In lecture yesterday, I was SO interested in the paragraph that Professor has read out loud for us. It is the one on page 172. I was wondering if we can start a discussion about it. I mean, to be fully honest, I am still a little confused. So it would be great if someone can start off, and we can all have great/wonderful ideas together! So here is the passage:
A whole problematic then develops: that of an architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (Cf. the geometry of fortresses), but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control- to render visible those who are inside it; in more general terms, an architecture that would operate to transform individuals: to act on those it shelters, to provide a hold on their conduct, to carry the effects of power right to them, to make it possible to know them, to alter them. Stones can make people docile and knowable. The old simple schema of confinement and enclosure- thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, or filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies. Foucault, 172.
My own little understanding of this passage is that Foucault is discussing how the mechanism of disciplinary would be seeing everything as a whole. (It is more open, thick walls no longer exist.) In this case, surveillance itself becomes part of the disciplinary process (examples of hospitals/schools). Thus, power changes through it's architecture, in which discipline functions through a calculated gaze (it is not longer calculated by force).
Thank you! Wafa
Last Post/Reflection
16 years ago
3 comments:
Hey Wafa, this is a great passage that you have selected. I thought it would be kind of interesting to break it down a bit and attempt to interpret its meaning in this way.
And if anyone else would like to add their interpretation we can get a nice flow of ideas going.
So here we are:
“A whole problematic then develops; that of an architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (the geometry of fortresses)…”
So Foucault is saying that the function of architecture is transformed, no longer is it created for its aesthetic value, nor for the purpose of security (observation of the external environment such as a fortress).
I think, if I understood this correctly, prof Burawoy said it as about sovereign power (the castle) and the power related to the fortress (security I think?) is transformed to a sort of inner power in which the individual is now the object.
“…but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control- to render visible those who are inside it…”
The function of architecture becomes surveillance, it is to “render visible” the individual, to expose him/her. The external environment becomes less important.
“…in more general terms, an architecture that would operate to transform individuals: to act on those it shelters, to provide a hold on their conduct, to carry the effects of power right to them, to make it possible to know them, to alter them.”
Architecture is created by those with knowledge (did he call this knowledge power?) whose sole goal is the discipline of the individual. Architecture is used to alter human behavior – those sitting behind the blue prints and drawings make calculations on how the use of space, of materials, of the natural environment can best achieve a certain outcome in human behavior.
The prisoner will respond to her environment. If she knows she is being watched by the warden she will censor her behavior. And in time she will be shaped by this power that this surveillance has upon her. I think this is what Foucault is saying. But the assumption is that people will conform and I don’t think that that is always true. There are those who will not internalize this! What do you think?
“Stones can make people docile and knowable.”
I don’t understand what he means by this.
“The old simple schema of confinement and enclosure- thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, or filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies.” Foucault, 172.
The prison space takes on a new meaning. The prison is no longer a place to shelter, protect, confine, to keep those outside the prison walls safe from those inside the prison.
The last part of this passage, beginning with “began to be replaced by…”, is not clear to me. You wrote, Wafa, that “…the mechanism of disciplinary would be seeing everything as a whole” – does this refer to the observation of the individual that Foucault discusses on bottom of 170?
So, yeah, it’s just as you wrote, the “calculated gaze” is how prisoners are controlled and thus disciplined – it is no longer just about force. Pretty scary stuff!
So power is embedded in architecture and people are shaped by the environment produced through architecture.
Interesting!
-josie
Regarding the passage: my interpretation is similar to both of yours. Architecture shapes human behavior. Of course, there is much more nuance we could add to this statement, but that's the basic idea. In general, the spaces we live in, from our bedrooms to our cities, have structures that affect (but do not strictly determine) our behaviors.
Regarding power-knowledge: the relationship between knowledge and power is not simply about who knows what, but about who creates what.
Page 27: "We should admit rather than power produces knowledge (and not simply by encouraging it because it serves power or by applying it because it is useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, not any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations."
The actual process of creating knowledge is imbued with power, and the knowledge that is produced depends on the interests and biases of who is creating it. It may help to think about it in terms of Gramsci's hegemony (in the context of a class representing its interests as the interests of all). Traditional intellectuals create certain forms of knowledge that serve to reproduce capitalism. This ties in with Foucault's theory of discourse, which I'm not sure how much we'll cover in this class.
The part of this passage that struck me most was this:
"thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, or filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies"
I think it summarizes a key difference between sovereign and disciplinary power. In the former, power is expressed to stop movement: "prevents entering or leaving." In the latter, power is expressed to guide movement: "calculation of openings, ... passages and transparencies."
If the sense of movement is expanded to all human behavior, then these architectural designs become metaphors for the general expression of control used in sovereign and disciplinary power.
Post a Comment