>These investigations are perhaps to psychology, psychiatry, pedagogy, criminology, and so many other strange sciences, what the terrible power of investigation was to the calm knowledge of the animals, the plants or the earth.
Welcome back to the anti liberal reading group, we read the Panopticon excerpt from Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" last week Next week we will read Althusser, but for now let's discuss Foucault.
Is the transition from crude punishment to sophisticated behavioral management and "rehabilitation" a good one? From an Islamic perspective, which says spying is haram and confessions are only valid when multiple and retractable, I say no. Better a public example of a transgressor than a loss of privacy and a surrender to strict regimentation for maximum efficiency.
>"Is it surprising that the cellular prison, with its regular chronologies, forced labour, its authorities of surveillance and registration, its experts in normality, who continue and multiply the functions of the judge, should have become the modern instrument of penality? Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons" The greatest quote from the book imo. One can call the preceding ways of govern, brutal, cruel but above all one can call them honest, the leviathan of hobbes, the king strikes his hand down upon the rebel, who through his transgressions directly affronted the king, but in the moment he strikes he is vulnerable against the people, the sovereign is not "safe" from rebellion because he is the "only" source of government, only he needs to be overthrown in order to free the people. But in a disciplinary society we dont even have the choice of privacy through obediance, as we are "institutionalized" as soon as we are born, the first thing we see is a hospital, the first bed we sleep in is in the hospital, we are churned into school, formed by the same principles of governing and efficiency, as all the other institutions. Power is not funneled through one single sovereign but is split and multiplied into systems of power, so there is no central power to rebel against.
Xavier Johnson
>Power is not funneled through one single sovereign but is split and multiplied into systems of power, so there is no central power to rebel against. So according to Foucault the solution is to deconstruct the institutions of power one by one. The students running the schools, the prisoners running the prison, the lunatics running the asylum. Makes sense since he himself was a lunatic.
Isaac Richardson
Like he says, the apparatus is there, anyone can step into it. With automated power the identity of the wielder becomes less and less relevant.
That's not what deconstruction is.
Kevin Green
Any comparative studies on Foucault and Bataille?
Camden Sanders
People often make this mistake from what i notice, by criticizing or somehow trying to map out institutions of power, he is not saying that the sides should be swapped, or that lunatics should take over asylums etc, he never even truly mentions who he believes should run these institutions, he is simply constructing a new methodology for recognizing power.
Nolan Phillips
I wonder if the shift that Foucault note was really caused by changes in government and governance under non-monarchal systems. After all, the Prussian education and military system, which is discipline par excellence, was instituted under a monarch far away from the benthamite experiments. It doesn't seem to me that disciplinary methods are a result of shifts in sovereign authority of the embodied prince replaced by liberal punishment-as-reformation turned discipline. I'd sooner attribute it to shifts in epistemic foundations of organizations à la Weber's rationality and Bureaucracy than otherwise. It's been a while since i've read discipline and punish though.
That shift was almost the shift between the traditional monarch, who relied on traditional feudal structures, and the modern monarch á la Peter the Great, who completely cucks the nobility into irrelevance via bureaucracy
Camden Campbell
Interestingly enough that's exactly the shift that Weber describes in the transition from Traditional to Rational forms of legitimacy. I guess i just don't like how localized Foucault's account is.
Chase Baker
He looks at both France and England
Benjamin Murphy
Bump
Luke Harris
>he never even truly mentions who he believes should run these institutions, he is simply constructing a new methodology for recognizing power. And that's a problem with deconstruction and similar offshoots, since it never really offers any alternatives, but is too cowardly to admit that perhaps power cannot or should not be deconstructed.
Matthew Johnson
Do you think that this modern form of behavioral management is something endemic to liberal capitalism? that is, is there some structural logic that encourages panopticism + biopolitics, one that can be reversed through changes in political/economic structures? or, is it a necessary factor of managing mass-societies simply due to its efficiency and easy replicability? I have my own thoughts on the matter, but i'd like to hear someone elses.
A solution implies that there exists a problem, user.
Zachary Collins
bump
Lucas Parker
Do you think some things should be safe from criticism, even such important things like power in the hands of the government. Why should power not be "deconstructed" or criticized?
Leo Jackson
/leftypol/ refugee faggots fuck off to the chapo reddit and twitter
Nolan Robinson
fuck off. (you)
also chapo and reddit doesn't own critical theory. we can make use of what we can for our aims, until the aims no longer work. remember, we are a religion of peace. kek
Adam Roberts
>Why should power not be "deconstructed" or criticized?
see aka: its just a warning my wife's son... just dont fuck up ok
Jackson Sanders
>Do you think that this modern form of behavioral management is something endemic to liberal capitalism? that is, is there some structural logic that encourages panopticism + biopolitics, one that can be reversed through changes in politic
ok... uhm, explain the novelty of fetishism. its weird but jfc, yall want some foucault trivia? guy died of aids. we used to write bug chasing fiction in these parts.
One can ask himself the question if discipline is inherently bad, i was always of the opinion that discipline is almost amoral, one can argue that the hierarchies are not justified, but at the same time one can also say that through discipline one learns the best. The army is a good example, as during training of new recruits into soldiers, the goal seems to be to break you down and build you up again. Through constant surveillance one has no choice but to act like they should, and whether the way they "should act" is moral or just is the true question.
Colton Lewis
Why did a bunch of autists suddenly flood this thread?
Ian Russell
Because all the brainholes that spout stupid shit about Foucault although it´s obvious that they havent read anything from him, and that they get most of their opinions on post-modernism or deconstruction through youtube or /pol/
Gavin Ramirez
So you admit you’re a /leftypol/ refugee faggot tourist?
Kayden Torres
what a faggot response, bugchaser. now begon.
Benjamin Gray
user IS NOT U btw
Juan Lewis
be very careful. to us there is no liberation, only literally us vs us.
>Do you think that this modern form of behavioral management is something endemic to liberal capitalism? No. This is merely the industrialization of the witch hunt behavioral model, set loose by granting them literacy.
>So according to Foucault the solution is to deconstruct the institutions of power one by one.
I'm not sure Foucault actually cared about proposing solutions. He mentions in The Order of Things that these institutions will all change and die eventually with the change of discourse in society. But it's more like an inevitable thing, not a solution that we should necessarily seek
Adam Jackson
>Althusser >French >marxist >"philosopher" That's a yikes for me.
Why are you proud of an identity that has not caused you to struggle? Fucking casuals.
Bentley Morris
Remember to report philosophical and political threads, as stated in the sticky.
Charles Reed
ty user.
because its literature, not reality. its fanfiction.
Ian Lee
lol from now on i'm gonna pronounce politics as po-lit-ics with emphasis on the lit
Jordan Johnson
>Philosophical discussion can go on either Yea Forums or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on Yea Forums should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer
Anthony Bennett
Discordfags fuck off
Carson Cox
LOLOLOLOLOL
Mason James
>politics goes in /pol/ Also what book are you speaking of in the OP?
Daniel Miller
it's right there you dumb illiterate no wonder why all you can do is shit up threads
neigh, wont read! not cant read, its just wont read!
Jack James
I’ll take that as an admission.
Elijah Martinez
Why are you proud of an identity that is catered to your every whim by AAA companies and political parties who only want your customer loyalty and votes?
