Power is having control or influence over others. Power exists within social contexts and situations; producing an effect on others. Characteristics of power includes being repetitious and self-producing. Foucault stated “the disciplining of the body and the regulation of the population constituted the two poles around which the organization of power over life was deployed” (pg. 139). Foucault identified two forms of power 1.disciplining the body (schools, hospitals, prisons) and 2. regulation of the population. Focusing on disciplining the body, schools, specifically colleges and universities use power to regulate their students and faculty. The students and the faculty perform certain activities based on the specified college (example: college of liberal arts and sciences, etc.) they are a part of; developing docile bodies.
Disciplining the body allows the opportunity to control the body. The functionality of the body is regulated through the space and time it occupies. The governing institution controls this space and time, ultimately structuring the activities of the body. A college within the governing institution of a university organizes its daily functions/duties. Every student and faculty member who makes up the college of, for example, liberal arts and sciences, are given certain positions and job requirements. As a result, their body becomes “docile”, being subjected, used, and transformed by the power imposed by the college.
Sociology, psychology, anthropology etc. makes up the college of liberal arts and sciences at “X” university. The college of liberal arts and sciences identifies the requirements of their students by specifying GPA, courses, association memberships, etc. The requirements for the faculty include: teaching a certain amount of classes for the academic year, publications, research, etc. Through the implementation of power, the students and faculty must remain obedient if they wish to continue their tenure at the university. Through the continuous use of this form of power, it becomes internalized. Internalizing this power causes the individual body to self-police their behaviors. Students and faculty are basically prescribed the “do’s and don’ts” of what they can say or do. When they knowingly act in ways that are outside of the desires of the college, they subconsciously have a sense of guilt and accountability.
Looking in depth at the discipline of sociology, different entities exercise their power to standardize the scholars and the professionals who are a part of that school of thought. These scholars and professionals exist as docile bodies because they are managed and used by the influence of the discipline of sociology. Sociology, and many of the social sciences, are governed to certain standards when learning and being taught (Founding fathers of sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim), research methods (qualitative and quantitative, IRB requirements), the American Sociological Association writing style, etc. These examples are used to maintain how a “sociologist” is supposed to be and what they are supposed to do. Every sociologist inherently abide by these rules enforcing the power of the school of thought (sociology) and further imposing the power of the college of liberal arts and sciences at “X” university. Eventually, this school of thought (sociology) begins to dominate how a scholar or professional in that discipline acts in any given social context or situation. So, are schools really developing independent thinkers?
Disciplining the body allows the opportunity to control the body. The functionality of the body is regulated through the space and time it occupies. The governing institution controls this space and time, ultimately structuring the activities of the body. A college within the governing institution of a university organizes its daily functions/duties. Every student and faculty member who makes up the college of, for example, liberal arts and sciences, are given certain positions and job requirements. As a result, their body becomes “docile”, being subjected, used, and transformed by the power imposed by the college.
Sociology, psychology, anthropology etc. makes up the college of liberal arts and sciences at “X” university. The college of liberal arts and sciences identifies the requirements of their students by specifying GPA, courses, association memberships, etc. The requirements for the faculty include: teaching a certain amount of classes for the academic year, publications, research, etc. Through the implementation of power, the students and faculty must remain obedient if they wish to continue their tenure at the university. Through the continuous use of this form of power, it becomes internalized. Internalizing this power causes the individual body to self-police their behaviors. Students and faculty are basically prescribed the “do’s and don’ts” of what they can say or do. When they knowingly act in ways that are outside of the desires of the college, they subconsciously have a sense of guilt and accountability.
Looking in depth at the discipline of sociology, different entities exercise their power to standardize the scholars and the professionals who are a part of that school of thought. These scholars and professionals exist as docile bodies because they are managed and used by the influence of the discipline of sociology. Sociology, and many of the social sciences, are governed to certain standards when learning and being taught (Founding fathers of sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim), research methods (qualitative and quantitative, IRB requirements), the American Sociological Association writing style, etc. These examples are used to maintain how a “sociologist” is supposed to be and what they are supposed to do. Every sociologist inherently abide by these rules enforcing the power of the school of thought (sociology) and further imposing the power of the college of liberal arts and sciences at “X” university. Eventually, this school of thought (sociology) begins to dominate how a scholar or professional in that discipline acts in any given social context or situation. So, are schools really developing independent thinkers?