Power and the Examination

Michel Foucault had some interesting things to say about power and the idea of the examination in a school setting.

"The examination did not simply mark the end of an apprenticeship; it was one of its permanent factors; it was woven into it through a constantly repeated ritual of power. The examination enabled the teacher, while transmitting his knowledge, to transform his pupils into a whole field of knowledge."

"... the examination in a school was a constant exchanger of knowledge; it guaranteed the movement of knowledge from the teacher to the pupil, but it extracted from the pupil a knowledge destined and reserved for the teacher."

"The examination transformed the economy of visibility into the exercise of power. Traditionally, power was what was seen, what was shown and what was manifested and, paradoxically, found the principle of its force in the movement by which it deployed that force."

"And the examination is the technique by which power, instead of emitting the signs of its potency, instead of imposing its mark on its subjects, holds them in a mechanism of objectification. In this space of domination, disciplinary power manifests its potency, essentially by arranging objects. The examination is, as it were, the ceremony of this objectification." 

These quotes refer not only to the transformation of schools but to students as well, and not just those in K - 12 settings, but in colleges, medical schools, seminaries alike. The examination, according to Foucault, has allowed power to become more powerful by way of providing it a means of exertion that turns students into objects. Power by way of the examination, according to Foucault, "places individuals in a field of surveillance" in a complexity of objectification in order to "capture and fix" them in place according to the norms presented and reinforced by the examination.

Is there validity in Foucault's assertions? How important is the examination? Does it really tell us as much as we think it does?

Interesting thoughts...
  

Politics... Who Do We Support?

I think I have had enough of politics. As I listen to Democrats tell me that Republicans are liars and to Republicans tell me that Democrats are liars, I really have reached a point of not believing any of them about anything. I'll be you are in the same boat, so... what do we do? How do we wade through all the muck, I love that word, and figure out who is the lesser of two evils? Well, here is my take for all its worth which isn't much.

I am firmly planted in the middle class so when I vote I vote with a mindset of who is least likely to mess with my bottom line. Democrats clearly believe that government is the best mechanism in today's world to protect all of us. I do not think any Democrat would disagree with that statement. The Republicans are for the wealthy and for those in the upper middle class and above. They believe in less government and more power for the people, specifically people in the upper middle class and above. They too would not disagree with that. So, which one is best for me?

Here is my take on both. First, I am not a big fan of more government because government has to be run by... people. As much as Democrats say they are for the people and not for big business and the wealthy, they can not deny this: they are for big government. I am not convinced big government is any better than big business. As a matter of fact, I think big government is far worse. Why? Government can not, despite the claims of many, even the playing field. Government can not re-distribute wealth and can not right the wrongs of the oppressed for one simple reason... government is not God. As soon as you level the playing field for one group you have made it uneven for another. Government is not the solution and has never been the solution. The Greeks, the Romans, the French and the list goes on of the many who have discovered absolute government corrupts absolutely because man can not handle absolute authority.

Stop for a moment and try and think about your life over the last ten years and answer this question as honestly as you can: who has caused more harm in our country, big business or big government? Now, before you think I am letting the Republicans off the hook, let me say a word about them. I see them in the same light as Democrats. They have been for big business and the wealthy and have compromised their principals in more ways than the Democrats. Most are not conservative even though they claim to be, and most are also for more government because it gives them more power. So, as a middle class member who should I support?

Well, here is how I look at it. If I have to support one it will be the one who understands that the real checks and balances come from pure competition. Currently, the United States has a national debt of 8.68 trillion. In the U.S., this is 60.8 percent of the American GDP. The gross domestic product of a country is the market value of all of the products and services that a country produces in one year. This includes spending that is done by the citizens of the country and by the government of that country. It includes the value of items produced within the county and exported elsewhere, but it does not include the value of any imported items. I worry when a capitalist democratic economy built on the checks and balances of competition has one entity, the government, occupying over 60% of the GDP. A further complication to this delicate equation is this: the government is not subject to the checks and balances of all other entities in a free market economy because the government is that entity which governs the rules and laws that oversee that free market.

So, who will I support if both Democrats and Republicans are corrupt? I have to support those who support smaller government for our future. I do not believe more government is the answer for one simple reason... the nature of man. Scripture is fairly clear about mankind, Romans 3:23 states that "all are sinful and fall short of the glory of God. Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25 warn us of the same issue, "there is a way that seems right to man but in the end it is the way of death." History also paints a terrible picture of the consequences of absolute, all-consuming government.

In the end, those who are for smaller government and more competition must receive our support for they know the nature of man. How will you decide who to support? We can no longer vote the party line. We must be for those who understand man for all that he is outside of the Savior, and all that he can be walking with the Savior! Blessings!

Is Class Mobility Possible?

Is there such a thing as class mobility? Some will say yes, and others will say no. What do you say? There are many answers out there that say many different things.

Isn't this the American dream? My grandfather was born and raised in Trentino, Italy, came to the United States when he was 16 years old and made a better life for himself. But, did he actually move up in class?

The New York Times has an interesting take on class. They have an interactive poll on class that focuses on four continuum which they claim defines class: occupation, education, income and wealth. Click HERE to interact with the article and see where you fall on those four continuum.

But, are those four areas all that there is to defining class? Many would say with passion a resounding no. Class, in higher education circles, is thought of as so much more than socio-economic factors which is pretty much what those four areas cover. Class is thought of through the cognitive, the moral, the emotional... just to name a few other areas of focus.

There is a great blog called Understanding Society. It has some good things to say about this idea of class mobility. I suggest you visit it as I am going to quote it in the next few paragraphs regarding education and class mobility. Understanding Society asks a crucial question: where do children fit?

"A crucial question to pose as we think about class and social mobility, is the issue of the social mechanisms through which children are launched into careers and economic positions in society. A pure meritocracy is a society in which specific social mechanisms distinguish between high-achieving and low-achieving individuals, assigning high-achieving individuals to desirable positions in society. A pure plutocracy is a society in which holders of wealth provide advantages to their children, ensuring that their adult children become the wealth-holders of the next generation. A caste system assigns children and young adults to occupations based on their ascriptive status. In each case there are fairly visible social mechanisms through which children from specific social environments are tracked into specific groups of roles in society. The sociological question is how these mechanisms work; in other words, we want to know about the "microfoundations" of the system of economic and social placement across generations."

At first glance, it would seem simple to assign our country one of the above labels, but is it really that simple. Understanding Society has more to say...

"Education is certainly one of the chief mechanisms of social mobility in any society; it involves providing the child and young adult with the tools necessary to translate personal qualities and talents into productive activity. So inequalities in access to education constitute a central barrier to social mobility. And it seems all too clear that children have very unequal educational opportunities throughout the United States, from pre-school to university. These inequalities correlate with socially significant facts like family income, place of residence, and race; and they correlate in turn with the career paths and eventual the socioeconomic status (SES) of the young people who are placed in one or another of these educational settings. Race is a particularly prevalent form of structural inequalities of opportunity in the US; multiple studies have shown how slowly patterns of racial segregation are changing in the cities of the United States."

I will leave you one more quote from Understanding Society.

Professor Kathryn Wilson, Associate Professor of Economics at Kent State University,“People like to think of America as the land of opportunities. The irony is that our country actually has less social mobility and more inequality than most developed countries."

Well what do you think? I s she right? Is Understanding Society right? Many questions in need of answers, but one thing is certain, the question is no longer as simple as it once was, is it? Blessings!

Michel Foucault and Power

As we watch the events of the last week unfold in the middle east, I do not think there is anyone who thinks there will not be some shift of power in the region. Is this shift of power good or bad? I guess it depends... on who you are.

Power is a very unique and different concept. Michel Foucault has some interesting thoughts on power. He writes, "What, therefore, would be proper to a relationship of power is that it be a mode of action upon actions. That is to say, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted "above" society as a supplementary structure whose radical effacement one could perhaps dream of. In any case, to live in a society is to live in such a way that action upon other actions is possible-- and in fact ongoing. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction. Which, be it said in passing, makes all the more politically necessary the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation, the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions which are necessary to transform some or to abolish others."

This is the crux of power and why people are willing to risk their lives for it. When we live in such a way that action upon action is on-going and equal then power is in balance and peace reins. However, when one action rules over all other actions, well, then all the other actions await their chance to get back on top of the dominant action. I think this is what we see currently spilling out in the middle east. All these actions have been dominated for so long by one dominant action that there will be no way to control and calm these actions until the one that has been dominant for so long ceases to dominate.

As we watch change take place, we can do so understanding a little more about power. Foucault writes, "In effect, between a relationship of power and a strategy of struggle there is a reciprocal appeal, a perpetual linking and a perpetual reversal. At every moment the relationship of power may become a confrontation between two adversaries. Equally, the relationship between adversaries in society may, at every moment, give place to the putting into operation of mechanisms of power. The consequence of this instability is the ability to decipher the same events and the same transformations either from inside the history of struggle or from the standpoint of the power relationships. The interpretations which result will not consist of the same elements of meaning or the same links or the same types of intelligibility, although they refer to the same historical fabric, and each of the two analyses must have reference to the other. In fact, it is precisely the disparities between the two readings which make visible those fundamental phenomena of "domination" which are present in a large number of human societies."

This American idea of freedom and equality, while constantly criticized, has yet to find its equal. It is a combination that can keep power in check, if allowed. If power is not held in check, the consequences are deep and tragic just ask those in Egypt and Jordan. Blessings!