Freedom within a Panoptical Society Essay

The concepts â€Å"moderm† and â€Å"post-modern† have become common currency in intellectual debates. Within such debates, the postmodern is perceived as an epoch, a perspective, or an entirely new paradigm of thought. Such a conception of the aforementioned term stems from its rootedness in the conception of the modern. Chia notes that what distinguishes the postmodern from the modem is â€Å"a style of thinking which eschews the uncritical use of common terms such as ‘organizations’, ‘individuals’, ‘environment’, ‘structure’, and ’culture’, etc† (579). These terms refer to the existence of social entities and attributes within a modernist conception of social reality. The rationale behind this lies in the ontological conception of being which privileges thinking in terms of discrete phenomenal states, static attribute and sequential events. As opposed to such an ontological conception of reality, the postmodern stands as the champion of weak forms of ontology that â€Å"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 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 however tends to emphasize the importance of local methods, which collectively 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 conception of being. Such a perception of reality [that is highly characterized by the postmodern turn] is evident in Michel Foucault’ perspectives as to the workings of social reality. Michel Foucault’s use of Jeremy Bentham’s concept â€Å"panopticon’ in his book Discipline and Punish presents a discussion of the aspect of surveillance while placing emphasis on a fundamental change and break resulting from the changes in the social and theatrical arrangements during the 1800’s. The difference in methodology is evident if one considers that as opposed to the old methodology wherein the many see the few, modern methodology has enabled the shift wherein the few see the many. Foucault notes that such a shift shows the manner in which â€Å"the instantaneous view 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 society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance†¦We are much less Greek than we believe. We are neither in the amphitheater, nor on the stage, but in the panoptical machine, invested by its effects of power which we bring to ourselves since we are a part of its mechanism. (Foucault 217) Such a perspective is based 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 important to note, that Foucault’s notion of panopticonism also emphasizes the existence of freedom within a predefined space. Understanding power is central to understanding Foucault’s analysis of subjectivity. Foucault explicitly rejects the paradigm of power as repression, arguing that power is not only negative 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 unilateral power. Foucault characterizes power as positive and productive. Power is everywhere, a multiplicity of force relations; it is always 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 between things; power is first and foremost relational. Not only is power always a relationship, but power relationships exist everywhere. Freedom, in this sense, is to be understood as composed of positive and negative aspects. Although one exists within panoptical society, it is possible to engage in cases of positive freedom through the engagement of actions, which contradicts the dominant 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 Foucault’s 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 gaze 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 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 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, 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 society’s panoptical gaze. The manner in which the market prescribes and sells individuality [or any other value within society] was discussed by Susan Bordo in her essay â€Å"Beauty (Re) discovers the Male Body†. In the aforementioned text, Bordo describes a certain type of â€Å"gaze† which ensures the control of the body. As Foucault states, an inspecting gaze will ensure that each individual will exercise surveillance over himself. The gaze, in the context of Bordo’s 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, John Berger discusses the ways in which the process of acculturation or the socialization process itself enables the individual to develop a certain taste 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 dictated by the modes f production within a specific place. True enough it is also dubious if an individual is capable 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 â€Å"captured† by a beautiful object, it gains our attention only because it is something which is important 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 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 importance of an object which allows us to subconsciously or even consciously associate beauty with these objects. The similarity of Foucault, Bordo, and Berger’s 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 individual’s capability to recognize the sources of both positive and negative power. In other words, it lies in the individual’s capability to realize that within a society ruled by a panoptical gaze, it is still possible to ascertain one’s autonomy by engaging in actions [or constituting a self] that goes against dominant the discourse. Works Cited Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. New York: Viking Press, 1973. Bordo, Susan. â€Å"Beauty (Re) discovers the Male Body†. Chia, R. â€Å"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.