Same

Summary- Chapter Two: The means of correct training, Foucault

 

 

            This chapter by Foucault focuses on describing his view of discipline as it has evolved in the 17^th and 18^th centuries into a social institution that has changed the individual’s place in society. Foucault seeks to correct the notion of power as having a repressive nature about it, positing that instead, disciplinary power creates new objects, rituals, and realities (194). Foucault defends this assertion by detailing the development of disciplinary power, the changes in technology and practice in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, and how this change in practice remodeled the individual into something to be controlled and manipulated not through brute force or physical maintenance, but through anonymity and coercion. As Foucault writes on page 170, “the chief function of disciplinary power is to ‘train’”, which contrasts with the often recanted belief that power and discipline work by removing an individual’s status. The new form of domination that Foucault is describing is an institution that both homogenizes and individualizes, and this new form of domination must be understood differently than previous forms of power.

            The first major point and clarification that Foucault seeks to make is about individualization. There is a misconception that power represses the individual, which Foucault wants to overturn. Foucault writes that disciplinary power has “methods of decomposition” that work to break down individuals that are both “objects and instruments of power” (170). An individual becomes a tool for creating power, and the application of the power. He acknowledges that this sort of disciplinary action requires a mechanism and practice that would allow coercion through observation (170).

            Observation is important because it “induces effects of power” (171). This is because the constant vision or threat of surveillance causes an individual to be trapped in his or her subjection, or modes of living (187). By creating a system of constant vision and surveillance, observation is used as a means of supreme control over the individual. The individual has the fear of imminent possible vision and discovery used against him or her, based solely on the idea that the individual may be watched at any given moment.

            Foucault constructs a hypothetical mechanism for allowing such surveillance and then cites historical precedents for similar practices. Surveillance and supervision proved to be a valuable resource for improving capital, through a hierarchy of supervisors and observers who would maintain utmost efficiency (176). After being integrated into the economy and proven on that front, many other institutions began to incorporate systems of surveillance to improve their purposes, with the military camp cited as the ideal model (176). The military camp works as an ideal model because of its architectural design and its intent. The structures and landscape of a military camp is arranged and oriented in such a manner as to allow surveillance and vision of all individuals in a hierarchical manner. A network of what Foucault calls “gazes” is set up and arranged so that general visibility is created, with no direct source doing the actual watching. This lack of central source would be the first instance of anonymity and invisibility being demonstrated by the systems of surveillance in disciplinary power. This same model would be applied to schools, hospitals, asylums, and any other area of society that required obedience, monitoring, and limited resources.

            Foucault, on page 172, summarizes the apparatus as architecture that operates to control individuals by changing them and housing them. The old conception of power and control, through physical confinement and physical walls is replaced by a system of gazes and vision, all calculated and exacted in a precise manner. Transparent, non-existent forces operate to discipline and control, which sharply contrasts to any other time period, where physical force alone was the mode of control. The end goal would be to create an apparatus where a single gaze could see everything constantly (173), thus ensuring an individual’s constant possible surveillance and the control of the individual. The apparatus works by illuminating everything. Old conceptions of power are characterized as a system that used deception, concealment, and deceit to control, while Foucault is asserting that openness and vision are the new tools of control.

            The distributed network of control bears resemblance to a pyramid. Power is distributed both vertically, from the top down and from the bottom upwards, and laterally, outwards, creating a multi-dimensional, rising system of power. The network works so efficiently because no one part is interrupted or weighed down with the surveillance of another part. Individuals on the same level can watch each other, and watch downwards, while seeing upwards. Those doing surveillance are watched, and those watching are also watched, until a hierarchical system is created where, ideally, one unit sits atop the rest in a single gaze to see every possible thing. This new type of surveillance is characterized by “intense, continuous supervision” (174). The effect is a network of uninterrupted relations of power, which allows the network to operate in silence and indiscreetly, no longer hiding itself or operating in concealment, but openly monitoring, with the individuals who are monitored also monitoring, thus perpetuating the system of control and making the system entirely anonymous and unknowable in an entirely new way.

            The physical arrangement of power and surveillance is accompanied by a deep understanding of the individuals being watched. Beginning on page 178, Foucault describes a penal system to enforce modes of conduct. These modes of conduct, such as one’s approach to time, to activities, to one’s behavior and speech and one’s own body are subjected to punishment. Controlling the individual on such fundamental bases allows the institution of power to distribute individuals based on different skills and needs, so as to use information both for the individual and against the individual. This practice of arranging individuals by their practices and habituations is known as normalizing (184). Foucault writes that “the Normal is established as a principle of coercion” (184). The process works by “measuring gaps, determining levels, fixing specialties”, etc. By reducing individuals to a collection of practices, and by forcing individuals to practice normalized actions, a form of homogeneity is achieved so as to allow ease of control for large numbers, while still gaining the benefits of individual aptitudes and abilities in an economic or utilitarian sense. In combination with surveillance, the normalizing function of apparatuses forms another instrument of power.

            Alongside surveillance and normalizing, the process of examination is a final instrument of power that Foucault discusses. The examination is a hybrid of the two other forms of power, and works by classifying and punishing an individual based on a ritualistic exercise of power. By normalizing actions and habituations, and by using constant surveillance and informational gathering, “the examination transformed the economy of visibility into the exercise of power” (187). The examination created a “disciplinary individuality” which worked to homogenize and give individuality, which ultimately helps create anonymity and greater control. The examination changed the notion of power arising from physical control to power arising from homogenization of its subjects and “compulsory visibility” (187). This visibility, again, forces individuals into a specific subjection through fear of the possibility of being seen.

            Nearing the end of the chapter, Foucault writes on 192 that “the disciplines mark the moment when the reversal of the political axis of individualization […] takes place.” Individualization meant power in the past: nobility and those with truly individual status, through name, occupation, etc. had more power and ability in their lives than those without individual status. However, through disciplinary powers, individualization is used against the individual and is now another tool of power, rather than the savior from power. Thus the entire machine of “correct training” is described. The new institution of power is very different from the previous notion: a physical, visible, known entity. The new form of power and control is achieved through individualizing and watching, by creating visibility and extracting knowledge. The result is a dangerous form of control where individuals assist in their own fate. The individual is seen as the instrument of power, by having information to correlate to the norm, by providing surveillance on other individuals, and as the object and goal of power. Man is coerced into subjection unknowingly, and under the guise of empowerment through individualization- which appeases the dated desire of having through individuality.

For the roomies

The creation of this mash-up was centered on an exploration of Michel Foucault’s concepts from the chapter “The means of correct training” from the book Discipline and Punish. Foucault writes, critiques, and details disciplinary power in this chapter and its development from the 18^th century onwards. Contrasting with popular belief, Foucault begins the chapter by immediately arguing that the “chief function of disciplinary power is to train” (Foucault 170). The idea of power residing in a single, unified object that seeks to condense power and subjects into “a uniform mass” is misguided and inaccurate as a descriptor for actual practices. Rather, “power seeks to train” (Foucault 170). This is to say that the aim of power is to create individuals that operate in a system such that their individual powers and abilities are both the objects of control and the instruments of control. The distribution of forces, rather than the isolation and binding of forces works to multiply the overall effect and power of the entire system. By training and habituating individuals through discipline, the power is able to use the controlled individual against itself in a new and profound way.  The film trilogy Lord of the Rings serves as a media basis for the mash-up because of its repeated themes of power through vision and training. The Eye of Sauron is the symbolic culmination of a “mechanism that coerces through observation” (Foucault 170) which is necessary and prior to the exercise of discipline. This mash-up delves into images and scenes depicting the Eye of Sauron in the act of disciplining and habituating the people of Middle Earth. Foucault states that the “perfect disciplinary apparatus would make it possible for a single gaze to see everything constantly” (Foucault 173), which is precisely what the Eye of Sauron is able to do.

            To create the mash-up, the program Windows Movie Maker was used. This program is a basic, free program for Windows users that allows for the splitting of clips and minor editing and transitional effects. The program is less capable than other video editing programs such as Sony Vegas, however. Unlike Sony Vegas, Windows Movie Maker lacks the ability to edit the accompanying sound of a given clip or the length of a clip. Editing scenes can only be done by splitting larger clips into smaller clips, rather than precisely cutting at certain points or elongating or condensing a clip.

            The mash-up arranges nine total clips, three from each individual film to form an arching, generic narrative of the power of the Eye of Sauron. The first scenes intend to introduce the Eye of Sauron and show its power and intent, and the ending clips show a rebellion and war against the eye that eventually leads to its destruction. In order to transfer the video data of the film trilogy from DVD, another program called Magic DVD Ripper was used. This program extracted and converted the videos from DVDs to .avi files which could be read and manipulated by Windows Movie Maker.

Although unable to modify sound clips and layer or distort them, the program still allows for sound clips to be split and placed on top of other scenes. This was explored in the last clip of the mash-up, where the last 75 seconds of a song titled “Six Days at the Bottom of the Ocean” by Explosions in the Sky was layered over the final battle in the trilogy that concludes with the destruction of the eye. The clip features no words, and this worked well with the entirely instrumental sound clip to create a rhythm and emotional build-up, even without dialogue.

To assist in the video’s overall presentation, transitions and a title scene were added. Without the option of matching scenes precisely in sound and timing, crude transition effects were essential to make the gaps between clips less choppy and to flow into one another more smoothly.

            The end product is an exposition of the abilities and strengths of the Eye of Sauron that can be analyzed in the context of Foucault. Foucault writes that “disciplinary power is exercised through its invisibility; at the same time it imposes on those whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility” (187). It is the constant visibility of a disciplined subject that keeps him or her in subjection. The constant threat of possibly being seen or known changes the attitudes and decisions that are made by subjects, and this is training. Supporting the notion that in distributing power, overall control is increased is Frodo using the ring. Frodo, when using the ring, becomes entirely visible to the Eye of Sauron.

The replacement of walls and cells with visibility is a fundamental occurrence in both the film and the text, and the Eye of Sauron experiences increased power and domination as its subjects, in this case Frodo, increase their powers. The Eye of Sauron is described in the beginning of the mash-up by the wizards Sarumon and Gandalf as a lidless wreathe of fire, constantly gazing and observing. The Eye of Sauron exhibits the same power and intensity of gaze that an entire institution such as a military camp or hospital might display, but with more ferocity.

            With the amount of observation developed, the Eye of Sauron is able to understand and learn about its subjects and thus further manipulate them in a process Foucault describes as normalization. By knowing the intentions of individuals around the ring, the Eye gains knowledge of its weaknesses and can anticipate attack and rebellion. The understanding of its subjects through vision is critical for the system of power to maintain power in the face of opposition from subjects. The subjects and rebellious members plotting against the institution, in this case Frodo and the Fellowship, are left with few options. They admit that they cannot defeat Sauron through force, but must act as Sauron does. The Fellowship uses the same techniques of normalization with Sauron to eventually defeat him. By understanding Sauron’s tendencies, the Fellowship devises the plan to create a distraction which will draw the Eye away from Frodo. With the threat of constant visibility, and with their intentions and abilities studied, the subjects are normalized, which “imposes homogeneity” (184). Their course of action becomes predictable, calculable, and easier to control or counter. Foucault concludes that “like surveillance, normalization becomes one of the great instruments of power” (184).

            The Eye of Sauron shows itself to be a masterful representation of an institution of power that derives its control through discipline and training of subjects to act in certain ways. It only further exemplifies the concepts put forth by Foucault when the Eye itself is destroyed by the very modes of control it uses. Despite having more visibility and power than its subjects, the Fellowship is able to abuse Sauron’s own habituations in order to lure the eye into constricting its own visibility by casting its gaze upon a trite, planned operation. The power of normalization and surveillance show themselves as they usurp the institution which has mastered these forms of control.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Explosions in the Sky. "Six Days at the Bottom of the Ocean." The Earth Is Not A Cold Dead Place. Temporary Residence, 2003.

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Dir. Peter Jackson. Perf. Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom. New Line Cinema, 2001.

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Dir. Peter Jackson. Perf. Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom. New Line Cinema,2002.

 

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Dir. Peter Jackson. Perf. Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom. New Line Cinema, 2003.

 

Foucault, Michel. "Discipline and Punish.” FSU Blackboard.  Florida State Univeristy. 29 April 2009 < bsession="94521601&bsession_str="session_id="94521601,user_id_pk1="468293,user_id_sos_id_pk2="1,one_time_token="">