Green's article goes a long way to breaking down and explaining Foucault's writing in layman terms. He starts by stating by defining the two central interconnecting themes:
- The development of certain forms of rationality which posit man as both the subject and object of knowledge
- The complex relations bonding power and knowledge which are implied to such forms of rationality.
He then walks us through the development of man's developing understanding of himself as an individual and as an integral part of the individual society in which he lives, thus leading to and furthering his understanding of the existence of other and different 'societies'.
The salient points to this development of understanding being:
- Knowledge is indeed power, but only if (1) 'man' is able to convert his understanding into knowledge (knowing something is in itself not knowledge) and (2) 'man' is able to wield that knowledge as power.
- The term 'power' in the statement above (at the time of Foucault writing his book) was not what we consider 'power' to be today wholly negative - it was also considered to be a positive enabler, an understanding that enabled the society to move forward progressively.
- Knowledge is also truth - truth here being a set of rules or politics that enable a particular society to behave in a way that is acceptable to those wielding the power. The odd think about truth is it is only the truth because we all say it is the truth! Nonetheless, knowledge does enable a truth to be developed and at the change or power, a new 'improved' truth to evolve.
- The key to knowledge is understanding the good and bad influences in society and then to harness both 'sides' of power constructively - positive power to aid social development and negative power (or domination) to subjugate the disruptive elements.
- Continued gathering of information, led to 'benchmarking norms' and a greater understanding of what power meant to an individual and how that power worked. This in turn led to a more tolerant approach to the application of negative power - rather than domination and physical retribution, society moved towards reform through training and education.
- Identification of 'norms' enabled the exclusion of individuals outside those norms. This led to the reforming of those individuals so that they could fit within the norms and could be useful within society.
- The ethos was very much about optimisation of society - if a society was to be efficient and effective then everybody associated with that society needed to perform optimally. As well as physical attributes, various other categories (norms) of research were investigated (mapped): physical health, mental well-being; right person, right job; work ethics; moral stability.
How does this relate to photography?
Without discussing the existence or not of specific body markers that relate to behaviours, the majority of the information gathered (re above) was via close observational study. Similarly a significant amount of the data gathered today, regarding antisocial behaviour, is gathered via CCTV. Regardless of this and all of the historic data, the fact remains that photography is an unreliable mechanism for pre-determining behaviour. It is also unreliable in determining how power 'works'; power is pervasive at all levels in our society, but only pertinent locally and often transient within a specific group of people during a specific situation. Thus if power only exists locally, as and when it's required, it can only be challenged locally at the time of its existence.
Therefore, photography cannot be a strategy for opposition even though it can/could be used to further inform decisions globally. To effect change and effectively use information gathered, any strategy and methodology must be able to influence at a global level - at the same time - as being applied locally.
No comments:
Post a Comment