Freedom within a Panoptical Society Essay

The concepts moderm and post-modern have become common currency in intellectual debates. Within such debates, the postmodernistist is perceived as an epoch, a perspective, or an entirely new paradigm of thought. such a conception of the aforementi unrivalledd term stems from its rootedness in the conception of the modern. Chia nones that what distinguishes the postmodern from the modem is a style of thinking which eschews the uncritical use of common terms such as organizations, single(a)s, environment, structure, and culture, etc (579).These terms refer to the globe of social entities and attributes within a modernist conception of social naturalism. The rationale behind this lies in the ontological conception of being which privileges thinking in terms of distinct 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 emphasize a transient, ephemera l 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 shuffle 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 topical anesthetic 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 rea lity that is highly characterized by the postmodern turn is evident in Michel Foucault perspectives as to the workings of social reality.Michel Foucaults use of Jeremy Benthams concept panopticon in his book tick and revenge presents a discussion of the aspect of direction while placing emphasis on a fundamental change and break resulting from the changes in the social and agency arrangements during the 1800s. The difference in methodology is evident if one considers that as opposed to the old methodology wherein the many see the a few(prenominal), modern methodology has enabled the shift wherein the few see the many.Foucault notes that such a shift shows the manner in which the instantaneous view of a great multitude is procured for a small number of soulfulnesss 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 surveillanceWe are much less Greek than we believe. We are ne ither in the amphitheater, nor on the stage, but in the panoptical machine, invested by its effects of office which we establish 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 Foucaults notion of panopticonism similarly emphasizes the being of freedom within a predefined space. Understanding power is central to understanding Foucaults analysis of subjectivity. Foucault explicitly rejects the paradigm of power as repression, arguing that power is not only negativ e 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 verifying and productive. Power is everywhere, a multiplicity of force relations it is al slipway 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 setoff 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 treatments. In the po pular womens liberationist 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 conception 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 individualisation. By linking the false notion of personal identity 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 apologue 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 con sumers. 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 shape 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 orders 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 fictitious character of gaze which ensures the control of the body. As Foucault states, an inspecting gaze will ensure that each individual will exercise surveillance over h imself.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, 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 exigency 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 important to us. In a live 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 substance 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 bea uty with these objects. The similarity of Foucault, Bordo, and Bergers work may thereby be attributed to the importance they give to culture in ascertain 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 Male 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.