In our first post we discussed Michel Foucault's philosophy of power in history, exploring how he used Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham's idea for a "Panopticon" prison represented a new "diagram" or model of social control. He called this practice of enclosure, observation and training "disciplinary power," based on collecting knowledge (rather than the violent "sovereign power" of Kings): When Foucault's major work Discipline and Punish was re-released in 1991, it came with a new afterward by his friend and fellow philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995). Deleuze identified the model of "free-floating control" that he thought had come to rule in the postmodern era, expanding the disciplinary model's regulations into a network of information-gathering mechanisms maintained by universal data surveillance (make sure to watch the linked video). This is similar to what we see in the film when Project Insight's algorithm calculates a person's "threat level" based on all of the information it can find about them: as the corrupt Agent tells the Captain, "THE 21st CENTURY (i.e. the postmodern era) IS A DIGITAL BOOK. [WE LEARNED] HOW TO READ IT. Your bank records, medical histories, your voting patterns, emails, phone calls, your damn SAT scores!" Download and read this two-page document with an except from the essay and a age of commentary with examples.
Then post a response to one or both of the following questions:
1. Do you agree with Deleuze that our postmodern/digital era has become a kind of universal, data-driven panopticon? Cite examples to support your position (focus especially on what he say about schools). 2. Is it possible to find, as he puts it, "new weapons" to fight this evolving system of control? We might not have Captain America's super strength ("specimen!"), but, as Hannah Arendt reminded us, we all have the power of thought. Is there any way that thinking can help? Or are we better off accepting how things are?
16 Comments
Emilie Weiner
3/16/2016 06:30:47 pm
Unfortunately, I find this question very difficult to answer because the better part of me finds it infinitely easier to resign to hopelessness and surrender. I say this because as much as "new weapons" and the concept of thought will come to aid us in fighting the overweening system of control, it is sad to say that there will always be the thoughtless. It is how we have managed to already come this far into our present day societal issues. It is impossible to rid ourselves of ignorance, and I find, more often than not, it is the people who are already gifted with thought who hold the belief that thinking can save us. This is not to say that thinking is useless or futile, I am merely admitting to the very obvious difficulties that we face. It takes energy to think. And more importantly, it takes energies to think about conflict and resolution. In summation, I do believe that thought can save us, it is just a difficult and long road to get everyone thinking. Not to mention, we are being watched as we do it.
Reply
Biggs
3/17/2016 12:02:45 pm
One way to approach this question (and you're right about the difficulty of it) is to examine our own experiences. What helped, or even FORCED, you to think? Within our present environment, what kind of spaces and situations exist or can be that allow for and even encourage thinking? And where can we interrupt the stream of distractions and advertisements with alternative messages that could shock people into reconsideration? (This is essentially the approached proposed by the author of Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord, who was also pessimistic about the possibility of thought but interested in creating personal and social experiments that could encourage it.)
Reply
Zoe Kralyevich
3/17/2016 09:51:05 am
I agree with Deleuze on his panopticon theory of the digital era because of the accessibility of knowledge on the intangible network of technology. I, as paranoid as I am, don't do anything before thinking of the idea of what others will see, find, and think.I enjoy the relation to history and the simplicity of tools that he uses as an example. It gives us a reality check on how advanced our technology is and how even though we have come so far, we have also been trusted less. When discussing schools, the idea of a constant reminder of new reform, rules and regulations is very accurate. I feel as if schools are constantly shoving new rules down our throats because of society's view of "proper" and "decent".
Reply
Biggs
3/17/2016 11:58:34 am
Zoe, great points - especially about the constant "reforms" to meet new standards. These standards are increasingly influenced by corporations, too, . Pearson has access to a ton of information as a result of the PARCC exams, which many parents have protested as part of the http://unitedoptout.com/ movement. Conscious thought in action! Unfortunately, as you say, as our tools have become more complex and quick, our minds seem to have become simpler and slower. Technology can't imitate human thought, but it CAN drown it in a sea of information, spectacle and distraction. How do you solve a problem like that? My own view is that we have to fully embrace technology but confront it with a new attitude that combines it with thought instead of submitting to it. Similar to Heidegger's view from this 8-bit philosophy video:
Reply
skye post
3/17/2016 04:09:43 pm
I agree with Deleuze that our era has evolved into a universal panopticon. In a sense, all schools are reform schools. At a very young age, the age in which we are in the prime stages of development, we begin school. These first years and forward are the years that influence us and shape us into the people we are. Because of this, schooling could be viewed as "training." Apart from learning our times tables and improving vocabulary, we learn to sit down when told. We learn to move our bodies to a different location when the bell rings, then sit down again. We learn to carry a book as a form of pass, because we learn that permission is required to perform the basic necessary activities of humans such as urinating. We are taught civilization, as it does not come natural to us to remain silent until spoken to, to keep our elbows off tables and limit the time we take to eat. But.
Reply
Bella Rodriguez
3/17/2016 07:48:09 pm
I definitely agree with Deleuze that our world has developed into a panopticon. I think that the schools are a perfect example of that. To begin with, Deleuze said that the "administrations in charge never cease announcing supposedly necessary reforms". I feel this is a very critical point to make in his writing. First of all, it is mentioned that there are people in charge who control everything. These people are in charge of what you see, hear, and especially, do. These administrations can announce that something needs to change and it will change in a heartbeat. I think this ties back to Arendt's point of what is evil. Although the administration can decide to reform a school, it is the teachers, students, and parents, that allow unnecessary, and potentially mentally dangerous reforms to happen that can also be considered evil. Like Skye said in her post, we are told when to sit, when to move, when to eat, when to use the restroom. The fact that nobody questions this dehumanizing behavior is the really scary part. Deleuze also brings up the point that we are essentially allowed to do whatever we want. But this freedom comes with a plethora of unfreedoms. While we may be allowed to choose whether or not we get a higher education, should we choose not to, we are limited in our career choices, more likely to live in poverty, and according to a study by The Atlantic, more likely to become obese. So the freedoms that the school system and government gives us are hidden in nasty truths that prove Deleuze's point to be true. We are, in fact, a panopticon.
Reply
Abby Westgate
3/17/2016 07:57:40 pm
Yes, I do agree with Deleuze that our postmodern/digital era has become a kind of universal, data-driven panopticon. I especially thought the point that Cæmeron Crain made in his commentary on Deleuze was a strong argument--surveillance is behind our perceived freedom. Students in schools are being watched, but the collection of data about their lives does not end when they leave the school building. The structure of power follows us in the technology we must always be responsible for. In most classes it is mandatory to email the teacher at least one point in the year. Teachers can now assign work at any time on any day using turnitin.com. Schools monitor what is going on in student social media accounts. I identified immediately with what Crain described as the feeling of never having "free" time. There is always an email to check or a surprise remind 101 to receive, and I sometimes feel as though I am being watched. Every minute I do not respond to an email is another minute that I appear to be avoiding my work. I cannot escape the structure of power that school has imposed upon me.
Reply
Jane Breslin
3/18/2016 07:55:59 am
I agree that our postmodern/digital era has become a sort of panopticon. In schools there are cameras everywhere with the exception of the bathrooms, locker rooms, and classrooms. However in some more rambunctious schools there has been usage of cameras in classrooms. The thought behind it would to provide a sort of protection (and as a result, a power) over the students. The cameras in classrooms would give authorities video proof of any violence committed in the room, which would give a sense of "I'm watching you." The thought behind it would be to decrease any violent behavior to the teacher (mainly) and other students. This panopticon has become our society as our reliance on technology has increased.
Reply
Kristen Wimmer
3/18/2016 07:58:43 am
We cannot ignore the implications of the digital age we live in. I mentioned this in my last post so I don't want to be redundant but as humans, we have to choose security over liberty. The problem is, many people don't realize choosing security, which in this day and age comes int he form of cybersecurity and surveillance (the Digital Book) , can easily be as unsafe as having no means of security at all. The Digital Book is infinite, and impossible to delete. We give up our personal security by handing away our most private information. Moreover, one of the biggest influences in making this decision is the fear of terrorist attacks, particularly ISIS. Take the Apple vs FBI case. If the algorithm for unlocking the phone were hacked by the terrorist group, it would put us at as much, if not more risk, than if we left the phone alone. While yes it is hard to pull away from the grid since it is such a dominant part of daily life, we can be conscious of what we put out into the world and the people we elect. Its our job to listen carefully to the politicians and what they promise in terms of future security. If we don't want a 1984 society, than its best we give power to someone who is more
Reply
kristen wimmer
3/18/2016 08:01:44 am
(cont'd) laissez faire. We should also understand the corporations we buy from, such as Apple, and what kind of access to our info they have. I think Arendt's philosophy is slightly idealistic, however I do agree as long as we are actively thinking and independent human beings we stand a better chance of being free of control.
Reply
Gabriela Recalde
3/18/2016 08:22:58 am
There is no doubt that we are constantly being monitored in some way as long as we are using technology. I agree with Deleuze that we are basically in a technological panopticon. However, I would say that most people aren't aware or don't care about the extent that we are watched. An interesting thing to consider that the only way that this surveillance follows us, is that we follow it. We are so dependent and devoted to all of the things that we are currently talking about. I'm answering this question on the technology that does the tracking and surveillance that I say I'm against. I keep using my phone and laptop and I go out in public everyday, surrounded by surveillance that I can't always see, but always know is there.
Reply
Adel Soliman
3/20/2016 05:30:57 pm
"These are the societies of control, which are in the process of replacing disciplinary societies." I'm going to start off with my way of interpreting this statement. Before our digital age, we were a disciplinary society. in this society, people have to be trained and "disciplined" to follow the norm and create the mass units of standardized people. Now with the new digital age, we are moving to the control group where people are born as a standardized unit into the masses. The new media age allows those higher ups to control nearly everything we see. On the internet, tv, phone, outside, whrever we are, someone is controlling what we are exposed to. The power to control what a society is exposed to is one of the strongest powers around. That is how you can easily create your standardized unit without training/disciplining them. They are growing up into the set image already, hence the controlling age. Everything is already set in for them to train themselves to be disciplined in the higher ups ideal standards. Now as for a weaopn to fight, hate to be that guy but there really isnt. Thinking is useless, its better to submit. Honestly, what could thinking and being aware really do. It wont change anything, the scale of everything is too huge for mere thought or small action to change anything. You want to fight, you need power. You need hella money. or political position, or just know the right way to go about it. Understand, you think, you realize whats happening and try fighting or rioting to bring it to the people. your riot can easily be silenced and the media will pin you as the bad guy and if that happens you have no say. So just grab an apple, sit on a nice grassy hillo and enjoy the life as it is.
Reply
Ricky Wild
3/22/2016 07:59:50 am
The strongest weapon we have is our thoughts. When a person dies or his technology is taken away, is is his/her ideas we remember. With that being said, as the government (referencing the Captain America government, not ours) grows and becomes ever more intrusive, the people must work together and find a solution. Maybe not a violent revolution against those thought to be in Hydra, but a revolution where they are thrown from power, or a new country is drawn. Knowledge and the power to educate every person in a society of the atrocities, is enough to end the power grip. For example, Ghandi was able to change and educate his people. When there was enough of a following, nobody challenged his ideas because they were ultimate Truth.
Reply
Shea Cody
3/24/2016 09:27:54 am
I think Deleuze has some strong points about how our technological society has become a panopticon. People are easily tracked and can be done at any point in many different ways. It's virtually impossible to not be tracked unless you live in a cabin in the woods off the grid. It is unnerving to think about how we are constantly being watched. Even in lunch there are staff members around the commons waiting for something to happen. This makes me feel more unsafe than safe because it seems like something could happen at any second. However, I do think there are some positive parts to being tracked. If a person goes missing there is a higher chance they will be found. Or if a person committes a crime there is more evidence available to convict them. People can also discover knowledge that otherwise wouldn't be available to them. People are also able to communicate with people they wouldn't be able to without the technology we have today.
Reply
Michael DeCristofaro
4/4/2016 05:08:12 am
I agree and disagree with Deluze. The reason I do agree is he made good points about the technological society. With the technology we have today anyone can buy a tracking system or a drone. It is bad enough knowing that the government can easily know where we are, what we are doing, and who we are with. However, now basically anyone can buy a drone these days. It does not always have to be about a drone or a tracking device. Today the world is run off of technology. It is hard to imagine where the country would be without it. Many jobs would be lost. It would almost feel like the world was coming to an end for many if they did not have technology for a day.
Reply
I agree with Deluze, the post modern era is just a data panopticon. this time period as we know it is teeming with information. Data is being sent around everyday. Maybe like photos of one doing illegal activities. Even if some one was to say, delete the photo, its not gone, its there until overwritten, or even forever if some one saved it. Deleted data is never gone immediately or forever. Companies will buy this "deleted data" and use it. Like trying to get a job at a large company. They can use private companies to dig up everything about you, photos, messages sent and much more. Basically you can always be watch by someone or something and it will collect your data.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
April 2016
Categories |