Overview
****PLEASE DO NOT USE GENERATIVE AI SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY****
ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the six classmates discussion posts.
Michael Bailey:
Foucault didn’t separate knowledge from power. They’re deeply intertwined in his eyes. Knowledge is shaped by power structures. He also has brought up a cycle where power and knowledge are constantly producing the other. I like the idea of this. Those with power do control the knowledge. Whether it’s the government controlling the department of education, managers and executives having control over job training, knowledge is controlled by the people with control over certain situations. There are people who control what information gets out and there are people that control what is accepted as truth. The connection between the two is very clear. One could look back to during the pandemic. A lot of trust was put into the CDC and WHO. If the wrong people were in position at these companies, the outcome of how the world bounced back from COVID-19 could’ve been very different.
Garrett Boggs: Reading through this module, it took me a while to understand how Foucault’s ideas all connected, but once I did, his concept of surveillance really stood out to me. He explains how people begin to control their own behavior when they think they might be watched, even if no one is actually watching. I thought about this in relation to traffic cameras in the states. Most of them don’t actually record or ticket people, but the fear that they might is enough to make people stop at red lights. Foucault even suggests that this kind of control is more powerful and more troubling than the physical torture used in earlier societies because it gets inside people’s minds. Instead of needing punishment, we start to discipline ourselves basically. Over time, this self-surveillance becomes normal, and people adjust their behavior to fit expectations without questioning where those expectations come from. It’s like we’ve absorbed authority into our own thinking. It just makes me wonder, how does this idea of internalized discipline connect to Foucault’s broader understanding of power and the way institutions shape what we see as normal or true? I think just a further explanation of this to his disciplinary society and power would also help me to fully understand this concept.
Michael Almand:
Foucault had an interesting life, it seems from reading his bio. I think to start to examine his theoretical work we first look at the terms archeology and genealogy, and this will lead us into his other principal components. When Foucault talks about archeological knowledge, he is saying that excavating forms of discourse enables the knowledge that is embedded in them to be revealed. This knowledge is how discourse impacts human behavior or understanding of certain truths or falsehoods on an individual level at a given time in history. It focuses on structures that create thought. Genealogy is a study of how that discourse influences structures of power and affects truth on a larger level. I like to look at real world examples so I will look at the MAGA phenomenon through Foucault’s lens of genealogy. Foucault would look at how established power like mainstream news, and public distrust established new truths through other outlets, like twitter. So, my question is, would Foucault begin looking at the archaeological history of political discourse in a way that affected behavior and thought, to basic individuals and then into the genealogical on how discourse and new knowledge affected power and systemic thought? To be honest this theory is kind of confusing to me and I am trying to apply but struggling.
Avery Brown:
Foucault is an interesting person to read about. He takes other scientific media, such as psychology, genealogy, and archeology, and applies them to sociology. His way of looking at things seems unique to him and makes his reading stand out among other theorists. One thing that he talked about that stood out to me was the idea of the Panopticon, the perfect prison. This is a prison where the cells are arranged in a circular structure, all facing a center guard tower. The guard can see all prisoners at all times, but the prisoners are not able to see the guard. He insists that this is a metaphor for a disciplinary society. He compares this method of surveillance to others in everyday life, such as grades, standardized work requirements, etc. There is an expectation that we are always being held to a certain standard and that those standards are constantly enforced. My question is, how would Foucault apply this to modern society? Would he think that it is more prevalent due to the development of new technologies that keep us under more surveillance? Would an example of the Panopticon in today's society be parents constantly monitoring their children through location tracking apps? Any comments on the idea of the Panopticon and my questions would be appreciated.
Nathan Savage:
Foucault in Discipline and Punish has a heavy focus on the power held through observation. His description of the power and where it is placed within the Panopticon is interesting as he states, "... in short, the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers"(p. 408, 2nd paragraph right column). Is there a level of punishment that has to occur to ensure the inmates that someone is in fact watching, or would they comply at the very thought of there being an observer? I think it would vary based on the individual. Maybe someone is likely to take the tower at face value, maybe others test the limitations and see what is possible to get away with. I believe this is what Foucault is saying when he mentions the Panopticon becoming a 'laboratory' on page 411.
Avery McWhirter:
On pages 399–401, Foucault talks about this idea of "power/knowledge," and I’m having a hard time really understanding what he means. How exactly does power create knowledge? I always thought power was just about who’s in charge, and knowledge was about learning facts or truth. How can power shape what we know? I think Foucault is saying that power isn't just something the government or leaders have, it’s everywhere and works through things like schools, prisons, and even science. He’s also saying that what we believe to be true is actually shaped by power. Like, the people in power decide what counts as knowledge, and then that knowledge keeps their power in place. I’m stuck on how this works in real life. On page 400 it says, “power produces knowledge … power and knowledge directly imply one another.” I don’t totally get how power produces knowledge.