(no subject)
In the vein of being greatly disgruntled by school I have decided to post a work in progress I started about a year ago and haven't really worked on in about 9 months but feel is nonetheless apropos.
School: The New Panopticon
A critical Foucauldian analysis of the exercises of power and control in the school system
Michel Foucault (1926-1984), the famous French philosopher, throughout many of his works, placed great emphasis on the idea of normalization, defined as “the elimination of all social and psychological irregularities and the production of useful and docile subjects through a refashioning of minds and bodies,” (47) essentially the homogenization of populations. He usually attributed this ability (I will avoid the use of the word “power” so as not to confuse his other theories of control) to a higher system, such as the State, a center of monitoring and control. He argued that this control can be exercised through acts called “disciplinary techniques” which “include timetables for constant imposition and regulation of activities, surveillance measures to monitor performance, examinations such as written reports and files to reward conformity and penalize resistance, and ‘normalizing judgment’ to impose and enforce moral values” (47). He also specified a variety of areas by which this normalization is imposed and expressed, including definitions of sexuality, the categorization of the mentally ill and the otherization of criminals. To describe this process of normalization and how it is achieved Foucault relied on a variety of stories and images to explain his theories more accurately with the most famous image being that of the panopticon.
Foucault, among his many other revolutionary theories, utilized the idea of the panopticon to describe just how a population can be disciplined (disciplinary power) and then how it eventually disciplines itself (biopower which “operates…through the hegemony of norms, political technologies, and the shaping of the body and soul” (49)). The panopticon itself is basically a prison. It contains a tower in the middle with cells facing the tower. Within the prison the prisoners are led into their cells and are watched by guards. The prisoners know that the guards are watching them through one sided glass in the tower windows and so as not to incur their wrath, they act accordingly and behave properly. They do not stray from the ordered, structured way of the prison but rather act in a disciplined manner under the endless gaze of the guards. Eventually, however, the guards leave, unbeknownst to the prisoners, yet the prisoners continue to act in their usual, normal manner and therefore discipline themselves, thinking the guards are still there.
Schools, themselves, I will attempt to argue and elaborate upon, are also an example of the means by which the State monitors, examines, modifies, structures, and finally normalizes our lives, leading ultimately to its control over us and the disciplining of our actions and behaviors by molding us to its will, eventually resulting not only in the external disciplining of our lives but the internal disciplining of ourselves.
One way in which the institution of school most apparently structures and controls our lives is by the bell system and the schedule, one’s daily routine. Firstly, the bell itself is one of the most perceptible means by which schools normalize and homogenize its populations. At each time period the little device rings and immediately the entirety of the school population moves, here and there, to and fro, wherever it needs to relocate itself. The function of the bell is not only oppressive but efficient for it not only subtly demands our presence in World History, or Geometry but, more importantly, it causes us to do so without thinking. This question of “how” is even more important than the question of “what” in pertinence to the system of the bell for our instantaneous relocation is done so instinctively, a direct creation of the school system (and its superior, the State) placed within each and every one of us, showing the degree to which the school system influences our lives. This insidious method of control essentially strips us of our ability to resist, places us in the metaphorical assembly line and eradicates our ability to choose where we go as we are consistently urged on, hour after hour, by the cacophonous “beep” of the bell.
Coupled with the bell system is the construction of the schedule, a daily regimen of academic activities specifically tailored for each one of us (which in and of itself is kind of ironic when the school is trying to reduce individual needs and homogenize its populations). First of all, the very idea of a “routine” is normalizing in and of itself for it presupposes a regular or normal way to go about one’s daily activities. The word “routine,” and the schedule as well, also implies that these regular actions, which in the case of school are classes, continue day after day in a similar, repetitive fashion, the epitome of control by locking us into a structured, rigid existence to be lived and re-lived, making it easier for the State to monitor and analyze our lives. Therefore, the class schedule, an actualization of routine in the context of school, acts as a means of controlling and supervising our lives.
In addition to the more apparent means of structuring that the school system uses, it also employs a variety of other, more subtle techniques to ensure our compliance and resultant normalization.
One of the ways by which our lives are further structured and our choices limited is the institution of the uniform. Ostensibly used to “reduce distractions,” “minimize fashion consciousness” within the context of school, and “foster an academic environment,” all of these strategically deployed phrases are simply covers for their true purpose, the elimination of individuality and the continued normalizing of our lives, first in the realm of our daily “routine” (I will continue the use of this term not because I endorse its meaning but simply for ease and the purpose of being terse) as aforementioned and now in the realm of fashion, one of the foremost ways human beings express themselves and their beliefs in the modern era. This normalization occurs because of a few traits specific to the concept of the school uniform. First, the very nature of the word “uniform” implies an essence of banality and structure. Used as an adjective, the word means “like” or “similar,” both words which are intensely interconnected (in their meaning) to the means by which one is normalized since both words would adequately, and accurately, be able to describe those means. In other words, being able to pose as an accurate adjective for a method of normalization, as the words “like” and “similar” can, such as “like dress” or “similar clothing” in this specific instance, reveals how the nature of those words is strongly related to the nature of the word normalization. Another aspect of the structured uniform is fleshed out when its synonym is employed, the phrase “dress code.” This phrase can then be rearranged into “the code of dress,” a more obvious statement of its true meaning, a code, or set of laws (as the thesaurus so aptly supplies), dictating the way that one dresses. This controlling and essentializing regulation imposes a predetermined notion created by those in power upon hundreds of student a year, funneling them into the system of individual repression and normalization through the stifling of personal expression, specifically in this instance in the manner of dress.
Another means by which the school system controls our lives and normalizes us is through its provision of education, the very purpose of the school system. While education itself is not an intrinsic evil, it, in context of a system, like schools, can be manipulated and filtered so as to give the State power over the individual. The simplest way it does this is by being provided by an entity chosen by the State to provides us with the information. The school system, the chosen entity, (and therefore the State) directly controls what we learn, how we learn it and who teaches it to us, nearly every circumstance surrounding our education. By choosing what we learn, the State essentially constructs our reality, it tells us what is real and what is not, who is nice and who is mean, where we should live and where we should avoid, how we should act and how we should not, and most importantly what is true and what is not. This ability control our thoughts at the most fundamental level, by controlling what information we are given to think about, it not only can control our exposure to ideas that it deems dangerous, granting the State more power to quell resistive thoughts, but also what we process in our minds and therefore become as human beings as a result of the impressions we receive from that information, the State’s normalization of our academic evolution which directly affects our development as human beings, the ultimate example of population management. Additionally, the school system not only chooses what we learn but the means by which that information is disseminated to us through the use of teachers. The school system, with its ability to select its staff is given the ability to employ teachers who are the “safest,” and most “docile” insofar as they are unlikely to present any sort of dissident or threatening information and even if there were to be a possibility, the school system’s masters in the form of administration has the ability to watch closely such attempts and take action if necessary. By controlling the manner in which information is presented not only does it further limit any inkling of possible variety in the presentation of information but it also gives the school system eyes into the only possible refuge from the ever-present stare of the administration, the physical classroom, relieving us of any possible shelter. Even the textbooks chosen, the only external item allowed to infiltrate our learning, are filtered and censored, evident most blatantly by banned books such as Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn. This bowdlerization of literature limits any potential exposition of our lives to the external world in our process of learning. By dictating every circumstance of the learning process, the school system and State control our growth and ultimately what we become, which, if the State succeeds, is a collection of docile bodies.
Teachers contribute even further to the infiltration of our lives by the oppressive system of the State (from now on I will interchangeably use the terms “State” and “school system”) insofar as they constitute figures of authority. Initially, the very concept of authority creates a dichotomy between those who have it and those who don’t (though whether or not this section wants it is another issue). While in and of itself this dichotomy is not dangerously oppressive, it is what is done with this concept embedded in our minds that enforces subjugation of the student body. Through the perpetuation of this dichotomy of authority, teachers (and administration which I will later address) are elevated to a position of superiority, usually in respect to intelligence and knowledge. This supposedly advanced knowledge is then deployed to mold the student into “both an object and subject of knowledge…positively shaped and formed within the matrices of ‘scientifico-discplinary mechanisms.’” (50). Also, by instilling the image of the smart teacher and the dumb (or at least intellectually inferior) student, a hierarchy is imposed and from this the student is subjugated and controlled since a relationship of dependence between student and teacher is established. From this point on, the student is a lesser being and this “moral judgment,” as noted in the introduction, is exactly the idea of structuring that Foucault criticizes because it becomes, to the student, a value judgment of her/himself. Additionally, the fact that the student relies on the teacher for information, presented as truth, illustrates how the teacher him/herself erects the student’s worldview and external reality. Whether apparently or subtly, the teacher (and the system that chose him/her) inevitably influences the student. In effect, this information is a more subtle example of propaganda. Through this means of mental infiltration, the State is given the capability to modify us in any way and tailor us to its own needs by feeding us information prepared to form us into its object. This control not only objectifies us into tools to be controlled but also is an apparent act of oppression against the entire student body, another example of normalization.
Similarly, the administration, the group really pulling the strings, imposes rules, monitors our daily lives and “keeps us in line” as a means of normalizing the student body. First of all, the idea of the principal or the academic dean, etc. is simply a re-entrenchment of the former hierarchy established between teachers and students, however, this instance is based more so on a foundation of conduct rather than academic performance. The penalties of failure such as the Saturday detention, the suspension, and the expulsion portray the administration not only as figures wielding immense amounts of authority but it also creates the image of the administration as more important, for surely (as society teaches us), they would not have so much control if they were not better than we. Reminiscent of Karl Marx’s bourgeoisie elite and the oppressed proletariat, the administration and student body, respectively, exist in a constant clash, with the administration usually having the upper hand. These methods of punishment like the detention, are abilities given to the school to make even more “moral judgments” about the worth of a student. Even comment of one student as he witnesses another receive a detention show the intensity of the detention as a tool of judgment as the former remarks “He must be a bad kid,” an obvious value judgment. Through such action, one sees the impressive, though oppressive, control that the administration holds. And more importantly the effect of this display of strength and the effect of this otherization of the “bad kid” instills a fear of punishment into the rest of the student body. By making an example of a select few, the administration not only shows its own ability but also the ease of its exercise which in turn discourages further acts of resistance from the student body and subjugates them by fear. Once students give in to this fear, they are once again normalized as each becomes a docile body malleable for the State’s influence for fear that any act of dissent will be punished, an act that, in their minds, would not only have initial bad consequences but also otherize them as well into the group of “bad kids.”
Teachers have similar control that, though less noticeable, also hold the ability to oppress and otherize the student body, an inescapable influence that affects every single student, the issuance of tests and quizzes and the resultant grades. To begin with, the very notion of grades is based on the idea of a hierarchy, the number system. By assigning a numerical (and arguable moral) value to a student, the teacher essentially gives a worth to the individual and while in and of itself, very objectifying, stripping the student of any other form of dignity, this is not the worst effect of the grading system. Rather, it is the catalyst for the worse effect, that of normalization. Such is achieved through a variety of ways. Much like the administration’s use of punishment as a means of deterring further resistance, grades instill a similar fear. By labeling the performance of a student excellent, good, bad, etc., the teacher not only assigns the student a value but creates categories that are failing and those that are passing. The ascription of grades, additionally, even surpasses the abilities of the administration for certain grades are required to continue the quest of normalization within the school system.
I do find it a little ironic that my criticism of academia takes on a rather academic form.
- Later
School: The New Panopticon
A critical Foucauldian analysis of the exercises of power and control in the school system
Michel Foucault (1926-1984), the famous French philosopher, throughout many of his works, placed great emphasis on the idea of normalization, defined as “the elimination of all social and psychological irregularities and the production of useful and docile subjects through a refashioning of minds and bodies,” (47) essentially the homogenization of populations. He usually attributed this ability (I will avoid the use of the word “power” so as not to confuse his other theories of control) to a higher system, such as the State, a center of monitoring and control. He argued that this control can be exercised through acts called “disciplinary techniques” which “include timetables for constant imposition and regulation of activities, surveillance measures to monitor performance, examinations such as written reports and files to reward conformity and penalize resistance, and ‘normalizing judgment’ to impose and enforce moral values” (47). He also specified a variety of areas by which this normalization is imposed and expressed, including definitions of sexuality, the categorization of the mentally ill and the otherization of criminals. To describe this process of normalization and how it is achieved Foucault relied on a variety of stories and images to explain his theories more accurately with the most famous image being that of the panopticon.
Foucault, among his many other revolutionary theories, utilized the idea of the panopticon to describe just how a population can be disciplined (disciplinary power) and then how it eventually disciplines itself (biopower which “operates…through the hegemony of norms, political technologies, and the shaping of the body and soul” (49)). The panopticon itself is basically a prison. It contains a tower in the middle with cells facing the tower. Within the prison the prisoners are led into their cells and are watched by guards. The prisoners know that the guards are watching them through one sided glass in the tower windows and so as not to incur their wrath, they act accordingly and behave properly. They do not stray from the ordered, structured way of the prison but rather act in a disciplined manner under the endless gaze of the guards. Eventually, however, the guards leave, unbeknownst to the prisoners, yet the prisoners continue to act in their usual, normal manner and therefore discipline themselves, thinking the guards are still there.
Schools, themselves, I will attempt to argue and elaborate upon, are also an example of the means by which the State monitors, examines, modifies, structures, and finally normalizes our lives, leading ultimately to its control over us and the disciplining of our actions and behaviors by molding us to its will, eventually resulting not only in the external disciplining of our lives but the internal disciplining of ourselves.
One way in which the institution of school most apparently structures and controls our lives is by the bell system and the schedule, one’s daily routine. Firstly, the bell itself is one of the most perceptible means by which schools normalize and homogenize its populations. At each time period the little device rings and immediately the entirety of the school population moves, here and there, to and fro, wherever it needs to relocate itself. The function of the bell is not only oppressive but efficient for it not only subtly demands our presence in World History, or Geometry but, more importantly, it causes us to do so without thinking. This question of “how” is even more important than the question of “what” in pertinence to the system of the bell for our instantaneous relocation is done so instinctively, a direct creation of the school system (and its superior, the State) placed within each and every one of us, showing the degree to which the school system influences our lives. This insidious method of control essentially strips us of our ability to resist, places us in the metaphorical assembly line and eradicates our ability to choose where we go as we are consistently urged on, hour after hour, by the cacophonous “beep” of the bell.
Coupled with the bell system is the construction of the schedule, a daily regimen of academic activities specifically tailored for each one of us (which in and of itself is kind of ironic when the school is trying to reduce individual needs and homogenize its populations). First of all, the very idea of a “routine” is normalizing in and of itself for it presupposes a regular or normal way to go about one’s daily activities. The word “routine,” and the schedule as well, also implies that these regular actions, which in the case of school are classes, continue day after day in a similar, repetitive fashion, the epitome of control by locking us into a structured, rigid existence to be lived and re-lived, making it easier for the State to monitor and analyze our lives. Therefore, the class schedule, an actualization of routine in the context of school, acts as a means of controlling and supervising our lives.
In addition to the more apparent means of structuring that the school system uses, it also employs a variety of other, more subtle techniques to ensure our compliance and resultant normalization.
One of the ways by which our lives are further structured and our choices limited is the institution of the uniform. Ostensibly used to “reduce distractions,” “minimize fashion consciousness” within the context of school, and “foster an academic environment,” all of these strategically deployed phrases are simply covers for their true purpose, the elimination of individuality and the continued normalizing of our lives, first in the realm of our daily “routine” (I will continue the use of this term not because I endorse its meaning but simply for ease and the purpose of being terse) as aforementioned and now in the realm of fashion, one of the foremost ways human beings express themselves and their beliefs in the modern era. This normalization occurs because of a few traits specific to the concept of the school uniform. First, the very nature of the word “uniform” implies an essence of banality and structure. Used as an adjective, the word means “like” or “similar,” both words which are intensely interconnected (in their meaning) to the means by which one is normalized since both words would adequately, and accurately, be able to describe those means. In other words, being able to pose as an accurate adjective for a method of normalization, as the words “like” and “similar” can, such as “like dress” or “similar clothing” in this specific instance, reveals how the nature of those words is strongly related to the nature of the word normalization. Another aspect of the structured uniform is fleshed out when its synonym is employed, the phrase “dress code.” This phrase can then be rearranged into “the code of dress,” a more obvious statement of its true meaning, a code, or set of laws (as the thesaurus so aptly supplies), dictating the way that one dresses. This controlling and essentializing regulation imposes a predetermined notion created by those in power upon hundreds of student a year, funneling them into the system of individual repression and normalization through the stifling of personal expression, specifically in this instance in the manner of dress.
Another means by which the school system controls our lives and normalizes us is through its provision of education, the very purpose of the school system. While education itself is not an intrinsic evil, it, in context of a system, like schools, can be manipulated and filtered so as to give the State power over the individual. The simplest way it does this is by being provided by an entity chosen by the State to provides us with the information. The school system, the chosen entity, (and therefore the State) directly controls what we learn, how we learn it and who teaches it to us, nearly every circumstance surrounding our education. By choosing what we learn, the State essentially constructs our reality, it tells us what is real and what is not, who is nice and who is mean, where we should live and where we should avoid, how we should act and how we should not, and most importantly what is true and what is not. This ability control our thoughts at the most fundamental level, by controlling what information we are given to think about, it not only can control our exposure to ideas that it deems dangerous, granting the State more power to quell resistive thoughts, but also what we process in our minds and therefore become as human beings as a result of the impressions we receive from that information, the State’s normalization of our academic evolution which directly affects our development as human beings, the ultimate example of population management. Additionally, the school system not only chooses what we learn but the means by which that information is disseminated to us through the use of teachers. The school system, with its ability to select its staff is given the ability to employ teachers who are the “safest,” and most “docile” insofar as they are unlikely to present any sort of dissident or threatening information and even if there were to be a possibility, the school system’s masters in the form of administration has the ability to watch closely such attempts and take action if necessary. By controlling the manner in which information is presented not only does it further limit any inkling of possible variety in the presentation of information but it also gives the school system eyes into the only possible refuge from the ever-present stare of the administration, the physical classroom, relieving us of any possible shelter. Even the textbooks chosen, the only external item allowed to infiltrate our learning, are filtered and censored, evident most blatantly by banned books such as Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn. This bowdlerization of literature limits any potential exposition of our lives to the external world in our process of learning. By dictating every circumstance of the learning process, the school system and State control our growth and ultimately what we become, which, if the State succeeds, is a collection of docile bodies.
Teachers contribute even further to the infiltration of our lives by the oppressive system of the State (from now on I will interchangeably use the terms “State” and “school system”) insofar as they constitute figures of authority. Initially, the very concept of authority creates a dichotomy between those who have it and those who don’t (though whether or not this section wants it is another issue). While in and of itself this dichotomy is not dangerously oppressive, it is what is done with this concept embedded in our minds that enforces subjugation of the student body. Through the perpetuation of this dichotomy of authority, teachers (and administration which I will later address) are elevated to a position of superiority, usually in respect to intelligence and knowledge. This supposedly advanced knowledge is then deployed to mold the student into “both an object and subject of knowledge…positively shaped and formed within the matrices of ‘scientifico-discplinary mechanisms.’” (50). Also, by instilling the image of the smart teacher and the dumb (or at least intellectually inferior) student, a hierarchy is imposed and from this the student is subjugated and controlled since a relationship of dependence between student and teacher is established. From this point on, the student is a lesser being and this “moral judgment,” as noted in the introduction, is exactly the idea of structuring that Foucault criticizes because it becomes, to the student, a value judgment of her/himself. Additionally, the fact that the student relies on the teacher for information, presented as truth, illustrates how the teacher him/herself erects the student’s worldview and external reality. Whether apparently or subtly, the teacher (and the system that chose him/her) inevitably influences the student. In effect, this information is a more subtle example of propaganda. Through this means of mental infiltration, the State is given the capability to modify us in any way and tailor us to its own needs by feeding us information prepared to form us into its object. This control not only objectifies us into tools to be controlled but also is an apparent act of oppression against the entire student body, another example of normalization.
Similarly, the administration, the group really pulling the strings, imposes rules, monitors our daily lives and “keeps us in line” as a means of normalizing the student body. First of all, the idea of the principal or the academic dean, etc. is simply a re-entrenchment of the former hierarchy established between teachers and students, however, this instance is based more so on a foundation of conduct rather than academic performance. The penalties of failure such as the Saturday detention, the suspension, and the expulsion portray the administration not only as figures wielding immense amounts of authority but it also creates the image of the administration as more important, for surely (as society teaches us), they would not have so much control if they were not better than we. Reminiscent of Karl Marx’s bourgeoisie elite and the oppressed proletariat, the administration and student body, respectively, exist in a constant clash, with the administration usually having the upper hand. These methods of punishment like the detention, are abilities given to the school to make even more “moral judgments” about the worth of a student. Even comment of one student as he witnesses another receive a detention show the intensity of the detention as a tool of judgment as the former remarks “He must be a bad kid,” an obvious value judgment. Through such action, one sees the impressive, though oppressive, control that the administration holds. And more importantly the effect of this display of strength and the effect of this otherization of the “bad kid” instills a fear of punishment into the rest of the student body. By making an example of a select few, the administration not only shows its own ability but also the ease of its exercise which in turn discourages further acts of resistance from the student body and subjugates them by fear. Once students give in to this fear, they are once again normalized as each becomes a docile body malleable for the State’s influence for fear that any act of dissent will be punished, an act that, in their minds, would not only have initial bad consequences but also otherize them as well into the group of “bad kids.”
Teachers have similar control that, though less noticeable, also hold the ability to oppress and otherize the student body, an inescapable influence that affects every single student, the issuance of tests and quizzes and the resultant grades. To begin with, the very notion of grades is based on the idea of a hierarchy, the number system. By assigning a numerical (and arguable moral) value to a student, the teacher essentially gives a worth to the individual and while in and of itself, very objectifying, stripping the student of any other form of dignity, this is not the worst effect of the grading system. Rather, it is the catalyst for the worse effect, that of normalization. Such is achieved through a variety of ways. Much like the administration’s use of punishment as a means of deterring further resistance, grades instill a similar fear. By labeling the performance of a student excellent, good, bad, etc., the teacher not only assigns the student a value but creates categories that are failing and those that are passing. The ascription of grades, additionally, even surpasses the abilities of the administration for certain grades are required to continue the quest of normalization within the school system.
I do find it a little ironic that my criticism of academia takes on a rather academic form.
- Later