Foucault: Docile Bodies

Foucault used the term docility to explain how control and power was achieved through actions of discipline. This was a way of controlling the operations and positions of the body. He said that the body was a subject of attention and though people were no longer subjected to force, violence, or torture, the body was now subject to discipline and control. Foucault submitted that this same discipline was used in monastaries and armies. Through the strict behavior and rituals followed by the monks and the strict drill sessions and ettiquete of soldiers, discipline depends on the idea of series; the ranks and lines of monks and soldiers. Foucault also goes on to say that the same method of discipline which fixes individuals in time and space is used om schools, prisons, and hospitals.

Foucault's analysis of discipline could not be more accurate. Discipline is used through all institutions of social life. Whether it be school, work, prision, church, or hospitals; everyone involved is subject to an extent of discipline. As humans, we are subjects of habit and consistency. Discipline takes that and uses it to fix every subject to assimilate to certain rules or guidelines posed by each particular institution. Foucault also posed exercise as a method of discipline. I couldn't agree more. Exercise is definitely a method of discipline because one subjects the body to a controlled routine and strict maintenance. Though discipline is clearly physical, it is the mental control that makes it most effective. Since our bodies and minds work synonomously, control and discipline of the body, yeilds control and discipline of the mind.

The Communist Manifesto

In the first chapters of Marx's writings, he begins to explain the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He explains that history is a series of constant class struggle in all societies and that economic structure is what breeds classes in society. However, Marx does not believe that this strucure is permanent, but very proned to revolution. He says that the people will break from feudalism or the powers that control the market, hence the birth or emergence of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Although it seems as though people broke free from oppressive hands, ultimately they fall into the same whole they were once in because another class struggle ensues with the emergence of these two classes. This leads back to Marx's theory of history... He believed that history was shaped by economic elements alone. He did not consider societal elements such as religion, culture, or human nature as factors of great significance. The continuance of the bourgeoisie focused mainly on their constant revolution of the instruments of production, as for the proletariat the certainty of their success would be a revolution as well but a revolution that would destroy the entire system, including private property.

In these first chapters, I believe Marx lays out a clear-cut version of his plan and why it should be implemented. Explaining the difference in classes is crucial because reforming class structure is the fundamental of his ideals. I think it is interesting that he believes history is structured entirely by economic factors. In essence, this makes sense because the difference in class structure is based on financial and economic differences and because of these differences, conflicts ensue, thus writing history. It is clear that Marx wants to do away with differences in class structure because if you examine the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, each is ready for some kind of revolutuion; therefore, putting society at great risk. Fundamentally and ideally, Marx's argument makes sense; however, completely doing away with any social class structure would also lead to some kind of revolution.

Locke: Of Paternal Power

In Chapter VI of Locke's Second Treastise, he speaks on paternal power. I believe this is a very important aspect of his teachings because it explains political and personal power and freedom of man early on. He says although it is stated as paternal power, power to is to be not appropriated only to the father, but to the mother as well. He goes on to express the equality of the man and woman's power over their children. Locke says "Though I have said above, that all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality..." Here, I believe is where he begins to explain paternal power, its requirements, freedoms, and limitations. Locke says paternal power is limited. It is limited through the minority of their children, also stated as the imperfection of childhood. He says that a father and mother are to nurture their children and inform their young minds, for they are without reason. And Locke says without reason, a man can never be free. He says paternal power cannot be corrupted by violence and power of obedience and submission. Until a "state of maturity" or by the age of 21, the children are to be governed by their parents, all the while respecting and honouring them. After the child becomes of age, the father and son are equally free and are subjects of the same law together. Finally he says the ultimate role of paternal power is to provide their offspring with protection, not restraint.

In my opinion, this is a very important aspect of Locke's philosophy because it expressed a notion of equality among free men, specifically the equality between a father and son. This chapter entertains a sense of preparation for young citizens and the path they would take in order to be considered "free men."

Locke said "And so lunatics and idiots are never set free from the governments of their parents." Who does he consider lunatics and idiots and how is he able to determine that they are of that nature? Are the lunatics and idiots those who are mentally incapable or just those who don't follow the teachings of their parents? Would those men never be free? I pose these questions because there is always the possibility that not all parents are of the nurturing and tender nature Locke speaks of. Does this mean that ultimately the children had no choice in their freedom and it rested solely in the hands of their parents? It would be hard to call that freedom at all!