This Week’s Readings:
Foucault, Michel. "Panopticism."
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan, 1977. New
York: Vintage Books, 1995. 195-228.
Foucault, Michel. "The Eye of Power."
Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Ed. Colin Gordon. New
York: Pantheon Books, 1980. 146-165.
Ohmann, Richard. "Literacy,
Technology, and Monopoly Capital." College English. 47.7
(1985): 675-89.
To be honest, I feel sort of silly that I didn’t
know that Jeremy Bentham was the creator of the Panopticon. All this time, I
have been attributing the concept to Foucault. That sheepishness aside, I
actually enjoyed reading Foucault. His arguments tie in really well with the
sort of issues that I’m dealing with in my classroom right now.
Foucault talks at length in about the
Panopticon as a technology of power and as a means in which these “techniques
of power are invented to meet the demands of production” (Eye, p.161). It is this discussion of power, production, and
utility that most interest me. In Panopticonism,
Foucault discusses the enforcement of power on the “abnormal” individual in
order to better “deal” with them in an attempt to employ them in some sort of
useful occupation. In this way, those who are different are “sorted” from the
rest whether they have leprosy/plague, as in Foucault’s examples, or whether
they are different in terms of class or race; this separation prevents collective
action through separation. This discussion reminds me a bit of Adam Banks’ Race, Rhetoric, and Technology as he
discusses the fact that African Americans have been “sorted” in terms of
technological advances. Banks discusses the various levels of technological
literacy (material, functional, experiential, and critical) and explains that
most African Americans and other “abnormal” groups (to use Foucault’s term) are
consistently held at material or functional levels, thus preventing them from taking
advantage of and becoming a part of the technologies of power. This is very
much in line with Ohmann’s argument that “the computer revolution, like other
revolutions from the top down, will indeed expand the minds and the freedom of
the elite, meanwhile facilitating the degradation of labor and the stratification
of the workforce that have been hallmarks of monopoly capitalism from its onset”
(p.683).
These discussions suddenly make me very aware
of the assumptions and decisions that I make in the classroom. I found myself irritated
that my students were unable to find a specific file (I did give them
directions), open that file, listen to the contents of that file, and then
complete a discussion forum post relating to that file within the first week of
class. If any of my students are indeed at functional or material levels of
technological understanding, then I am making unfair assumptions and I am
further alienating them and forcing them into the “abnormal” group, thus
further removing them from the power of technology. Such assumptions are,
although often unintentional, quite dangerous in our classrooms and now, more
than ever, I find myself more aware of them and I am attempting to do more explanatory
and exploratory work in class before I require such assignments.
Foucault also explains that “the Panopticon
was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments,
alter behavior, to train or correct individuals…to try out PEDAGOGICAL [my
emphasis] experiments” (Panopticonism,
pp. 203-204). This statement was especially jarring to me since my dissertation
research uses my students as my research subjects. After reading Panopticonism, I began to think of my own
classroom as a bit of a Panopticon since most of the class work is online and
open to everyone with me at the center viewing everyone’s work critically and
separating students according to their research interests. I also thought of
Foucault’s three criteria for maintaining power “to obtain the exercise of
power at the lowest possible cost…to bring the effects of this social power to
their maximum intensity and to extend to them as far as possible without either
failure or interval…[and] to link this ‘economic’ growth of power with the
output of the apparatuses” (Panopticonism,
p.218). And THEN I thought about time as my currency. What am I doing to
enforce my own power over my students in the sake of time? Additionally, the
entire panoptic idea seems to spring from the idea of maintaining a greater
good through order; Foucault explains that disciple exists partially to clear
up confusion and restore order to the masses (Panopticonism, p.219). I’m not sure that I can really remedy the
TIME as my currency issue but I am now more aware and more critical of my power
in the classroom. Although I do try to share power and wield what power I do
have benevolently, I still have THE power in the classroom and that’s not
something to take lightly.
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteSheepishness aside...haha...with regard to being sheepish I can hopefully reorient your view when you hear that not only hadn't I heard of Jeremy Bentham before this, I also hadn't heard of Panopticon or Foucualt...but hey, now we all know what needs knowing!
Other than that, I felt I would reply to your post because it touched on some ideas I find important to understanding the whole classroom power play. I think your example of how someone can be marginalized without intention is a great practical application of the principles discussed as far the implications of disciplinary actions. I also relate with the labratory theory as I see the economization of time, as your explain it, to work itself out through experimentation (much like that introduced by Taylorism). To tie everything together, I would say your insight into reducing some of your student's power of technology is self-corrective in that you now realize some of the implications and will do the best thing you can to restore your sense of equilibrium with the students, so that none are outside of your panoptic expectations.
Ultimately, your views have stimulated thought beyond what I had previously ventured, so thanks, and I hope you don't take them as critique, because agreement was my intent,
Kerry
I've also had problems with unequal levels of technological literacy and access in the classroom. It always springs from the best of intentions too: In attempting to save time I often encourage students to use technology as they work on assignments (email me papers instead of printing them, conduct research online, share notes with absent students via ANGEL...). Some students find these practices helpful. Others - particularly non-traditional students - find them a source of anxiety. I would often see a groups of non-traditional students (international, elderly, ESL, etc.) gathering into groups in the computer courtyard of the school, all of them sweating over the less-than-optimal machines provided to them by the school. Not only did technology dis-empower them, it forced them into small groups that were separate from the rest of the class, LIMITING rather than FACILITATING communication.
ReplyDeleteI think a big part of the problem lies in comfort level. A poor or elderly student, by way of a computer courtyard, has similar access to that of the traditional student, but this access is new and unfamiliar, and thus becomes a source of anxiety. Meanwhile, a student who has grown up with a computer in his or her home may struggle a little bit with a program or file, but they are at least accustomed to using technology for work.
I'm not sure what the solution is, though.
I'm not sure that there is a solution either. I work really hard to balance the needs of the variety of students in my class, while attempting to introduce them to new technologies, all while trying to help them improve their writing through these technologies and, well, sometimes it gets really frustrating.
DeleteIt is disheartening when we feel like we're limiting rather than facilitating communication indeed. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who feels this frustration, though! :)
This:
ReplyDelete"Foucault also explains that “the Panopticon was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, alter behavior, to train or correct individuals…to try out PEDAGOGICAL [my emphasis] experiments” (Panopticonism, pp. 203-204). This statement was especially jarring to me since my dissertation research uses my students as my research subjects."
Ha. Well...any research of a 'subject' necessarily gets messy in some way I do suppose. And, I often think the best we can do is be aware of the messiness, think through issues of 'to whose benefit does this research serve,' and do the best we can in the situations we're in. You strike me as someone who will be acutely aware of the panopticon as you teach and research, so I wouldn't fret :)