Freedom within a Panoptical Society Essay

The concepts moderm and post-modern overhear become common currency in intellectual debates. Within such(prenominal) debates, the postmodern is perceived as an epoch, a perspective, or an entirely modernistic paradigm of thought. such a innovation of the aforementi peerlessd 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 thinking which eschews the uncritical purpose of common terms such as organizations, privates, environment, structure, and nuance, etc (579).These terms refer to the existence of social entities and designates inwardly a modernist conception of social humanity. The rationale behind this lies in the ontological conception of world which privileges thinking in terms of discrete phenomenal realms, noneffervescent attri exactly whene and sequential events. As opposed to such an ontological conception of reality, the postmodern stands as the champion of weak te nors 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 translation and hence unrepresentable thereby impotential to situate within a static conception of reality. An adoption 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 save tends to emphasize the greatness of local methods, which collectively define social reality. In a nose out, the slickness from a modern to a postmodern conception of reality thereby leads to the re-definition of existing ontological conceptions of reality that determine the respective(a) forms of intellectual priorities as well as theoretical stipulations in the study and conception of being. Such a perception of reality that is highly characterized by the postmodern turn is unmingled in Michel Foucault perspectives as to the workings of social reality.Michel Foucaults use of Jeremy Benthams concept panopticon in his book Discipline and Punish presents a word of honor of the aspect of surveillance while placing emphasis on a vestigial change and break resulting from the changes in the social and theatrical arrangements during the 1800s. The difference in methodological compendium is evident if one considers that as opposed to the old methodology wherein the many chance on the few, modern methodology has enabled the shift wherein the few see the many.Foucault notes that such a shift shows the vogue in which the instantaneous linear perspective of a great multitude is procured for a small number of individuals or even for a single individual (216). He further notes that the implications of such show the manner in which Our family is one not of spectacle, but of surveillanceWe are much less Greek than we believe. We are incomplete in the amphitheater, nor on the stage, but in the panoptical machine, invested by its effect of forcefulness which we bring to ourselves since we are a p stratagem of its mechanism.(Foucault 217) Such a perspective is based on the assumption that society stands as the venue 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 put his/her actions dependent upon the form of power relation in which he/she has school access.It is important to note, that Foucaults notion of panopticonism also emphasizes the existence of liberty within a predefined space. Understanding power is central to understanding Foucaults analysis of subjectivity. Foucault ex plicitly rejects the paradigm of power as repression, arguing that power is not only negative but also productive. He rejects the juridical type 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 unilateral power.Foucault characterizes power as positive and productive. Power is everywhere, a multiplicity of force relations it is forever local and unstable. This ubiquity of power does not preclude resistance. On the contrary, resistance(s) can only exist in the strategic field of power relations. Power is action that runs through and amidst things power is first and foremost relational. Not only is power al slipway a relationship, but power relationships exist everywhere. Freedom, in this sense, is to be unsounded as composed of positive and negative aspects.Although one exists within panoptical society, it is possible to engage in cases of positive freedo m through the affaire of actions, which contradicts the dominant discourses. In the popular feminist movements, for example, such an act involves the redefinition of the distaff 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 regard can also be seen in the various ways in which media affects the viewpoint held by an individual. Capitalism, through media and advertising commodifies value such as individuality. By linking the false notion of individuality to a certain commodity, consumers think that they are unique, that they are different. A deeper analysis however reveals that the aforementioned claim to individuality is nothing but an illusion a figment of the mind manufactured and institutionalized by capitalists.It is not only the case that it i s manufactured and institutionalized it is also sold to the consumers. This leads to the deception of the peck 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, failure 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 prescribes and sells individuality or any some otherwise value within society was discussed by Susan Bordo in her essay Beauty (Re) discovers the masculine Body. In the aforementioned text, Bordo describes a certain type of gaze which ensures the control of the body. As Foucault states, an inspecting gaze wi ll ensure that individually individual will exercise surveillance over himself.The gaze, in the context of Bordos work is centered 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, seat Berger discusses the ways in which the solve of acculturation or the socialization process itself enables the individual to develop a certain taste perception 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 fit(p) by the modes f production within a particular(prenominal) place. True enough it is also dubious if an individual is adequate of perceiving an object without interest whatsoever. We choose what we want to perceive and even if we state that there are instances wherein we are captured by a beau tiful object, it gains our guardianship only because it is something which is important to us. In a room filled with tribe for example, we notice a specific person because that person has value to us.The magnetic disk 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 brightness 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 give us sustenance. In this sense it also seems that judgments of taste are also partly ruled by reason just like the sublime. Reason tells us that there is a level of significance 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 prevalent in a specific society or even in a specific era. It is the enormousness of an object which allows us to subconsciously or even consciously companion beauty with these objects. The similarity 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 recognize 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 anthropoid Body. Chia, R. From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organizational Studies 16 (1995) 579-604. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish The Birth of the Prison. New York Vintage, 1974.