Michel Foucault: Theorist, philosopher, historian, drama king
If it wasn't already evident, I'm writing my praxis paper on Foucault, and have read beyond The Panopticon; however, the point I'd like to make in this post is located within the chapter and centered on the idea of scrutiny and policing the body. We spoke earlier this semester in my critical disabilities studies course about the constant scrutiny people with disabilities find themselves under. It's not only applicable to visible disabilities, but invisible disabilities as well (those which are not outwardly visible or can be hidden). While those with visible disabilities often find themselves stared at and openly scrutinized, people with invisible disabilities face different challenges involving scrutiny.
Think of the skepticism you feel when you see someone parking in a spot reserved for people with disabilities, then stepping out of the car looking young and healthy. I recall encountering this situation with my father; he complained that the man was taking advantage of the system. In reality we can't know whether that person has a disability or not, but people feel comfortable making judgement calls on the basis of appearance, thus policing the body. Similarly, a friend of mine with an invisible disability told me about a time she'd been using a mobile cart in the supermarket, and someone stopped her to demand that she explain why she was using a cart reserved for people with disabilities. This surveillance to assure she was acting according to normal expectations centered on the body was probably subconscious on the part of the person who accosted her, but this is just an example of power operating without force or visibility.
Foucault's vision of the panoptic system of power is one that extends beyond disciplinary systems and into the way we live and think. It acknowledges that systems of power can be maintained through the creation of a norm to be adhered to. With all of media reinforcing our ideals of normalcy and beauty (these ideals often entrenched in sexism, racism, classism, and of course consumerism), the norm becomes part of our lives to the point that we enforce it upon ourselves and others. Foucault recognizes this as "all the mechanisms of power which, even today, are disposed around the abnormal individual, to brand him and to alter him..." (Discipline and Punish 201). The Panopticon is so efficient because people aren't actively conscious of the fact they're being scrutinized, and the power this breeds is so pervasive that it takes effect in all aspects of society. We become agents of our own oppression. So next time you label someone who appears able-bodied a jerk for taking the "handicapped" parking spot, know that you, too, may be being an jerk. Able/disabled isn't black and white, and assumptions can be damaging. Foucault knows wassup.
Also, here's an interesting article about parking spaces for people with disabilities I found while looking for those god-awful comics.
Hania I enjoyed your blog post on Foucault very much. It is very clear to me that you grasp his concepts well. You helped me understand him a bit better (honestly, this reading wasn't an easy one for me).
ReplyDeleteBefore I start on my actual post, I have a (un)funny story. When I studied Sociology in Brazil, my friends and I used to make a lot of fun of Foucault. All the upperclassmen were obsessed with him and we couldn’t see what was so interesting about Foucault. They talked about him during lunch, parties, etc. and it just became a massive joke. I was kind of excited to ready him for the first time to see what the fuss was about.
His interpretation of surveillance is interesting. I also like how he started with an association of the plague. Your quote, “We become agents of our own oppression” really stuck to me. Foucault talks about oppression, surveillance, despotism, powers, among others, but we have to think about our own place in these repressive/ideological apparatuses. We also keep them going, either by following the norm or by not questioning it.
I really like the quote where he states, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance” (101). This quote reminded me of reality shows. We are obsessed with surveillance, as if we are being wired to constantly survey and be surveyed. I always thought about reality shows as spectacles, but after reading his text, I can see them as objects of surveillance that are requested by a public that also wants to be the “watcher.”
His texts seem somewhat dark to me. We are always under the influence of "a power" (and we are always under surveillance). These phenomenons happen unconsciously; can we ever run from them? Are we ever free in a surveilled/watched society? And what is the necessity of these surveillances? If I understood Foucault, I believe he argues that the surveillance is placed there to keep tabs on the population and to reinforce the ideals/objectives of those in power. It that is true, his argument about surveillance reminds me a lot of the Propaganda Model by Herman and Chomsky (somebody is always paying attention to what is being put out there). All these mechanism are used to put (or repress) the people in place.
I am excited to discover more about this author in class! Hopefully I didn't misinterpret him too much.
I agree with Marcie - I really like your concept that "we become agents of our own oppression." This concept goes beyond the passive internalized oppression, and instead suggests that we are actively oppressing ourselves. Jeez - what are the implications of that?
ReplyDeleteI also like your connection to reality television in discussion of Foucault's surveillance, Marcie. We seem to be fascinated with the act of watching, surveying, and supporting a voyeuristic sense of participation. This sense of surveillance creates a sense of connectivity between the viewer and the viewed. Viewers of such shows as The Bachelor participate in surveying the characters, where not only is the audience observing the character’s actions, but the audience is encouraged to relate to the characters and feel as if there is a relationship between the viewer and the character.
I will admit something quite embarrassing – as I have previously mentioned, my guilty pleasure is The Bachelorette. However, the more embarrassing aspect is the level of “surveillance” that I unknowingly participate in. The most recent “bachelorette” from the past season of The Bachelorette was, in my mind, super cool, down to earth, and fun. For 12 weeks I watched her love life on television, and when the season concluded, I was disappointed I could no longer participate in her life, in this passive, voyeuristic way (I now realize how inherently creepy this all sounds – thanks Foucault). So, I found her public account on Instagram, and then after seeing her Snapchat username on her Instagram page, I followed her there too. Through these means of social media, I feel a connection to her on a personal level, as I am seeing her “real” day-to-day life in real time on Snapchat. To me this was just a fun way of continuing to watch crazy Kaitlyn on a different media form. However, after our discussion in class about the implications of “following” someone on social media, and the “surveillance” involved in watching reality television, I’m beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable and a bit creepy. So, I'm sorry Kaitlyn!