Foucault, the Disciplines, and God as the Watcher

[_Bond...James Bond]

Alright we've had our fun with the SM business...but let's return to my top por favor.

To restate my view:

Surveillance and Observation of a given subject will coerce that person when the person observing has some sort of authority (real or believed) over the watched subject. God is the ultimate observer because of the perception that he is all seeing (certainly even when you think you're alone...you're not) but also all knowing (meaning that you have to control your inner stuff too--it's a guilt based system as well). The fear of his punishment via damnation/Hell/whatever will coerce people to change their behavior to that which they believe (or have been told!) is what God wants. Thus he is the ultimate watchdog, watching both our actions and knowing our thoughts, a combination that can lead to both outer shame and inner guilt.

Anyone agree? Disagree? (Care?)

[_Tarski]

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.

Perhaps technically true in some pedantic sense. But, are you then going to declare agnosticism toward fairies or toward the existence of the god pan?
Or would you prefer to forthrightly assert that they do not exist?

[_Runtu]

Alright we've had our fun with the SM business...but let's return to my top por favor.

To restate my view:

Surveillance and Observation of a given subject will coerce that person when the person observing has some sort of authority (real or believed) over the watched subject. God is the ultimate observer because of the perception that he is all seeing (certainly even when you think you're alone...you're not) but also all knowing (meaning that you have to control your inner stuff too--it's a guilt based system as well). The fear of his punishment via damnation/Hell/whatever will coerce people to change their behavior to that which they believe (or have been told!) is what God wants. Thus he is the ultimate watchdog, watching both our actions and knowing our thoughts, a combination that can lead to both outer shame and inner guilt.

Anyone agree? Disagree? (Care?)

I agree. When I was a boy I would imagine that my grandmother was watching me from heaven, and I never wanted to do something that she wouldn't approve of. I see God as being that same kind of watcher to whom we grant authority, and at heart it is a guilt-based system (Mormon is good at guilt, but it doesn't have a monopoly on it). We become the consummate pleasers: we try our hardest to please an invisible observer.

And coming back to S&M, from what I have read much of it is connected to guilt and shame and the ironic need for the submissive person to feel accepted and wanted. Kind of the same way we want approval from God.

But I suspect Cogs knows more about BDSM than I do. ;)

[_Gadianton]

Bond, I think it's true. Religion is powerful that way. In fact, a friend of mine who is pretty much an unbeliever but retains a huge sentimentality towards the church would bring up the issue all the time with me that have the "fear of God" was just one more thing to keep his kids in line (at that point he didn't have any). And on numorous occasions I've had friends in the church suggest concern over dead relatives watching their actions, including all the bad stuff they do. lol.

I've even broke down and used this power of religion. A certain someone was staying up way to late with her little friend, my counsel was falling of deaf ears, and so I suggested that perhaps the Grinch was looking on and waiting for his chance to drop by with a big bag to take away toys - just like last time. lol. That got everyone in bed really fast.

But while it probably works to an extent, I think ultimately people adjust their expectations and it ends up being of limited value (even if you're a control freak). For instance, someone who works in a heavily monitored and supervised environment will eventually get used to it, and find ways to do what they want. I even made the startling suggestion to my friend about how well his belief in God ultimately worked to keep him in line when he was a teen.

[_Gazelam]

Bond,

This gets me thinking about the verse in Abraham that states that this fallen world was brought about "To see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them"

So we are in fact here to se if we will be obedient, but its with a veil over our minds of what we once knew, and we are to live by way of faith. So yes we have an overseer, but the question is in our heads about whetehr or not hes relaly there. So you have to make the decision for yourself over whether or not to adhere to these principles.

As one ponders this, one has to ask, whats so great about these principles? Are they really worth the effort I put in? why would God ask me to live this way?

And that's when the real learning takes place. that's when we decide we don't want to live in fear, because fear isn't the real motivator, love is, love of correct principles because oyu gain the mind of God as to why the principles were put in place in the first place. You dicipline yourself through questioniung and understanding.

Fear is a horrible motivator, because it breeds rebellion. Love is a great one, because it fosters knowledge.

[_John Larsen]

Bond,

This gets me thinking about the verse in Abraham that states that this fallen world was brought about "To see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them"

So we are in fact here to se if we will be obedient,

What kind of God is this that you describe? Out of all the human traits, talents and possibilities, God is on the hunt for people who will do what ever he wants no questions asked? That's not a benevolent being, that's a crime boss.

[_Ren]

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.

The 'atheist' does NOT 'bar' the theist from any such positive knowledge.
SOME atheists 'bar' the theist from any such positive knowledge.

Atheism doesn't mean 'I KNOW' God doesn't exist. Atheism means (at least) "I 'believe' that God doesn't exist".
The term 'agnostic atheist' (just as agnostic theist) is legitimate and sensible. (And that's what I am - for example)


ON TOPIC:
Yes - I agree that the notion of an 'always' watching entity really works well to keep people thinking about their behavior a lot.
*shrug* Not necessarily a bad thing, but quite easily abusable in my opinion.

[_Blixa]

You've got an interesting set of ideas to work with Bond---if you end up working on them further, perhaps in a paper for your course, I'd be happy to read and comment on it. I have some criticisms of the extent or consequences of the Foucaudian notion of "power." I find it the weakest part of his work---it finally becomes near libidinal in its fluidity. But on the "archeological" level, Foucault's work is very useful and disciplinarity a good way into conceptualizing the materiality of ideas---rule on the level of the ideological and not the level of direct force. In an "information age" this becomes all the more pertinent. And the panopticon is such an exemplary metaphor for the modern liberal state, one can see it displayed institutionally at all levels. (I've been talking about it in one of my classes this week in light of the borrowing of prison architecture in the planning of some college campuses.)

You may also be interested in similar ideas found in the work of postmodern feminists on "the gaze" and Foucault's teacher, Louis Althusser's work on the ideological production of subjectivity. You can find the basics in Mulvey's essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," and Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." Mulvey, via Freud and scopophilia, and Althusser, via Lacan and Marx, are both interested in the shaping of human subjectivity---identity, gender, consciousness itself---via cultural "institutions" like education and popular culture.

If you'd find it helpful I can easily email you some of the teaching materials I use on these and related concepts in my classes: short "tutor texts" that summarize the work of these theorists and trace thier history and links.

You may also be interested to know that Foucault did indeed find BDSM subculture of great interest since his work engaged with issues of power exchange: its a no brainer that a practice which theatricalized this and allowed its participants the position of playing with that which is oppressive elsewhere, a choice about things that are not chosen elsewhere would obviously be fascinating. He was not however a "regular in the San Franscisco S&M scene for years" in the sneering sense of that phrase. He came to America (while teaching at Berkeley) in 1979-80, I think, and since he died in '84 that was hardly a long stretch of his life. He did however appreciate the openness of gay life in the bay area and he indeed relished its freedoms. Of course, his work also suggests that pleasure, sexual and otherwise, is more a matter of regulation and self-discipline than libertine conduct or permissive anarchy---something which makes his writing, and his life, more complicated and resistant to being dismissed by simplistic one-liners.

[_Runtu]

You've got an interesting set of ideas to work with Bond---if you end up working on them further, perhaps in a paper for your course, I'd be happy to read and comment on it. I have some criticisms of the extent or consequences of the Foucaudian notion of "power." I find it the weakest part of his work---it finally becomes near libidinal in its fluidity. But on the "archeological" level, Foucault's work is very useful and disciplinarity a good way into conceptualizing the materiality of ideas---rule on the level of the ideological and not the level of direct force. In an "information age" this becomes all the more pertinent. And the panopticon is such an exemplary metaphor for the modern liberal state, one can see it displayed institutionally at all levels. (I've been talking about it in one of my classes this week in light of the borrowing of prison architecture in the planning of some college campuses.)

You may also be interested in similar ideas found in the work of postmodern feminists on "the gaze" and Foucault's teacher, Louis Althusser's work on the ideological production of subjectivity. You can find the basics in Mulvey's essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," and Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." Mulvey, via Freud and scopophilia, and Althusser, via Lacan and Marx, are both interested in the shaping of human subjectivity---identity, gender, consciousness itself---via cultural "institutions" like education and popular culture.

If you'd find it helpful I can easily email you some of the teaching materials I use on these and related concepts in my classes: short "tutor texts" that summarize the work of these theorists and trace thier history and links.

You may also be interested to know that Foucault did indeed find BDSM subculture of great interest since his work engaged with issues of power exchange: its a no brainer that a practice which theatricalized this and allowed its participants the position of playing with that which is oppressive elsewhere, a choice about things that are not chosen elsewhere would obviously be fascinating. He was not however a "regular in the San Franscisco S&M scene for years" in the sneering sense of that phrase. He came to America (while teaching at Berkeley) in 1979-80, I think, and since he died in '84 that was hardly a long stretch of his life. He did however appreciate the openness of gay life in the bay area and he indeed relished its freedoms. Of course, his work also suggests that pleasure, sexual and otherwise, is more a matter of regulation and self-discipline than libertine conduct or permissive anarchy---something which makes his writing more complicated and resistant to being dismissed by simplistic one-liners.

Now you're making me want to dig out my old grad school books. Foucault's "Archeology of Knowledge" was one of my favorites back then. It's in a box somewhere.

Just remember that some people think that "he was a gay perv" is an appropriate response to philosophical ideas on the construction of ideology.

[_Some Schmo]

I think the common misconception that theists have that without god, there would be anarchy speaks to the truth of what you're asserting, Bond. I've said it a million times before, and I'll say it again; a belief in god is a partial abdication of one's personal responsibility. Those who act morally without the great surveillance camera in the sky are the truly responsible ones. They do it out of a sense of personal morality and discipline rather than a fear of what their invisible daddy will think.

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.

This shows you know squat about atheism. It's not "there is no god", it's "until there's proof of god, I don't believe it." That's not philosophically weak, it's the rational default position. What's really philosophically weak is making up magical entities to explain away the things we can't explain with logic and evidence.