In looking at how disciplinary power is used in order to discipline individuals into obeying the State it is evident that there were various values that arose in modern society that presented the need to replace these methods. Analysis of the forms and practices of punishment and surveillance according to the theories of Foucault and Nietzsche demonstrate that these methods were often implemented through the power and authority of the state itself and the punishments that were adopted were done so in relation to the values and principles of the ruling class. In developing these distinctions, an understanding of how the idea of disciplinary power differs from biopower can be achieved. Furthermore, establishing the underlying values that are inherent in biopower and the perspectives that Nietzsche, Marx, and Foucault have of the need to establish power in order to maintain a certain level of social control. These values have had a profound effect on the development of political ideas related to the need to promote these control methods. I looking at the views that these authors have of disciplinary power, biopower, and the overall impact that these techniques of control have had on the political structures they are a part of. In comparing and contrasting these ideas, a more coherent framework for the application of power can be derived.
Nietzsche's philosophy is inherently concerned with the dynamics of power and how this relates to the principles that society is built upon. The idea of disciplinary power for Nietzsche can be best understood in relation to the origin of his idea of “good” in a social context. Rather than being truly expressive of “goodness” he claims that the idea of what is good is put into place by those in power, who “set themselves and their actions up as good” in order to maintain control over their citizens. This presents the source of legitimacy for this type of social control. The regulation of truth and what can be considered to be knowledge or value can have a profound influence on the autonomous structures of society. “As it acquires more power, a community considers the crimes of a single individual less serious, because they no longer make him dangerous and unsettling for the existence of the community as much as they did before.” Power is, in this sense, fundamentally related to the control that is asserted on society and the level of autonomy that people have to make decisions. The conception of justice held within a social organization or culture can be fundamentally altered by these sources of control and power. “Everywhere where justice is practised, where justice is upheld, we see a power stronger in relation to a weaker power standing beneath it.” This demonstrates the need to establish a more collective framework for the establishment of control and authority.
Foucault derives his own views directly from those of Nietzsche and are directly related to the notions of power and discourse. In this sense, power plays a profound role in people's everyday lives. It permeates relationships, politics, and even culture. Power is essentially the force that causes the adoption of specific norms or social rules. Through its influence people are unconsciously swayed to develop a specific view or ideology. Within his view of politics, “power was principally understood in terms of rights and from the perspective of repression: as law, interdiction, censure, constraint etc.” The idea of power has, traditionally, been related to the amount that a person is free, or restricted, to act in ways that they wish or that they believe are best for themselves. The nature of disciplinary power is directly related to the capacity of society to either provide or refuse these basic needs to those that commit specific actions that are considered to be either sanctioned or against the power that is in place and in control of these rules and norms. Discipline is therefore a source of regulation for the behaviors of individuals in society.
His version of authority therefore rejects centralization of knowledge to generalized maxims or power-driven knowledge structures. The struggle between local and centralized forms of understanding and value present a greater historical conflict that is at the epicenter of human experience. The power to dictate meaning is therefore an essential aspect of this concept and has profound implications for the capacity of disciplinary power within a state. He makes a further distinction between power and discipline. He argues that discipline is one method by which power might be enforced. Various disciplinary institutions, such as prisons, the criminal justice system, and legal bodies are therefore necessary for society to exist. This presents a major difference to the underlying conception of power that can be understood by previous more traditional bodies of knowledge. These understandings presents the development of authority over the past century.
Marxism demonstrates an overwhelming need for biopower while, at the same, lacking a coherent framework for its inception. According to Marx, there is a need for social control that goes beyond the capacity of disciplinary power to control the actions of populations. Rather than emphasizing death, as other forms of power that can be derived from authority, biopower is concerned with the preservation of life. Instead of demanding action for the sake of removal of harm biopower demands that there be a rational basis for the implementation of power in order to coerce. The well being of the individual presents the underlying value of biopower. In the sense of Marx, it is evident that there is a profound need to establish this value within the utopia that is being expressed. The power given to the state is, in this sense, essential for the preservation and dignity of life. The ideas of social control presented by Marx demonstrate a profound need to adopt techniques that can help in the regulation of large bodies of individuals.
Foucault seems to believe that, within socialism, biopower is taken for granted. There is an underlying need for this type of power. Through the coordination of relationships organizational structures are able to develop control over large portions of population. This is, in this sense, not a power in itself. Instead, biopower utilizes the authority of disciplinary power in order be effective. This demonstrates the underlying capacity of the technique to be utilized in order to develop social control. This control was established in order to maintain a regulatory framework over the actions of massive populations upon the development of the modern form of nation-state. The level of control in this regard is evident in the various laws that have been implemented in order to control aspects of life such as sexuality and cultural values. These consequences are evident in assessing the framework by which Marx presented his perfect society.
Biopower is seen as being a distinct form of social control that is used in order to influence large groups of people. It is generally understood as a technology that was developed for this purpose. This idea utilizes the basic presuppositions of disciplinary but to a different extent. Rather than being concerned with the general activities of people, however, as in disciplinary power, biopower is concerned with managing the life-cycles of populations. The idea of the body is fundamental in this regard. It is through social control of the body that the organizational incentives of the sovereign nation are able to be channeled towards a specific end. Foucault argued that a combination of disciplinary and bio-power work together in order to form the social roles, attitudes, and belief structures of those in society. This form of power, therefore, has profound implications on areas of life such as sexuality and the view that a person might have of death and dying. The enforced power dynamics in a society can work in areas of discipline in order to develop a conceptual identification with ideas of personal being and social value. Biopolitics developed in order to establish a way to deal with the issues of society as a whole rather than small pockets of people.
Foucault's view of biopower is that it is the prevalent form of power that is used in the modern world. This was a natural development that occurred due to the growing need to develop structures of control in relation to large-scale social ideas. In this sense, his conception of biopower seems to supersede the idea of disciplinary power. It has, in the modern world, replaced it as a more humane form of control. Rather than in forms of disciplinary power, which can exact a toll on an individual in a strong way, biopower determines that people will grow alongside of the large population in relation to their activities and perceptions. In contrast to Marxist conceptions of power, which demonstrate the need for a strong level of implied social control his conception of biopower seems to be a more natural and organic development, which occurred even in capitalist states. Disciplinary power is itself a power, while biopower is not. Rather bipower derives its source of power from disciplinary power. In this sense, the two are fundamentally connected despite the fact that they seem to be morally opposed to one another. However, in developing distinctions between the various views that have been adopted towards these conceptions a more complete idea of how these concepts relate to one another can be achieved. While disciplinary power can be seen in the need for punitive measures in regards to actions that some people might take, such as can be seen in the adoption of the prison system, which was then integrated into a larger power structure that emerged in the adoption of biopower. This idea presents the adoption of standards directed at populations rather than individuals.
The fundamental difference between these concepts that can be considered is the relationship that they have with society and the implications that their adoption has for the level of value that is placed on both autonomy and independence. While disciplinary power is concerned with the actions of individuals, and whether specific rights or freedoms should be given or restricted, biopower is concerned with the behaviors of whole populations. It is fundamentally embedded in the very social fabric in which it exists. According to Foucault, there is fundamental distinction between the more broadly identified bipower and the specifics of disciplinary power. “To speak of power on this general level does not imply any normative judgment.” He therefore presents biopower as an essential characteristic of modern society. He argues that “it is power relations in society that account for the generation and the functioning of the state.” This presents the fundamental difference between how these thinkers have developed their understanding of power and social control.
Through analysis of the various levels of control that are understood to be at work in modern society it is evident that the work by Foucault has worked with the ideas presented by Nietzsche and Marx in order to present a new moral framework for the application of control in society. Rather than being the product of control from a central authority biopower is conceived in order to establish control over large populations. This control is fundamentally related to the underlying conception of value that is placed on autonomy within society. Rather than punitive actions taken by moral agencies, social control is enacted within biopower through the adherence to specific social standards. In modern society, institutions created in order to achieve an alternative to the agencies of power that are in place are evident in the development of power politics throughout the last century. These developments present a profound doctrine in relation to the basic principles of these authors and the ideas that they presented in relation to power and control.
Bibliography
Cahn, Steven M. Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts, 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press. 2015.
Faubion, James D. Michael Foucault: Aesthetics, Message, and Epistemology. New York: The New Press. 1998.
Lemke, Thomas. Foucault’s Hypothesis: From The Critique Of The Juridico-Discursive Concept Of Power To An Analytics Of Government. Parrhesia. Number 9. 2010. 31-43.
Lilja, Mona and Vinthagen, Stellan. Sovereign Power, Disciplinary Power And Biopower: Resisting What Power With What Resistance? Journal of Political Power, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2014.
Nietzsche, Fredrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Germany: 1887.
