DiscussMormonism.com

Some of you probably are familiar with the work of the French thinker Michel Foucault. Recently I’ve been going over his thoughts on how discipline makes individuals. His basic argument is that individuality is an effect of disciplinary (power) institutions and that individuality is not separates us from power but instead is what allows power to shape our behavior. In effect, rather than individuality being innate, society through various techniques disciplines us toward the behavior that the group wants. But that’s off my point. What interests me mostly is one of the techniques. The main techniques are hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examinations. The one I want to focus on is hierarchical observation.

The basic idea behind how hierarchical observation shapes our behavior is that our behavior is coerced when we are under observation and surveillance. If a given behavior is wanted (such as for all kids to sit quietly in a classroom) then the authority figure is put into a position where they can see all the subjects better than they can see the authority figure (the teacher standing at the front of the room can see all the students better than the students can see the teachers [she’s behind the desk] or each other [the students are forced to look at the teacher]).

But to continue to my point of God as the ultimate watcher. Hierarchical observation best works when people practice self-control because they think they are being watched for behavior they shouldn’t be doing. Prisoners will behave when a guard is nearby. The students behave when the teacher is in the room. In all cases the threat of being seen doing an unwanted behavior is usually enough to deter them from doing it. Over time we learn to watch ourselves (and each other) and in the guard/teacher is no longer really needed, as we become the most efficient surveillance mechanism, watching ourselves so the authority figure doesn’t have to.

But a further mechanism that can be used for surveillance and observation is the ideal of God. An all knowing all seeing invisible entity that has control over our ultimate fate (salvation in the afterlife in Abrahamic faiths). God is the ultimate surveillance and observation tool that can be used by society to deter the worst behavior. Say that God thinks killing is bad, and the spectre of an all knowing watchdog is a excellent coercion tool. As long as the fear of God (an all powerful force that can’t be proven or disproved) exists then God will be a useful tool in the disciplining and control of society.

Just a thought while I'm snowed in.

I am an atheist now and I am raising my children to be also. But one thought that sometimes keeps me up at night is how much of my moral disposition was set by the watcher period in my life. I consider myself to be a moral person, but is that because I was trained to be so when I was young.

I sometimes wonder the same thing, has religion evolved because it is the best thing for society (although it may be detrimental to the individual at the benefit to society)? Even though I believe religion is universally fundamentally wrong it is kind of like the parasites in your gut: necessary for heath digestion?

John

Some of you probably are familiar with the work of the French thinker Michel Foucault. Recently I’ve been going over his thoughts on how discipline makes individuals.

I wonder how this theme dovetails with Foucault's predilection for S&M?

Coggins7 wrote:

Some of you probably are familiar with the work of the French thinker Michel Foucault. Recently I’ve been going over his thoughts on how discipline makes individuals.

I wonder how this theme dovetails with Foucault's predilection for S&M?

Probably none.

John Larsen wrote:I am an atheist now and I am raising my children to be also. But one thought that sometimes keeps me up at night is how much of my moral disposition was set by the watcher period in my life. I consider myself to be a moral person, but is that because I was trained to be so when I was young.

I sometimes wonder the same thing, has religion evolved because it is the best thing for society (although it may be detrimental to the individual at the benefit to society)? Even though I believe religion is universally fundamentally wrong it is kind of like the parasites in your gut: necessary for heath digestion?

John

How something could be detrimental to the individual (like drug use) while at the same time being of benefit to society is an interesting question, and seems counter intuitive.

I believe Atheism is, fundamentally, a philosophically weak position (unlike agnosticism, which simply admits ignorance of things beyond the directly empirical and formally logical), as it tries to make positive claims to knowledge about things, such as the existence of God, that it has already admitted cannot be known.

Clearly, to state a universal affirmative proposition to the effect, "God does not exist", one would have to have some positive knowledge about his non-existence. The Atheist, however, bars the theist from any such positive knowledge of his existence, and hence, bars himself from any such knowledge of his non-existence.

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:

Some of you probably are familiar with the work of the French thinker Michel Foucault. Recently I’ve been going over his thoughts on how discipline makes individuals.

I wonder how this theme dovetails with Foucault's predilection for S&M?

Probably none.

But Foucault was a regular within the San Francisco S&M scene for years, and discipline is at the core of BDSM.

Coggins7 wrote:

Bond...James Bond wrote:

Coggins7 wrote:

Some of you probably are familiar with the work of the French thinker Michel Foucault. Recently I’ve been going over his thoughts on how discipline makes individuals.

I wonder how this theme dovetails with Foucault's predilection for S&M?

Probably none.

But Foucault was a regular within the San Francisco S&M scene for years, and discipline is at the core of BDSM.

Care to comment on the main idea of my post...and not Foucault's sexual piccadillos? I really don't care if he was into S&M or whatever.

Coggins7 wrote:

John Larsen wrote:I am an atheist now and I am raising my children to be also. But one thought that sometimes keeps me up at night is how much of my moral disposition was set by the watcher period in my life. I consider myself to be a moral person, but is that because I was trained to be so when I was young.

I sometimes wonder the same thing, has religion evolved because it is the best thing for society (although it may be detrimental to the individual at the benefit to society)? Even though I believe religion is universally fundamentally wrong it is kind of like the parasites in your gut: necessary for heath digestion?

John

How something could be detrimental to the individual (like drug use) while at the same time being of benefit to society is an interesting question, and seems counter intuitive.

How about dying in a war?

Coggins7 wrote:I believe Atheism is, fundamentally, a philosophically weak position (unlike agnosticism, which simply admits ignorance of things beyond the directly empirical and formally logical), as it tries to make positive claims to knowledge about things, such as the existence of God, that it has already admitted cannot be known.

No self respecting atheist claims that the non-existence of God cannot be known.

Coggins7 wrote:Clearly, to state a universal affirmative proposition to the effect, "God does not exist", one would have to have some positive knowledge about his non-existence. The Atheist, however, bars the theist from any such positive knowledge of his existence, and hence, bars himself from any such knowledge of his non-existence.

I don't bar the theist from anything. No theist has demonstrated postive knowledge of his existence so far. Once they do so, I will change my position.

Coggins7 wrote:

Some of you probably are familiar with the work of the French thinker Michel Foucault. Recently I’ve been going over his thoughts on how discipline makes individuals.

I wonder how this theme dovetails with Foucault's predilection for S&M?

ROFL. Only you could come up with such a connection.

As for the OP, yeah, I would suppose there is an element of self-censoring when you think someone is watching, and God is always watching. Even when you engage in sadomasochistic sex. 8^0

Coggins7 wrote:But Foucault was a regular within the San Francisco S&M scene for years, and discipline is at the core of BDSM.

Actually, BDSM is about the willing exchange of power. Discipline is an accoutrement; it's not "the core."