not cave in on itself (at least not immediately).

We are currently seeing society being used as a tool for control (i.e. Bush and the Iraq war) - while I despise BOTH the Dems and the Republicans, I see "spreading democracy" as a way to control the world. I could very easily be wrong, but I think the Panopticon will soon be a fantastic metaphor for the entire world, with the Center Tower being some jack-hole who thinks he can rule the world.

Alex brought up a good point when discussing the control of subjects. The Panopticon is a perfect metaphor for society. Society is not simply the natural state of man - it is a way for the elite leaders to control those they rule. While we are not under as strict of a rule as in earlier centuries, the issue of control still exists. The Constitution, while written for freedom, is also written for control. In any society there has to exist RULES or the society would spin out of control and the leaders would have no power. I do not necessarily see this as a negative thing, however. Rules and control are good - they help create a productive group of people (i.e. a society) that will not cave in on itself (at least not immediately).

We are currently seeing society being used as a tool for control (i.e. Bush and the Iraq war) - while I despise BOTH the Dems and the Republicans, I see "spreading democracy" as a way to control the world. I could very easily be wrong, but I think the Panopticon will soon be a fantastic metaphor for the entire world, with the Center Tower being some jack-hole who thinks he can rule the world.

I believe that the documents that we have been reading reflect a few views amoung the many possibilities of how society should function. I believe the only logical way for society to function is to accept things the way they are or change them. No society is perfect and inequality will exist no matter what. People are greedy and deceitful and have been for as long as they have existed. It was brought up that thomas jefferson had slaves and that these were really only privlaged upper class people writing our readings. However it seems quite logical since the poor were mostly illiterate. Progressive people can exist in all segments of society. I dont believe that civil society was specifically designed to ligitimize the rule of the elite. My reasoning is that a middle class has developed which the wealthy rely on for more profits. It turns out that more money can be made when there are middle and low income individuals versus just low income. I definately think things could be improved but all in all things in this country are good. worldwide on the other hand that is different and i would not want to switch places with many people. It appears that economics dictate that their must be the poor to make people rich to do jobs no one else would do. this seems to follow basic economic principles. This will be hard to overcome in any society no matter how it is restructured. so yes this is definately a work in progress but if managed correctly things may improve. finally i want to discuss what Foucault was addressing with the social order of society. I do notice these social pressures including school which people go to mainly for economic benifits. The idea that this invisible and sometimes visible force controls how people behave seems very logical. People are always pressured to conform. although in this global economy conformity seems to be more about money power and looks that anything else

I believe that the documents that we have been reading reflect a few views amoung the many possibilities of how society should function. I believe the only logical way for society to function is to accept things the way they are or change them. No society is perfect and inequality will exist no matter what. People are greedy and deceitful and have been for as long as they have existed. It was brought up that thomas jefferson had slaves and that these were really only privlaged upper class people writing our readings. However it seems quite logical since the poor were mostly illiterate. Progressive people can exist in all segments of society. I dont believe that civil society was specifically designed to ligitimize the rule of the elite. My reasoning is that a middle class has developed which the wealthy rely on for more profits. It turns out that more money can be made when there are middle and low income individuals versus just low income. I definately think things could be improved but all in all things in this country are good. worldwide on the other hand that is different and i would not want to switch places with many people. It appears that economics dictate that their must be the poor to make people rich to do jobs no one else would do. this seems to follow basic economic principles. This will be hard to overcome in any society no matter how it is restructured. so yes this is definately a work in progress but if managed correctly things may improve. finally i want to discuss what Foucault was addressing with the social order of society. I do notice these social pressures including school which people go to mainly for economic benifits. The idea that this invisible and sometimes visible force controls how people behave seems very logical. People are always pressured to conform. although in this global economy conformity seems to be more about money power and looks that anything else

I believe, or would like to believe, that when these documents were being constructed, the creators had the greater population's, of the time, interest at heart. Of course, taking the Declaration of Independence for an example, these have been modified to fit our times now - at least in some respects anyways. In other ways, these documents still represent times of old, with horrible laws still in place or new ones that need to still be inacted. I am not sure if going a completely different route would be a better alternative to the documents we have today but, in doing the best with what we have and if people do want to change these documents to better represent the unpriviledged then - there is power in numbers in which case it is not "pointless" to partake in our "ritual of voting." I would definitly label, our government, as well as most other governments, that they are works in progress. No government is ever going to satisify the needs and wants of every group of individuals but, i think there is a great opportunity for them to help change it so it can better serve them. though nothing will ever be "perfect."

Whether liberal civil society is a work in progress or not, I think it has, at least, progressed. The statement in the Declaration of Indepence that “all men are created equal�, has broadened its defintion of "men" to include many more people, such as women and men belonging to races that were formerly exempt from our forefathers definition of men. People need some amount of control and restrictions in order for the members of society to function peacefully together, however, there is a fine line to the amount of rules and observation that can be forced on people before they begin to feel their freedom is being abused. The panopticon sounds as if it could work in theory, and maybe it can, but the loss of freedom and feeling of equality it would inflict is enough to cause people to rebel against this system, and therefore not be successful. Although the right to be considered equal has come to include more people than it used to, we still have a long way to go before we, or any society for that matter, are truly an egalitarian government, if it is even possible at all. I, for one, cannot foresee how this is possible in the near future, or what can be changed in order for it to happen at all. It seems to me that there will always be those that want more than others, and as long as that want is there, they will try and most likely succeed in creating a class divided, unequal society.

I believe that no civil society can ever be truly equal. There is always going to be a drive to "get ahead" in life. To get to the top, you obviously must have people below you. An economical perspective will show that a society cannot function without poor individuals within it. The poor individuals are needed to make any other individuals rich. Due to this and basis human nature, I do not feel that there will ever be a "perfect organization of people."

Hearing other people's stories about work-type panopticons leaves me grateful for my job. I work at a bakery where the closest thing we have to that sort of thing is the occasional secret shopper. However, nobody's job is on the line if they get a bad customer service review. The thing I want to mention about working at the store is that it would be very easy to rip off the company. I am in charge of the money on the wekends, and we are frequently off by a little bit. I doubt this is because people steal. I think it is because they make errors. They hit "charge" instead of "cash" on the register, or they make incorrect change. It happens. But when I'm in the basement counting money, what's to stop me from taking a few bucks every day? Especially if we have MORE money than we're supposed to? I could, but I never have. This is because I like the company. I look at the store and how the management treats me and the other employees and I come to the conclusion that the store does not deserve to be robbed. We're not supposed to give away free bread, but there isn't anyone spying on us to make sure we don't. Giving away free bread is one of the easiest things in the world. At this place, people rarely quit and I have never heard of anyone stealing money from the company. I am convinced that this is because no one is disgruntled or unhappy with the way they are treated.

This situation can be applied to any sort of job/community. People don't like it when the authority is trying to catch them on every little thing (giving a free muffin to a friend). It's a matter of trust. If someone trusts me, I am not inclined to do them any wrong.

Apply this to society. Do you feel like the government trusts you? I guess they do, but I'm a white guy from a good neighborhood. How about the people around you? Are they trusted? Or are they mistrusted because of where they come from? Then you have to weigh the severity of the possible crime. No one is really hurt (nor does anyone care) if someone smokes pot occassionally. But what about more serious crimes (rape, murder, terrorism)? How far should we go to prevent those?

Well, isn't it convenient that the makers and writers of the 'egalitarian' documents wrote them to fit there needs. But I do believe that (at least in America, I not familure with the British or French documents) that these writers had what was best in mind for the country and as such, wrote the document in a similar manner. Is a civil society, though, in place only to give rule and power to the privileged? I think not. There is, after all, the process of voting. It gives a chance for everyone to 'say' who should be in power and in that thought, have said elected person change the country for the better (in their view). In summary, I believe that no, civil society is not a lie, and that over time it has greatly improved. In time, it can be perfect. As an aside, though, I find it interesting that only those with power and prosperity, especially in Britain, were the only people allowed to vote; effectivly making this change practically impossible.
Foucault ideas, I believe, also make this change for the better impossible. In his disciplinany society, it would be very easy for the people in power (the observers) to stay in power. This is so, because of how they are able to discipline those under them. Either way, as I didn not grow up in such a society it is very hard to say what would really happen.

While reading Locke, Smith and Jefferson we have to think that belonged to privileged classes. They could have a leisure of thinking through the idea of civil society and property. Average middle class to lower class was less concerned with these ideas, most likely they were just thinking of earning enough to eat. These ideas were not involving everyone, for example the French declaration of citizenship did not even include women. But these types of writings create tension and discussion and that creates social progress, that potentially, over time benefits middle and lower classes.

The civil society was made so that everyone, including the poor and the less fortunate would have a chance in their life. For this commercial state to work there has to be losers in a society. Not everyone can be a success, no matter how good the system seems to be. People in power just makes up these scenarios just to have the people below them feel like they have a chance in what they pursue themselves to do with their lives. Even though we live in somewhat of a civil society today there is always competition going on between people all the time, even though this nation was created to say that all men are created equal.

The idea of the panopticon is one that continues in our society today with the ideas of "big brother" always watching. I think it would be highly effective in certain cituations and highly invasive in others. By keeping the ill people locked up in their homes, it is an invasion. It would be highly effective in prisons, where crime is likely and convicts escaping would certainly hurt the civilians. It is highly effective by means of the prisoners know that they are always being watched even though they can't see who is watching. This idea relates well to today's society in that putting cameras in stores or at red lights would be for the best of the civilians. It stops theft and reduces the number of people that run red lights. However, there are certain parameters of how far the government should go in watching people. I agree that this adds pressure to the people being watched, and it may lead to more of a rebellion or a breakdown.
In regard to the men who wrote the important documents of the 1700's were making the best of society at that time. It has been everpresent that the majority looks out for themselves and leaves the minorities in the dust. For our society today, I feel that we could create more progressive documents for the good of the whole rather than just for the white, rich men.

I think in the end, the idea of society is completely dependent on "use or be used". There will always be people who are more powerful than others, and it is our natural reaction when we're in such a position to take advantage of the weaker members. The CEOs take advantage of the little peons in manufacturing to make him a lot of money while all they get is some measely scraps off the table. It works the same way everywhere else too, and there is no way to escape because it's just an inherent form of evolution that's present in all of us, and every living being on the planet. Survival of the fittest. Just because we dont live in the wild anymore does not mean we have escaped the natural order of things. It's just shifted into a new field, from whether or not you live to whether or not you live well, and as such, can provide a better life for your offspring than someone else.

That "monkey wrench" that Foucault throws in, that is that discipline comes before the power of law in civil society, hints at a deeper understanding of human nature: That human nature, detached from civil society, will act to enforce discipline and punish amongst one another. This line of argument has lineage all the way back to Rousseau's idea of the "savage man" and man removed from a state of civil society. I'm not sure if Foucault desired to place his ideas of discipline and punishment in the realm of the "natural," but I believe it is impossible to read his work and not gather that he is hinting at things like the "collective unconscious" and the "savage man."