POWER AND RELATIONS

Foucault discussion of power and its relations sparks a rise in the support for anti-institutionalism that I didn’t know I possessed.  Particularly in regards to the way he incorporates a historical context that asserts to the deeply embedded power that our current system and institutions prevails particularly in the context of the disciplining of each citizen.  Notably he sparks a thought about how our current system has not learnt from history and has not in fact taken away all the evils and problems that were present in the past.  Institutions have in fact just hidden these problems from plain view. Institutions have created areas that can categorize each person to ensure law abidance and obedience and to prevent anarchy. He argues that modern day psychiatry is the perfect explanation of this. I like the idea that in order to understand insanity we must look to sanity. In considering that the institutions in a society have categorized the polar opposite. We must therefore look towards why they are considered opposites by comparing them in line with the good and back actions they play within a society.

This reminds me of the case of normality of which is governed by a set of norms for each person to follow. But the question is who defines this normality in the first place? Could it be possible that in another universe where a norm was set within a society for people to sing instead of talk and people who spoke were considered bizarre. What then could we say about the norms in that society and how they are very different to the one we have to the present day? Foucault argues that people who were considered as mad during the renaissance were able to run free in society and was just seen as different but not as insane. However this notion changed when they became institutionalized, these people did not disappear but instead were hidden from the general society.

According to Foucault people when going against the institutions don’t look for the “chief enemy” but instead look for the “immediate enemy” they are align themselves with something which is more closer and easier to grasp and hence don’t risk the current system of todays society. But are only fighting a smaller faction with in a society which can be easily amended to satisfy their claims.

But who is the man? And will that really make that much difference? In peoples struggle to be individualized, once being given that individuality they are put into categorizes which they thought they wanted. This is due to the case as said by Foucault the combination of individuation and totalization.  Which is controlled by the state and in a western society. He thus argues that it is not because people have become more obedient in society but rather they have been adjustments to the society, which allow productivity and individuality to occur on a smaller scale.

These disciplines within a society according to Foucault are used to insure order within human groups, at to exercise power at the lowest cost but at the same time maximum effectiveness. This ensures the submission of the people as they think that they have the freedom to choose.  These disciplines began in the 18^th century with the rise of nationalist states and institutions. People were put into particular sectors according to their ethnicity, beliefs, ideology etc, along with this came the creation majority and minority groups making it easier for the state to assert order within each different group. This change also enhanced the ability for people to move to different disciplines instead of fighting they had the opportunity if unhappy to move to another area or sector.  According to Foucault the power of these institutions is use through the tool of communication, each institutions is given a certain amount of power from that state and within that discipline they able to exercise as they choose. Quite often within these institutions that power is then dispersed in a hierarchical manner beginning from the bottom up to the very top. People are happy to sustain this little power, because they have something to work up to that allows them to go up the ladder and gain power.  This suggest therefore that the power given in to these disciplines is minimal the state and the current society hold the real power. My thought is this even if this is true, does it really matter. Is possessing only a little amount of power really a bad thing? Imagine if it got into the wrong hands.  At least that means we don't live in a world of anarchy or do we?.........