A Foucauldian Analysis Of One Of His Article An Body/Power - Essay Example

Foucault’s Point Of View/Approach on Power and Body Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Foucault’s Point Of View/Approach on Power and Body According to Foucault (55), communities had to figure out ways of keeping people healthy, energetic, hardworking and secure, so as to make sure their populations were beneficial. This is through watching, regulating and controlling their populations. Two things were required to bring this about. First of all is a body of knowledge, which came through the development of a group of disciplines (the human or social sciences). Second, Foucault suggests that, unlike the natural sciences, these forms of understanding and exerting power were closely knit while keeping or maintaining bodies of power especially political power (Pip 10). Therefore, the necessity for managerial machinery became the cornerstone of the development of varying policing institutions in reference to body and power. State policing and control of populations played a crucial role in human sciences, through coming up with technologies of regulation in order to gain and maintain body and power. The knowledge and technologies related with what Foucault regarded to as ‘biopower’ sought for control, regulation and domination of people. The morals of enlightenment such as justice, liberty, equality and reason, all were meant to restructure society in aspects pertaining to institutions of learning and discipline. What transpired was that a series of corrective techniques took over the administration of institutions and controlled the way power functioned in the social order (Hohfeld 20). In the Freudian narrative of the unconscious and the return of the repressed, we understand why corrective techniques in the end succeeded. The techniques of surveillance, instruction and control that culminated are what Foucault refers to as modern-day techniques of power. For example, if the illumination did away with the divine king replacing it with democracy, then how the state was to function becomes vague. How the population was to organize itself becomes doubtful, since there is no clear and concrete direction. People becoming enlightened and evacuating power can be interpreted as a request to power to obscure it (Hohfeld 11). Kafka’s story, The Castle, illustrates how this notion operates. The story is about a man who is summoned to the castle, seemingly because of doing something wrong, but finds nobody to tell him what he’s being charged with. This portrays the aspect of being brought and confined into the system with no exit. Later, he was executed devoid of knowledge as to what his crime was. The man in the castle might have had a chance if he was able to identify an individual who was in charge. This showed that the system was incharge, it had the power and it identified him, therefore guilty. This is one of the most important of Foucault’s insights regarding power. He demonstrates that power is more effective when it is not in sight. Although information and technology are administered to manage and police persons and masses, the authoritative account of things is that they are operating with our interest in mind (Thomson 23). Another example Foucault deals with at great length is discipline and punishment. In discipline and punishment, Foucault gives an in-depth description on how criminals were punished before the coming of prison reforms. There is a very gruesome brief account at the start of the book regarding the torture and execution of a French soldier, Robert Francois, who attempted to kill King Louis XV. This soldier’s body was gradually and purposely torn to pieces in public. This mode of punishment had its logic rationale, which was that power belonged to the king, and if one of the ruled acted against the king, the notoriety of his crime had to be engrained, on his body. This mode of punishment signaled to citizens both the nature of power of the king and the penalty of differing it. In this period of time, such moves or mode of punishment are considered barbaric. A reformed system was set up to replace the ‘barbaric’ mode of punishment. This reformed system now measures the exact but civilized mode of punishment for crimes and constructive ways to rehabilitate criminals (Handy 30). In Foucault point of view, power now operates in terms of the interaction between different fields, institutions, bureaucracies and other groups (such as private media and other businesses) within the state. The characteristic of this relation of power is that it is not set in stone. Power can flow very quickly from one point or area to another, depending on changing alliances and circumstances. In other words, power is mobile and contingent. His first major point is that power isn’t a thing held by or belonging to anybody. During the times of absolute monarchs, the throne exercised power, since it belonged to them by birth rite or in other words, ‘gift of power from God.’ These modern times however clearly illustrates that power cannot be harnessed by any individual or group, since it is immensely diverse and complex in nature. Therefore, this is a modern age notion that stipulates that power comes from the people. This is based on the reasoning that at least in democracies, people elect their leaders, but if we carefully observe the trends in history focusing mainly in the twentieth century, we immediately come to the conclusion that it is not the case. However, if we look at history in the twentieth century, we will find that it is not the situation of the masses holding power or even delegating it to individual groups, but rather a situation of the groups (Foucault 55). The main point Foucault would make however is that the people cannot hold power any more than politicians or businesspeople. Power is mobile, constantly changing hands. It moves around and through different groups, events, institutions and individuals, but nobody can harness it or even owns it. However, it is quite obvious of course that certain clique of people or groups of people have greater chances to influence how the forces of power are acted out. Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owned 9 television stations, and so, had immense ability to influence what people knew or thought. Rupert Murdoch influences politicians and governments due to his vast and highly extensive resources in the media industry. At the same time, there is no guarantee that having media or business interests can guarantee the ability to manipulate or harness power. For Foucault, another reason that power isn’t held by and doesn’t belong to the masses/people is that, not only are the people an organic group made up by politicians and others, but also the people themselves are produced by and subjected to the forces of biopower. So, it is not as if people have independent minds and free will. The notion of free will is illusionary (US News & World Report 11). This leads to another important factor that Foucault makes about power, which is that although power acts on people in non-egalitarian way (that is some groups are dominated and exploited and abused by the operations of power), at the same time, it acts on every individual, the dominant as well as the dominated. As we previously pointed out, everybody is to some extent the product of biopower. This is because every single person is worked on and written in the way we live within our bodies, by institutions such as family, religion, school, prisons, universities, bureaucracies, military forces, medical and health agencies. Even the most dominant groups or individuals in a state or culture are written by various institutional contexts, ideas and discourses. Rupert Murdoch provides an excellent example of Foucault’s argument, that the process of producing ‘docile’ bodies and minds is not confined to state institutions, but also in watching over, regulating and controlling people’s thoughts and behaviors. Up to this point, we have clearly given the impression that, for Foucault, there is very little if any escape from the forces of power, and that biopower and its technologies and apparatus do exactly what they claim to do, which is to regulate and control human thoughts and behavior, which is the cornerstone of power (Martin 23). However, for Foucault, that is only one side of things. He insists upon that power never achieves what it sets out or claims to do. Foucault elaborates in the first volume of The History of Sexuality, on the ways in which the bodies of various categories of the people including children are subjected to various aspects of enforcing power. Foucault’s point is that while we think we know what a child or an adolescent is, these categories have histories and patterns predetermined, and are always in the process of being transformed. Because children and youth are being targeted at a very high rate as markets in advertising texts, and because advertising largely functions in terms of production of desirable lifestyles, activites and fashions, a connection is established between what was to some extent an absolute part of society and culture, and unmanageable drive of capitalism. This means that popular culture and youth/child have become saturated or highly infiltrated with new set of categories and subjectivities, based on various forms of exercising power, which predominantly rest with the media. Foucault’s point however is that these crises are always with us, because these categories and discourses aren’t natural, but they are part of the effects of power. And one of the reasons that people are able to resist the forces of power is precisely because people recognize this. There is a second reason why power doesn’t live up to its claims to completely dominate our thinking, behavior and lives. Foucault points out that power should never be thought of in purely negative terms, that it is first and foremost productive. Biopower and its technologies, institutions and discourses produce an almost infinite variety of categories and subcategories of people and behavior, which compete with one another to regulate and control populations, but of course as soon as you produce other categories of what is normally healthy and good, you produce other categories the pervert the deviant, troublemaker problem. Perhaps, the best example of how power produces something other than docile bodies is the prison system. Foucault points out that while the technologies of power used in prisons are supposed to produce compliant bodies and behavior, in reality, the opposite happens. Prisons in fact function as criminal factories. Prisoners become convinced that they are all the negative things. They are brought together, where they exchange ideas, experiences, techniques and contacts. In other words, they learn to be effective and efficient criminals. In this respect, power is successful in writing people but the end result is not what was initially intended. Works Cited Foucault, Mitchel. Body/Power, in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. Print. Handy, Charles. Understanding Organizations. London: Penguin Books, 1976. Print. Hohfeld, Wesley. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1978. Print. Hohfeld, Wesley. “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning.” Yale Law Journal 16 (1913). Print. Martin, Buber. Paths in Utopia. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1949. Print. Pip, Jones. Introducing Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008. Print. Thomson, Judith. The Realm of Rights. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1990. Print. US News & World Report. “Power Doesn't Corrupt, Study Suggests.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2. 4 (2008): 11-17. Print. Read More

In Foucault point of view, power now operates in terms of the interaction between different fields, institutions, bureaucracies and other groups (such as private media and other businesses) within the state. The characteristic of this relation of power is that it is not set in stone. Power can flow very quickly from one point or area to another, depending on changing alliances and circumstances. In other words, power is mobile and contingent. His first major point is that power isn’t a thing held by or belonging to anybody.

During the times of absolute monarchs, the throne exercised power, since it belonged to them by birth rite or in other words, ‘gift of power from God.’ These modern times however clearly illustrates that power cannot be harnessed by any individual or group, since it is immensely diverse and complex in nature. Therefore, this is a modern age notion that stipulates that power comes from the people. This is based on the reasoning that at least in democracies, people elect their leaders, but if we carefully observe the trends in history focusing mainly in the twentieth century, we immediately come to the conclusion that it is not the case.

However, if we look at history in the twentieth century, we will find that it is not the situation of the masses holding power or even delegating it to individual groups, but rather a situation of the groups (Foucault 55). The main point Foucault would make however is that the people cannot hold power any more than politicians or businesspeople. Power is mobile, constantly changing hands. It moves around and through different groups, events, institutions and individuals, but nobody can harness it or even owns it.

However, it is quite obvious of course that certain clique of people or groups of people have greater chances to influence how the forces of power are acted out. Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owned 9 television stations, and so, had immense ability to influence what people knew or thought. Rupert Murdoch influences politicians and governments due to his vast and highly extensive resources in the media industry. At the same time, there is no guarantee that having media or business interests can guarantee the ability to manipulate or harness power.

For Foucault, another reason that power isn’t held by and doesn’t belong to the masses/people is that, not only are the people an organic group made up by politicians and others, but also the people themselves are produced by and subjected to the forces of biopower. So, it is not as if people have independent minds and free will. The notion of free will is illusionary (US News & World Report 11). This leads to another important factor that Foucault makes about power, which is that although power acts on people in non-egalitarian way (that is some groups are dominated and exploited and abused by the operations of power), at the same time, it acts on every individual, the dominant as well as the dominated.

As we previously pointed out, everybody is to some extent the product of biopower. This is because every single person is worked on and written in the way we live within our bodies, by institutions such as family, religion, school, prisons, universities, bureaucracies, military forces, medical and health agencies. Even the most dominant groups or individuals in a state or culture are written by various institutional contexts, ideas and discourses. Rupert Murdoch provides an excellent example of Foucault’s argument, that the process of producing ‘docile’ bodies and minds is not confined to state institutions, but also in watching over, regulating and controlling people’s thoughts and behaviors.

Up to this point, we have clearly given the impression that, for Foucault, there is very little if any escape from the forces of power, and that biopower and its technologies and apparatus do exactly what they claim to do, which is to regulate and control human thoughts and behavior, which is the cornerstone of power (Martin 23).

Read More