Foucault & Haraway :. Group One :. Mohannad, Jason, Etienne, Brent, Jonathan, Bastien
Foucault & Haraway :. Group One :. Mohannad, Jason, Etienne, Brent, Jonathan, Bastien
“The classical age discovered the body as object and target of power” Foucault says. Both writing from Michel Foucault and Donna Haraway discuss how the body
can be a conductor of power.
Foucault brings up the notion of the “docile body”. Docile bodies can be manipulated, used, modified as political puppets becoming a symbol of power. Those bodies can be manipulated with discipline and punishment. A body subject influenced by discipline not only does what one wishes, but it operates like one wishes.
Discipline works on the concept of a series, each individual must act correctly so the whole works correctly (One for all and all for one). It is by training individuals that they will render themselves useful for the group. The human body becomes a machine, by operating in space and time like he was disciplined. Discipline is a form of control over ones body, but it does not use force or violence, instead it creates a norm system, individuals desire to fit within the norm established. Those not fitting are punished so they comply. To separate the normal from the abnormal, surveillance is needed an integrated into the disciplinary system.
Donna Haraway uses the metaphor of the cyborg, part human and part machine body, to discuss about her understanding of women, technology and feminism. She says that the cyborg is an illegitimate offspring of militarism, but it has rebelled against his fathers. For her, cyborgs are not a thing of the future, they exist in the present. For the cyborg, there is a confusion of boundary between dualities like nature/culture, reality/virtual, organic/mechanic, etc. The cyborg is not an ideal we should worship, because it is in fact an aspect of our embodiment as a 20th – 21st century human being. The cyborg is not an attempt to regroup all feminists in a universal theory, because she says that there is nothing fundamental similar to which they can relate between each women. She explain how classes, races and gender is an attempt of separation created by the authority, we should rather identify with each other as cyborgs, because we all are to a degree or another.
At first glance, those two texts do not seem to have much in common. But here is how the two authors work can be associated in a singular way. The discipline and punishment system of Foucault have the power to transform individuals into perfect machines, but what happens to those who refuses to comply. Won’t they become legitimate offspring of their militaristic fathers? I say that where the disciplinary system ends, is where begins the cyborg.
Both writings discuss the body as machine; both seem to agree on the fact that following the system blindly does not make you an individual. The more you are “abnormal” the more you are free, while the cyborg is described as a dissident. The cyborg is a fusion of the natural organic with the cultural machine; this duality is what creates the cyborg. Foucault’s disciplined individuals act more like the machines they produce, then a human individual. “The tradition of the appropriation of nature as resource for the production of culture.” Is how would Haraway would describe it.
Other dualities are seen in both texts, the surveillance is used as a system of control over the workers, pupils, etc. but it also breaks down the line between public and private. Technology is also blurring public/private spaces, with technology permitting people to talk to the cell phone in public spaces, watching the same TV, radio channels as your neighbour etc.
Finally, I will end with a few issues remaining.
1. Can’t somebody choose to follow the rules of the system consciously? Or must he absolutely be under the influence of shadows or discipline to follow the system.
2. Isn’t surveillance a double-edge sword, since it can denounce the teacher as much as the student? So even if someone is archaically higher, he is still submitted to the regulations of the discipline, therefore not making him any freer than any other.
3. Is it really possible to deny one’s humanity and entirely become a machine like Foucault suggest it or will we eternally be a mix of culture and nature like the cyborg is ?
“The classical age discovered the body as object and target of power” Foucault says. Both writing from Michel Foucault and Donna Haraway discuss how the body
can be a conductor of power.
Foucault brings up the notion of the “docile body”. Docile bodies can be manipulated, used, modified as political puppets becoming a symbol of power. Those bodies can be manipulated with discipline and punishment. A body subject influenced by discipline not only does what one wishes, but it operates like one wishes.
Discipline works on the concept of a series, each individual must act correctly so the whole works correctly (One for all and all for one). It is by training individuals that they will render themselves useful for the group. The human body becomes a machine, by operating in space and time like he was disciplined. Discipline is a form of control over ones body, but it does not use force or violence, instead it creates a norm system, individuals desire to fit within the norm established. Those not fitting are punished so they comply. To separate the normal from the abnormal, surveillance is needed an integrated into the disciplinary system.
Donna Haraway uses the metaphor of the cyborg, part human and part machine body, to discuss about her understanding of women, technology and feminism. She says that the cyborg is an illegitimate offspring of militarism, but it has rebelled against his fathers. For her, cyborgs are not a thing of the future, they exist in the present. For the cyborg, there is a confusion of boundary between dualities like nature/culture, reality/virtual, organic/mechanic, etc. The cyborg is not an ideal we should worship, because it is in fact an aspect of our embodiment as a 20th – 21st century human being. The cyborg is not an attempt to regroup all feminists in a universal theory, because she says that there is nothing fundamental similar to which they can relate between each women. She explain how classes, races and gender is an attempt of separation created by the authority, we should rather identify with each other as cyborgs, because we all are to a degree or another.
At first glance, those two texts do not seem to have much in common. But here is how the two authors work can be associated in a singular way. The discipline and punishment system of Foucault have the power to transform individuals into perfect machines, but what happens to those who refuses to comply. Won’t they become legitimate offspring of their militaristic fathers? I say that where the disciplinary system ends, is where begins the cyborg.
Both writings discuss the body as machine; both seem to agree on the fact that following the system blindly does not make you an individual. The more you are “abnormal” the more you are free, while the cyborg is described as a dissident. The cyborg is a fusion of the natural organic with the cultural machine; this duality is what creates the cyborg. Foucault’s disciplined individuals act more like the machines they produce, then a human individual. “The tradition of the appropriation of nature as resource for the production of culture.” Is how would Haraway would describe it.
Other dualities are seen in both texts, the surveillance is used as a system of control over the workers, pupils, etc. but it also breaks down the line between public and private. Technology is also blurring public/private spaces, with technology permitting people to talk to the cell phone in public spaces, watching the same TV, radio channels as your neighbour etc.
Finally, I will end with a few issues remaining.
1. Can’t somebody choose to follow the rules of the system consciously? Or must he absolutely be under the influence of shadows or discipline to follow the system.
2. Isn’t surveillance a double-edge sword, since it can denounce the teacher as much as the student? So even if someone is archaically higher, he is still submitted to the regulations of the discipline, therefore not making him any freer than any other.
3. Is it really possible to deny one’s humanity and entirely become a machine like Foucault suggest it or will we eternally be a mix of culture and nature like the cyborg is ?
posted by Etienne Carpentier at 10:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home