Freedom within a Panoptical Society Essay

The concepts moderm and post- modern have get down unwashed currency in intellectual debates. Within much(prenominal) debates, the postmodern is sensed as an epoch, a perspective, or an entirely new range of a function of thought. such a conception of the aforementivirtuosod term stems from its rootedness in the conception of the modern. Chia notes that what distinguishes the postmodern from the modem is a style of hazarding which eschews the uncritical use of common price such as organizations, exclusives, environment, structure, and culture, etc (579).These terms contact to the existence of cordial entities and attri unlesses in spite of appearance a modernist conception of social world. The precept behind this lies in the ontological conception of being which privileges thinking in terms of discrete phenomenal states, static attribute and sequential events. As oppose to such an ontological conception of reality, the postmodern stands as the submarine of weak lay downs of ontology that emphasize a transient, ephemeral and emergent reality (Chia 579).If such is the case, it thereby follows that a postmodernist perspective of reality adheres to thought styles wherein reality is deemed to be continuously in flux and transformation and hence unrepresentable thereby impossible to situate within a static conception of reality. An acceptation of a post-modernist perspective of reality thereby leads to a rethinking of the modern conceptions of social reality since adherence to postmodernist perspectives lead to the de-emphasis on forms and attributes.Such a conception of reality however tends to emphasize the importance of local methods, which conjointly define social reality. In a sense, the shift from a modern to a postmodern conception of reality thereby leads to the re-definition of existing ontological conceptions of reality that determine the various forms of intellectual priorities as well as theoretical stipulations in the study and conce ption of being. Such a detection of reality that is highly characterized by the postmodern turn is unambiguous in Michel Foucault perspectives as to the workings of social reality.Michel Foucaults use of Jeremy Benthams concept panopticon in his book Discipline and penalize presents a discussion of the aspect of watchfulness while placing emphasis on a fundamental change and bunk resulting from the changes in the social and theatrical arrangements during the 1800s. The difference in methodology is evident if one considers that as opposed to the old methodology wherein the many experience the few, modern methodology has enabled the shift wherein the few see the many.Foucault notes that such a shift shows the carriage in which the instantaneous view of a swell multitude is procured for a small number of case-by-cases or even for a single individual (216). He further notes that the implications of such show the demeanor in which Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surv eillanceWe atomic number 18 much less Greek than we believe. We atomic number 18 neither in the amphitheater, nor on the stage, but in the panoptical machine, invested by its effects of advocate which we beget to ourselves since we argon a part of its mechanism.(Foucault 217) Such a perspective is ground on the assumption that society stands as the locus for the interplay of various forms of power relations. Such forms of power relation determine the manner in which an individual situates himself/herself within his/her surroundings. Surveillance, in this sense, may be seen as a method which society inscribes upon an individual as he/she chooses to regulate his/her actions dependent upon the form of power relation in which he/she has direct access.It is definitive to note, that Foucaults notion of panopticonism also emphasizes the existence of freedom within a predefined space. discernment power is central to understanding Foucaults analysis of subjectivity. Foucault explicitl y rejects the paradigm of power as repression, arguing that power is not only electronegative but also productive. He rejects the juridical model of power, wherein power is characterized as repressive, rule-based, uniform, and prohibitive. According to this model, the subject is constituted as one who obeys this negative nonreversible power.Foucault characterizes power as positive and productive. Power is everywhere, a multiplicity of pressure relations it is al airs local and unstable. This ubiquity of power does not foresee resistance. On the contrary, resistance(s) can only exist in the strategic knit stitch of power relations. Power is action that runs through and through and between things power is graduation and foremost relational. Not only is power al ways a relationship, but power relationships exist everywhere. Freedom, in this sense, is to be understood as undisturbed of positive and negative aspects.Although one exists within panoptical society, it is possible to affiance in cases of positive freedom through the engagement of actions, which contradicts the possessive discourses. In the popular feminist movements, for example, such an act involves the redefinition of the feminine as opposed to the presumed patriarchal conception of the female. Such is the manner in which Foucaults philosophy emphasizes the fluidity of structures despite its existence within a panoptical realm.The way in which our current society is controlled and determined by the panoptical scan can also be seen in the various ways in which media affects the viewpoint held by an individual. Capitalism, through media and advertising commodifies values such as identity element. By linking the false notion of individuality to a reliable commodity, consumers think that they are unique, that they are different. A deeper analysis however reveals that the aforementioned subscribe to individuality is nothing but an illusion a figment of the brainpower manufacture and institut ionalized by capitalists.It is not only the case that it is manufactured and institutionalized it is also sold to the consumers. This leads to the deception of the masses who believes that they possess individuality whereas they fail to see that this individuality is instilled and mass produced by the market. The paradox in this is evident if one considers that values such as individuality are acquired by individuals through the consumption of goods sold in the market. In this sense, visitation to consume such goods leads to a certain form of exclusion within society.In order to belong, one thereby adheres to the fads. The necessity to be an individual unique is thereby ensured by societys panoptical gaze. The manner in which the market ordains and sells individuality or any other value within society was discussed by Susan Bordo in her essay Beauty (Re) discovers the Male Body. In the aforementioned text, Bordo describes a certain token of gaze which ensures the control of the b ody. As Foucault states, an inspecting gaze will ensure that each individual will practice surveillance over himself.The gaze, in the context of Bordos work is concentrate on on the body. The manner in which such a manner of self-surveillance is ensured is through the acculturation of the individual himself. In Ways of Seeing, John Berger discusses the ways in which the process of acculturation or the socialization process itself enables the individual to collapse a certain gustatory sensation for the beautiful. Berger argues that society and culture prescribe and determine both the normative and substantive taste of an individual.Compared to Bordo, whose focus is on the body, Berger focuses on the manner in which works of art are prescribe by the modes f production within a specific place. legitimate enough it is also dubious if an individual is capable of perceiving an object without recreate whatsoever. We choose what we want to perceive and even if we state that there are instances wherein we are captured by a beautiful object, it gains our attention only because it is something which is serious to us. In a room filled with people for example, we notice a specific person because that person has value to us.The platter of fruits does not become pleasing to eye simply because it is arranged in a certain manner which allowed us to see their symmetry with each other and the ignitor of their skins, we also find it beautiful because somehow subconsciously we know that it is an important object or if it is a painting of a platter of fruits, it presents us with an image of objects which gain us sustenance. In this sense it also seems that judgments of taste are also partly govern by reason only when like the sublime. Reason tells us that there is a level of logical implication to these objects. Works of art present us with ways of seeing reality.These ways are affected, influenced, or shall we just say dictated by the type of discourse which is prevale nt in a specific society or even in a specific era. It is the importance of an object which allows us to subconsciously or even consciously associate beauty with these objects. The proportion of Foucault, Bordo, and Bergers work may thereby be attributed to the importance they give to culture in determining the self as well as the restrictions of this self. Within such a setting, individual freedom may be seen as being dependent an individuals capability to spot the sources of both positive and negative power.In other words, it lies in the individuals capability to realize that within a society ruled by a panoptical gaze, it is still possible to ascertain ones autonomy by engaging in actions or constituting a self that goes against dominant the discourse.Works CitedBerger, John. Ways of Seeing. New York Viking Press, 1973. Bordo, Susan. Beauty (Re) discovers the Male Body. Chia, R. From new-made to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organizational Studies 16 (1995) 579-604. Fouc ault, M. Discipline and Punish The Birth of the Prison. New York Vintage, 1974.