Sign in or 
- EasyEdit
- Edit tags
-
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
) - Report page
Share this
X. Foucault
cynthialugo |
Latest page update: made by cynthialugo
, Jan 30 2007, 4:43 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Rename
- cynthialugo
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jslee | Panoptic othering | 1 | Apr 14 2007, 4:06 PM EDT by Anonymous | ||
|
Thread started: Apr 12 2007, 7:20 PM EDT
Watch
One comment that struck out to me in the reading of "Discipline and Punish" was the line on page 200, midway through the last paragraph:
"He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication" This idea of objectification resonates especially with last week's discussion of race and sexuality, along with the 2nd Foucault reading and Rooney's lecture about the power dynamics of confession. I want to discuss in what ways is the "multiplicity that can be numbered and supervised" (201) offered by the Panopticon similar to the "othering" of race and gender Irigary and Fanon discuss? I also want to discuss how panopticism ties into the confessional act in that the priest/listener is granted information on the confessor, mimicing the 1 way informational flow of the panopticon itself. |
||||
| RPeckham | Spectacle and Punishment | 0 | Apr 12 2007, 3:03 PM EDT by RPeckham | ||
|
Thread started: Apr 12 2007, 3:03 PM EDT
Watch
Foucault opens "Discipline and Punish" with a graphic discussion of the execution and desecration of a regicide, and then explains how that model has shifted over the past three centuries to emphasize a medico-juridical disciplinarity acting on the soul of the criminal. In the chapter "Panopticism", he extrapolates this former model of punishment to characterize "antiquity" as a "civilization of spectacle" in which the many could inspect the few. In the modern age, he claims the great problem of surveillance is giving access to a multitude to the few/the individual. Other theorists have described modern Western civilization as the "society of the spectacle", notably Debord and Baudrillard. Is there a way to reconcile the tensions between these theorists? Could discipline in the modern age perhaps be characterized as spectacle insofar as everyone can watch everyone else, thus allowing access to an infinite amount of vision to each individual?
|
||||
| giannag | that was me (gianna) | 0 | Apr 12 2007, 4:01 AM EDT by giannag | ||
|
|||||
Showing 3 of 4 threads for this page
- view all
