
Michel Foucault: Power and Struggle - apollinaire
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/michel-foucault-footnotes-to-plato/
======
FillardMillmore
The only Foucault I can claim to have read is 'Discipline and Punish'. In
particular, the idea that stuck with me most was his description of the
Panopticon, the building model developed by Jeremy Bentham - primarily for use
as a prison.

For those that aren't familiar with the Panopticon, the simple explanation is
that it's a circular building with a 'watchtower' in the middle. The watchman
is at the top of the watchtower and the windows of the watchtower are slatted
such that those being watched cannot tell if the person inside is looking at
them. This means that they essentially must assume that they could be
monitored and watched at any given time and have no way to determine if they
are not currently being watched.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)

Short bit from the Wikipedia page for the Panopticon related to Foucault:

> Foucault first came across the panopticon architecture when he studied the
> origins of clinical medicine and hospital architecture in the second half of
> the 18th century. He argued that discipline had replaced the pre-modern
> society of kings, and that the panopticon should not be understood as a
> building, but as a mechanism of power and a diagram of political technology.

This idea to me extended to the modern age of digital technology and the fact
that (especially after the documents that Snowden revealed) practically
whenever you are using modern technology, you could be watched and you
wouldn't know it. This according to Foucault is an astounding amount of power
that is being used as a lever against you - it in essence ensures that people
will always behave as if they are being watched, even if they actively are
not. And I believe studies have shown that people will act differently if they
think they are being watched. I find the idea so fascinating that I strike up
conversations in real life with people about the Panopticon every chance I
have.

Perhaps fortunately, this model has only ever been used in one real prison in
Cuba - slight aside, Fidel Castro and his brother Raul were actually
imprisoned here for a period of time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidio_Modelo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidio_Modelo)

~~~
abhiyerra
One of the simplest forms of this is why do we stop at stoplights when no one
is around (in the US anyway)? The idea of the Panopticon also goes into laws.
Just because a law exists doesn't mean people follow it, there has to be a
mode where we are no longer controlled from top-down, but we modify our
behavior because of the power put on us by this fear of being watched or other
people judging our behavior so we change it.

~~~
_jal
True story: the only ticket I've ever gotten was running a red light. Happened
around 1am, on my way home from work. This was in a rural area, nobody on the
road for miles, and this idiotic light would stay red for minutes. A cop was
sitting in a speed trap just past the light.

Revenue generation: it's the law.

~~~
sk5t
Well, that was very unsporting of the cop. Sometimes I'll treat red lights
like stop signs, very late at night, as a minor demonstration of sobriety--
like, if you want to pull me over, have at it, but you're gonna be bored and
disappointed.

------
abhiyerra
Power / Knowledge, Discipline and Punish, and History of Sexuality were huge
influences in my thinking about the world and how to think about life itself
as a system with power being the interconnect. I highly recommend it to
understand how culture/subcultures behave and it ends up becoming in a sense
graph theory.

~~~
asdaddasdad
What makes you sure that is the right way to think about the world?

~~~
abhiyerra
It is a model, it is a model that has been useful for me. I don't discount
that there are flaws with Post-Structuralism but most ways of making sense of
the world have flaws.

~~~
asdaddasdad
Fair enough if it is useful for you. I am curious what makes it useful, as it
seems to be a very negative and destructive way of thinking. At least I have
never met an adherent to that philosophy with a positive outlook on things.

~~~
coldtea
What makes you think a "positive outlook on things" is the right way to think
about the world in general, and those issues in particular?

~~~
asdaddasdad
"Positive Outlook" maybe sounds a bit naive. I mean that people have the means
to do things and change things. Not everything is just a power play. Of course
some situations in the world can be very bad, but even then I don't see how
musing about power structures would help.

I guess it is (for me) about practical approaches and solutions vs theoretical
musings.

Also in general people are not all that bad. Even most bad people are just
misguided, not inherently bad.

------
pmoriarty
For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, here's an interesting debate between
Foucault and Chomsky: [1]

Unfortunately, they're mostly speaking past each other, but it's still worth
watching.

[1] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8)

~~~
guntars
It seems to be a problem with any televised debate - the people debating have
no intention of finding the truth or changing their mind, instead it’s all
about convincing the viewer by appearing to be “winning” the argument.

~~~
pmoriarty
It's a common failing of philosophy. Many philosophers constantly reframe
everything they hear and see as exemplifying and justifying their own view,
and seem to be unable to engage anyone else on their own terms or even
charitably see the point others who don't agree with them are trying to make.

This goes double for when the conversation is across the Analytic/Continental
divide, as is the case with the Chomsky/Foucault debate (though Chosmky isn't
exactly an Analytic philosopher, he's a lot closer to the Analytics than he is
to the Continentals).

------
gidan
How machiavelic it is to think everything is revolving around power. I haven’t
read Foucault but I tend to think I’m more enclined towards other values, like
morale for example.

~~~
abhiyerra
Power by itself isn't positive or negative. It is how power is used that has
that. Morality, etc. are basically ways of actuating power.

~~~
MR4D
To add to your comment, it is also how power is _obtained_ that is important.

In other words, you can’t kill your way to power and then give away money to
rescue your soul.

~~~
coldtea
The universe however doesn't care about souls (rescued or not).

In other words, you can very much kill your way to power and then be fine (as
to "how you sleep") with it.

Even more, unless you overdo it like Hitler or Stalin, you can have other
people (heck, history itself) be fine with it, and celebrate you as a great
leader, a beautiful soul, etc...

------
joshypants
Last week I got my comment downvoted and flagged for suggesting someone needed
to read Foucalt.

I still think a lot of you need to read Foucalt.

