Dawn Love
Soc. 385
Blog 10
Foucault: Sovereign Power, Bio-Power, The
Right of Death and The Power over life
Foucault’s presents two forms power: disciplinary power (Disciplining the Individual Body) vs. Regulatory Power (Bio-Power) which operates under new regulations for the population. I would like to touch base on both sides of this expanding theory.
I found Foucault’s piece on Sovereign Power extremely interesting, because it told a story from our beginnings; as to how sovereignty was defined in that era, and how people of certain statures had the right to choose the “life or death” of an individual for whatever crime they may have been accused of, and in turn pay the consequences for that crime. The
human body was seen as a machine and produced and did what it was told. Between the 16th and 18th century discipline was exercised continually, and exercised in a manner referred to as self-policing of one own actions. This was encouraged by the fact that punishment for crimes committed against the state were thought of as crimes against the king himself, so if found guilty the king would decide their fate.
Thereafter, came a time when the only kind life or death decisions the king could make came in the form of war; the only ability to enact this right of life and death was to send solder’s off to war in order to protect the state, and so forth. The eventual break down of this monarchy; the“Right to life or “Right to Death” slowly came to an end.
From time forth humans were thrown into the Bourgeois society, and modern capitalism. This introduced Regulatory Power into society which operated under what boils down to a different disciplinary operation, now disciplinary action had basic procedures (Techniques) which included; 1) Scale of Control; Threating the body as an ends. 2) Object of Control; Controlling the body through exercise and molding the through reputation 3) Modality; which is described as coercion or constraint over our activities. This amounted to, what was the new way of being (Bio-Power). All these new concepts of (Bio-Power) brought about a lot of
change, which was its intent. It presented society with a new way of living and being within society. The bringing about of these new laws also encouraged by self-policing, and was backed up by punitive powers in order to attempt to regulate the population. Therefore with these new laws (Which was still the preverbal sword) set in place just as much war and bloodshed as their predecessors in the 17thand 18th century bestowed on their society, but did also incorporate with in it the need for society to grow and prosper; recognizing they could try to reform society, but at that same time it seem as though this new power came with the ability to control society in a new way, it just gave the Bourgeois power, higher social status, capitol, and all the while running things much as they were only now they could, and would conceal or ignore the murderous bloodshed that would come from wars or dictatorships such as the Nazi Regime, or White Supremacy which was one of Bourdieu forms of capitol (The embodied state) which created a lot of hatred. For anyone other than a white person there was an ever present danger of death.
Let us now incorporate some of Foucault’s ideas on ever present human sexualities, and its role in society as time passed. Throughout history sexuality has been defined by time and space in which it occupied. In other words the politics of sexuality has changed by leaps and bounds overtime. So for many can be defined in several ways, but here is what I understood for Foucault; he saw sexuality in two ways,” historical importance and theother for the problem it poses”. What I felt amounted to the differencebetween the sacred bonds of marriages and family, or the concern of the misuse of one’s sexuality; such as procreating out of one’s particular color, or race.This if you think about it, it has led to just as much bloodshed as Sovereign power held. Marriage and family from the 1950’s up to present times; is still viewed as a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Our society has grown to incorporate may new forms of families, and I cherish the day we could all live and let live.
Soc. 385
Blog 10
Foucault: Sovereign Power, Bio-Power, The
Right of Death and The Power over life
Foucault’s presents two forms power: disciplinary power (Disciplining the Individual Body) vs. Regulatory Power (Bio-Power) which operates under new regulations for the population. I would like to touch base on both sides of this expanding theory.
I found Foucault’s piece on Sovereign Power extremely interesting, because it told a story from our beginnings; as to how sovereignty was defined in that era, and how people of certain statures had the right to choose the “life or death” of an individual for whatever crime they may have been accused of, and in turn pay the consequences for that crime. The
human body was seen as a machine and produced and did what it was told. Between the 16th and 18th century discipline was exercised continually, and exercised in a manner referred to as self-policing of one own actions. This was encouraged by the fact that punishment for crimes committed against the state were thought of as crimes against the king himself, so if found guilty the king would decide their fate.
Thereafter, came a time when the only kind life or death decisions the king could make came in the form of war; the only ability to enact this right of life and death was to send solder’s off to war in order to protect the state, and so forth. The eventual break down of this monarchy; the“Right to life or “Right to Death” slowly came to an end.
From time forth humans were thrown into the Bourgeois society, and modern capitalism. This introduced Regulatory Power into society which operated under what boils down to a different disciplinary operation, now disciplinary action had basic procedures (Techniques) which included; 1) Scale of Control; Threating the body as an ends. 2) Object of Control; Controlling the body through exercise and molding the through reputation 3) Modality; which is described as coercion or constraint over our activities. This amounted to, what was the new way of being (Bio-Power). All these new concepts of (Bio-Power) brought about a lot of
change, which was its intent. It presented society with a new way of living and being within society. The bringing about of these new laws also encouraged by self-policing, and was backed up by punitive powers in order to attempt to regulate the population. Therefore with these new laws (Which was still the preverbal sword) set in place just as much war and bloodshed as their predecessors in the 17thand 18th century bestowed on their society, but did also incorporate with in it the need for society to grow and prosper; recognizing they could try to reform society, but at that same time it seem as though this new power came with the ability to control society in a new way, it just gave the Bourgeois power, higher social status, capitol, and all the while running things much as they were only now they could, and would conceal or ignore the murderous bloodshed that would come from wars or dictatorships such as the Nazi Regime, or White Supremacy which was one of Bourdieu forms of capitol (The embodied state) which created a lot of hatred. For anyone other than a white person there was an ever present danger of death.
Let us now incorporate some of Foucault’s ideas on ever present human sexualities, and its role in society as time passed. Throughout history sexuality has been defined by time and space in which it occupied. In other words the politics of sexuality has changed by leaps and bounds overtime. So for many can be defined in several ways, but here is what I understood for Foucault; he saw sexuality in two ways,” historical importance and theother for the problem it poses”. What I felt amounted to the differencebetween the sacred bonds of marriages and family, or the concern of the misuse of one’s sexuality; such as procreating out of one’s particular color, or race.This if you think about it, it has led to just as much bloodshed as Sovereign power held. Marriage and family from the 1950’s up to present times; is still viewed as a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Our society has grown to incorporate may new forms of families, and I cherish the day we could all live and let live.