One of the topics that intrigues me a lot in the field of politics is the possibility of love being in a harmonious relationship with the field of politics. In our discussion about spacing desire, we have talked about how our desire for someone special becomes a present feeling within the space in between you and that special someone. As discussed, it is through that space that allows the existence of desire, but this becomes a problem in contemporary political theory as it is through transcendence that space is abolished, and it should not be the case in terms of love?
Why space should not be abolished in love anyway? The reason is plainly simple: in true love, a couple shows sincere love for each other if they understand and stage their differences towards each other. Even if they may have conflicting personalities, the fact that they understand each other is a good way of defining how space is well-addressed with desire for the other.
But unlike love, contemporary politics destroys that space by making everyone conform to a certain standard, and this is well-evident with communism.
Although communism addresses equality with the state, communism abolishes, however, the space as it gives no room for addressing differences towards each other, meaning there is no understanding between the elite and the commoner and the middle man; it is just a single class all alone within the state. The problem becomes worse as discussed by Foucault, as through making power relations subjective we are changing our discourses for discipline. The more we change our discourses, the more difficult for us to propose a solid, reliable, and usable alternative to improve society.
Having said that, the downfall of contemporary political theory as compared to classical political theory is the fact that the differences between the classes of people within the state are eliminated such that the ultimate objective of contemporary political theory is creating a classless society, where everything is universal and uniform. Such thinking eliminates the hierarchy of the state, which plays an essential role as discussed in Plato’s The Republic, as people have their respective roles, and that they cannot be do-it-all people, one-man bands, or a Mr. Handyman.
In my personal opinion, love and politics can be related to each other in harmony if we talk about it in terms of classical political theory, where classes and hierarchies exists. In classical political theory, differences are well-addressed through the presence of political masks as Machiavelli discussed in The Prince, and the existence of a mysterious creature called the Leviathan in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. During these era of political theory, differences were addressed well in a hierarchal fashion, wherein the public sphere gains control of the law, as these classes conform to rules made by the public and the presence of an unknown entity that people fear the most, thus presenting stability in the state through these laws made by the public for the individual to follow. As the individuals have laws to follow, love can therefore be related to the classical form of politics as the differences between the various classes in the sate, from the elite all the way to the common masses, are addressed through the formation of laws for everyone to comply.
Now going to the modern context, of the likes of Marx and Foucault, the notion of love and politics being able to live together in harmony is destroyed as it treats the human soul as if it were just a part of a never-ending cycle of history that goes on and on. The progression seemed to be not as much as the progression seen through classical times. As evident with Foucault, the use of power relations as means of forming the individuals hence destroys the harmonious relationship of love and politics because instead of an understanding nature where people would be focus on addressing the differences between them, the situation being presented in the contemporary context shows an image of a person who is on top saying “follow my orders or I have you killed” kind of thinking. There leaves no room for any form of change or proposed alternative in improving society. In addition, it has to come always from the laws made from the private sphere and not from the public sphere, as represented through classical political theorists.
Hence, going back to the debate on whether love and politics can go together in a harmonious relationship or not, I believe the answer is a big no given the context of contemporary political theory as it destroys the most important part of desire, which is the space within that desire. Without space, there is no room for change nor room for correction. Through eliminating change we are left with creating various discourses without proposing a concrete alternative to change society. Imposing classless societies and the panopticon as a basis for discipline shows to us our refusal to address our differences towards each other and hence, becoming selfish, which is never the point of true love.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The panopticon and Orientalism: the bridge
One of the very noticeable things that have been observed for the past decades is the constant discrimination of the west to eastern culture, or to make things simple, to a culture of Orientalism. Because of this certain form of discrimination, what is happening to the East culture now is that they have this tendency to be over-influenced by the Western culture, and this is very evident in our own country.
In the Philippines alone, it is evident of how we are overly influenced over the American culture: the preference for McDonalds over Jolibee, Starbucks over Figaro, Levi’s over Bench, and many more countless examples. Also, this mentality that we have possessed affects us Filipinos such that we think very low on ourselves and on our abilities to make world-class products. Our basis of having world-class products are based on how the Americans do it.
This is how capitalism makes the world go round; like the panopticon that Michel Foucault has discussed in his book Discipline and Punish, the panopticon monitors every prisoner it has within the complex such that each prisoner is very conscious of his actions. Going back to the panopticon, the structure of it is circular, with the watchtower located at the center of the circle and the prisoners’ cells are arranged in a way that the watchtower and the person inside the watchtower can see everyone inside the structure, evaluating their every move inside their cells.
The same applies to the Orientalism that Edward Said has presented to us. In his discussion on Orientalism, Said points out that because of the domination of the Western culture over the Eastern culture, a bias was developed that the works from the Western culture are deemed to be superior over the works of the Eastern culture; hence, causing the Eastern culture to conform to the standards of the Western culture to maintain a status of superiority.
Due to the non-recognition of the Eastern works of the Western culture, the competition of the best work, in the literary, movie, scientific, medical, and in other various fields has become always towards to the western culture, of which would not be the case all the time since there are Eastern works that are proven to be greater than those of the Western works, but are, unfortunately, not recognized.
The panopticon, therefore can be applied in a larger, more global scale with the discussion of Said on Orientalism. From our previous discussion of the panopticon, we have said that it is applicable in the Philippine setting as we are given the norms of what it means to be “in” at the fashion scene, and on what it means to be ideally beautiful through the constant persuasion of the capitalists to the masses by telling them to buy their products so that they can be accepted into the societal norm.
Being able to maximize the effect while minimizing the costs, the panopticon concept makes the most of what is expected from the prisoners, which is to make the prisoners docile enough so that he can be productive and of use to what society needs from him. As the prisoner becomes conscious of his acts, he is then trained and exercised to become beneficial and hence, become a norm of society.
As for Orientalism, the application of the panopticon concept is very applicable such that it promotes monopoly on a global basis through removing the competition between the West and the East, making the East docile enough to adapt to Western culture and beliefs, and thus the Western people make the Eastern people docile enough so that they can be of greater use for the West, and hence, creating monopoly on a global scale.
Yet, although the panopticon concept can be well integrated into Said’s Orientalism, there still remain one distinct difference: the panopticon makes the prisoners docile enough for the benefit and for the good os the society, while Orientalism on the other hand makes the Eastern culture docile enough for the benefit of the Western culture, which then arise to racial discrimination.
This, therefore, is the problem of Orientalism that Edward Said wants to point out.
In his work, he emphasized that what is needed to be corrected is that that Western culture should understand that the Eastern culture is not to be considered an inferior culture as both cultures have their unique traits. For Said, it does not mean that what the Eastern culture believes is different from that of the Western culture does not necessitate that the Eastern culture is inferior to that of the Western culture. After all, the Western culture has its good and bad sides.
With this in mind, I believe that although the panopticon is a very useful concept for reforming convicts and prisoners to make them useful to society, the application of the panopticon has its limits, as it is evident with the rise of Orientalism and the West’s discrimination over the East.
In the Philippines alone, it is evident of how we are overly influenced over the American culture: the preference for McDonalds over Jolibee, Starbucks over Figaro, Levi’s over Bench, and many more countless examples. Also, this mentality that we have possessed affects us Filipinos such that we think very low on ourselves and on our abilities to make world-class products. Our basis of having world-class products are based on how the Americans do it.
This is how capitalism makes the world go round; like the panopticon that Michel Foucault has discussed in his book Discipline and Punish, the panopticon monitors every prisoner it has within the complex such that each prisoner is very conscious of his actions. Going back to the panopticon, the structure of it is circular, with the watchtower located at the center of the circle and the prisoners’ cells are arranged in a way that the watchtower and the person inside the watchtower can see everyone inside the structure, evaluating their every move inside their cells.
The same applies to the Orientalism that Edward Said has presented to us. In his discussion on Orientalism, Said points out that because of the domination of the Western culture over the Eastern culture, a bias was developed that the works from the Western culture are deemed to be superior over the works of the Eastern culture; hence, causing the Eastern culture to conform to the standards of the Western culture to maintain a status of superiority.
Due to the non-recognition of the Eastern works of the Western culture, the competition of the best work, in the literary, movie, scientific, medical, and in other various fields has become always towards to the western culture, of which would not be the case all the time since there are Eastern works that are proven to be greater than those of the Western works, but are, unfortunately, not recognized.
The panopticon, therefore can be applied in a larger, more global scale with the discussion of Said on Orientalism. From our previous discussion of the panopticon, we have said that it is applicable in the Philippine setting as we are given the norms of what it means to be “in” at the fashion scene, and on what it means to be ideally beautiful through the constant persuasion of the capitalists to the masses by telling them to buy their products so that they can be accepted into the societal norm.
Being able to maximize the effect while minimizing the costs, the panopticon concept makes the most of what is expected from the prisoners, which is to make the prisoners docile enough so that he can be productive and of use to what society needs from him. As the prisoner becomes conscious of his acts, he is then trained and exercised to become beneficial and hence, become a norm of society.
As for Orientalism, the application of the panopticon concept is very applicable such that it promotes monopoly on a global basis through removing the competition between the West and the East, making the East docile enough to adapt to Western culture and beliefs, and thus the Western people make the Eastern people docile enough so that they can be of greater use for the West, and hence, creating monopoly on a global scale.
Yet, although the panopticon concept can be well integrated into Said’s Orientalism, there still remain one distinct difference: the panopticon makes the prisoners docile enough for the benefit and for the good os the society, while Orientalism on the other hand makes the Eastern culture docile enough for the benefit of the Western culture, which then arise to racial discrimination.
This, therefore, is the problem of Orientalism that Edward Said wants to point out.
In his work, he emphasized that what is needed to be corrected is that that Western culture should understand that the Eastern culture is not to be considered an inferior culture as both cultures have their unique traits. For Said, it does not mean that what the Eastern culture believes is different from that of the Western culture does not necessitate that the Eastern culture is inferior to that of the Western culture. After all, the Western culture has its good and bad sides.
With this in mind, I believe that although the panopticon is a very useful concept for reforming convicts and prisoners to make them useful to society, the application of the panopticon has its limits, as it is evident with the rise of Orientalism and the West’s discrimination over the East.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Someone is watching over your whole self
As Michel Foucault discusses on the panopticon, one would try to imagine that the panopticon, as Jeremy Bentham conceptualize in 1785, as a place that is best equated to the modern prison. Examples of this would be that of the Muntinlupa prison here in the Philippines.
And yet, one fails to see that the concept of the panopticon can be seen beyond the image of the prison. In fact, there are a lot of good examples of panopticon-structured places, like malls, hospitals, and even your typical school.
The idea of the panopticon was to ensure that the inmates who are within the system will assume that they are always being watched by the watchguards, even if there are times that there are no watchguards actually guarding the panoptic structure.
Because the panopticon is structured such that it sees everyone, this then gives a double edged sword for both the watch guard and the inmate. It benefits the watchguard such that he has a view of practically everyone within the structure, making his guarding duties much easier. On the other hand, this pressures the inmate as he / she cannot determine if he is being watched by the watchguard of his / her acts, making him unable to do whatever act he / she would desire to do.
In the modern context, the panopticon gives an internalization of the gaze by us being succumbed through all of the advertising materials made by the capitalist society. This internalization of the gaze can be seen in quite a number of examples, of which some of them are actually common to the everyday, normal, typical person.
The first case to be discussed is on clothing. Basically, the essence of clothing is to protect our bodies from the harsh particles, from the bad weather, from germs, and the like, which would mean that as for basic clothing all we need is just something to cover our bodies. But in a capitalist perspective, the big companies actually dictate to the human what is in for a particular season in the field of fashion, what is out, what is hot, what is not, what is cool, what is the fad. Because of the existence of “fashion watchdogs”, the typical everyday consumer is then pressured to conform to these standards as he / she perpetually assumes that someone is looking at his / her choice of clothing. Because of this constant watching over him / her, the person would try to avoid such criticism by choosing the good clothes.
An analogy to this is that for example in buying a pair of pants, since the consumer would like to be in and fashionable with his / her friends, that person would have a tendency to buy a pair of pants from Zara or Levi’s, of which costs around three thousand pesos, rather than buying pants from Jag or Bench, in which their pants would not even reach the one thousand mark. The point here is that since the person is being conscious of the kind of clothes he / she would buy, that person would buy a branded one that is suppose to be “more fashionable” than other brands; hence, this creates the continual flow of capitalism in our country. Even if the pants of Bench is similar in terms of function as compared to the pair of Levi’s, the consumer would spend two thousand pesos more for the sake of trying to be “in”, and to prevent any criticism from his / her peers.
The second case would be in terms of beauty. With the advent of beauty critics, people tend to strive for the ideal beauty: white skin, thin and lean structure, straight hair, white and straight teeth, perfect nose, perfect butt, perfect bosom (for the girls) and the like. As a result, the capitalist community respond to the needs of the masses for the ideal beauty through the advent of whitening creams, metathione pills, diet pills, and forms of cosmetic surgery like breast and butt augmentation, face lift, liposuction and many more. As the people, the masses., become more conscious of their overall appearance as they are being “watched” by watchguards, thus pressuring the masses to have a take on these beauty services in order for them to be accepted in society and in order for them to avoid further criticism. For example, if a person knows that he / she’s fat, that person will avail of liposuction services in order to be accepted into society and not be discriminated by their peers as well. If their peers would criticize them for having dark skin, the consumer will find his / her way on how to have a fairer skin, regardless of the cost of having the skin whitened or the cost of taking metathione pills.
If you would come to think of it, the whole panopticon idea of having these watchdogs monitoring inmates and inmates being paranoid that they are being watched is best exemplified with the big brother principle first evident with the advent of Totalitarianism, wherein the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” entails to the people fearing big brother, and thus being more careful of their acts.
And yet, one fails to see that the concept of the panopticon can be seen beyond the image of the prison. In fact, there are a lot of good examples of panopticon-structured places, like malls, hospitals, and even your typical school.
The idea of the panopticon was to ensure that the inmates who are within the system will assume that they are always being watched by the watchguards, even if there are times that there are no watchguards actually guarding the panoptic structure.
Because the panopticon is structured such that it sees everyone, this then gives a double edged sword for both the watch guard and the inmate. It benefits the watchguard such that he has a view of practically everyone within the structure, making his guarding duties much easier. On the other hand, this pressures the inmate as he / she cannot determine if he is being watched by the watchguard of his / her acts, making him unable to do whatever act he / she would desire to do.
In the modern context, the panopticon gives an internalization of the gaze by us being succumbed through all of the advertising materials made by the capitalist society. This internalization of the gaze can be seen in quite a number of examples, of which some of them are actually common to the everyday, normal, typical person.
The first case to be discussed is on clothing. Basically, the essence of clothing is to protect our bodies from the harsh particles, from the bad weather, from germs, and the like, which would mean that as for basic clothing all we need is just something to cover our bodies. But in a capitalist perspective, the big companies actually dictate to the human what is in for a particular season in the field of fashion, what is out, what is hot, what is not, what is cool, what is the fad. Because of the existence of “fashion watchdogs”, the typical everyday consumer is then pressured to conform to these standards as he / she perpetually assumes that someone is looking at his / her choice of clothing. Because of this constant watching over him / her, the person would try to avoid such criticism by choosing the good clothes.
An analogy to this is that for example in buying a pair of pants, since the consumer would like to be in and fashionable with his / her friends, that person would have a tendency to buy a pair of pants from Zara or Levi’s, of which costs around three thousand pesos, rather than buying pants from Jag or Bench, in which their pants would not even reach the one thousand mark. The point here is that since the person is being conscious of the kind of clothes he / she would buy, that person would buy a branded one that is suppose to be “more fashionable” than other brands; hence, this creates the continual flow of capitalism in our country. Even if the pants of Bench is similar in terms of function as compared to the pair of Levi’s, the consumer would spend two thousand pesos more for the sake of trying to be “in”, and to prevent any criticism from his / her peers.
The second case would be in terms of beauty. With the advent of beauty critics, people tend to strive for the ideal beauty: white skin, thin and lean structure, straight hair, white and straight teeth, perfect nose, perfect butt, perfect bosom (for the girls) and the like. As a result, the capitalist community respond to the needs of the masses for the ideal beauty through the advent of whitening creams, metathione pills, diet pills, and forms of cosmetic surgery like breast and butt augmentation, face lift, liposuction and many more. As the people, the masses., become more conscious of their overall appearance as they are being “watched” by watchguards, thus pressuring the masses to have a take on these beauty services in order for them to be accepted in society and in order for them to avoid further criticism. For example, if a person knows that he / she’s fat, that person will avail of liposuction services in order to be accepted into society and not be discriminated by their peers as well. If their peers would criticize them for having dark skin, the consumer will find his / her way on how to have a fairer skin, regardless of the cost of having the skin whitened or the cost of taking metathione pills.
If you would come to think of it, the whole panopticon idea of having these watchdogs monitoring inmates and inmates being paranoid that they are being watched is best exemplified with the big brother principle first evident with the advent of Totalitarianism, wherein the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” entails to the people fearing big brother, and thus being more careful of their acts.
It's time to throw pies at her. Again
*I just visited the website of our home organization (The Assembly) today, and little did I know that one of the stuff that I wrote was published. So, here is the article.
(sourced from here)
As President Macapagal-Arroyo’s immunity to impeachment complaints come to an end recently this October, it seems like the opposition, especially those who are against her, seem to be throwing their evil spells against the recently-vulnerable president.
And now that the president is finally vulnerable with impeachment complaints, here goes the opposition, doing all the things possible to oust the president. Is it a wise and worthy decision? Well not really, in what I am seeing now.
There are several factors that I oppose to such ouster of our current president. First of all, each impeachment complaint would mean and demand a lot of funds from the people who will complain, and given the fact that the whole world is suffering from a financial crisis, with the financial sector of the United States collapsing and going into a recession, getting funds would seem to be not easy. Well not unless the opposition makes a shortcut, that is, through corrupt ways like using the people’s money for their selfish desires of ousting the president where in fact I do not think people would like such idea. If ever they would do such, this would just result into a greater chaos, where people would go against these opposition members who have used every citizen’s hard-earned money for going against the president.
Second, impeaching the president is a stupid idea, considering that the elections are coming near already. Could the opposition bother to even wait it out instead of wasting precious money on impeachment complaints? Seriously, impeaching her prior to the elections plus the financial crisis the world is facing? I do not think that would sound really good to an ordinary citizen like me. For me, it is inappropriate for the people to launch such attempt at the premature way; it would be in fact better to just let the president do the best that she can possibly do in the next one or two years she has left. We all know that she has made a significant number of mistakes recently, like her recent approval of executive pardon to the cold-blooded murderer Claudio Teehankee Jr., but in my opinion, her last one or two years as president of the Philippines would be just enough (assuming she uses her remaining years wisely) for Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to make up for her mistakes.
I’m not being pro-Arroyo (nor am I anti-Arroyo), but for me, she has made both good things and bad things. We cannot say that she is corrupt per se, but let’s just give her a chance. Think of it this way: we all made good and bad deeds as well, right? So why impeach the president anyway.
And lastly, by impeaching the president prior to the elections would mean that our government will be the one to choose the replacement for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as she is impeached. This indeed becomes unjust to the masses, the masa, as they once again lose their rights on selecting their leader / president through elections, which happened during the impeachment of Joseph Estrada during People Power two.
So if I were the opposition, I would rather just sit down, chill and do things normally rather than standing up enraged and throwing pies at her simultaneously with other fellow opposition members. Let’s give her the last hurrah in her last years (hopefully) as president.
(sourced from here)
As President Macapagal-Arroyo’s immunity to impeachment complaints come to an end recently this October, it seems like the opposition, especially those who are against her, seem to be throwing their evil spells against the recently-vulnerable president.
And now that the president is finally vulnerable with impeachment complaints, here goes the opposition, doing all the things possible to oust the president. Is it a wise and worthy decision? Well not really, in what I am seeing now.
There are several factors that I oppose to such ouster of our current president. First of all, each impeachment complaint would mean and demand a lot of funds from the people who will complain, and given the fact that the whole world is suffering from a financial crisis, with the financial sector of the United States collapsing and going into a recession, getting funds would seem to be not easy. Well not unless the opposition makes a shortcut, that is, through corrupt ways like using the people’s money for their selfish desires of ousting the president where in fact I do not think people would like such idea. If ever they would do such, this would just result into a greater chaos, where people would go against these opposition members who have used every citizen’s hard-earned money for going against the president.
Second, impeaching the president is a stupid idea, considering that the elections are coming near already. Could the opposition bother to even wait it out instead of wasting precious money on impeachment complaints? Seriously, impeaching her prior to the elections plus the financial crisis the world is facing? I do not think that would sound really good to an ordinary citizen like me. For me, it is inappropriate for the people to launch such attempt at the premature way; it would be in fact better to just let the president do the best that she can possibly do in the next one or two years she has left. We all know that she has made a significant number of mistakes recently, like her recent approval of executive pardon to the cold-blooded murderer Claudio Teehankee Jr., but in my opinion, her last one or two years as president of the Philippines would be just enough (assuming she uses her remaining years wisely) for Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to make up for her mistakes.
I’m not being pro-Arroyo (nor am I anti-Arroyo), but for me, she has made both good things and bad things. We cannot say that she is corrupt per se, but let’s just give her a chance. Think of it this way: we all made good and bad deeds as well, right? So why impeach the president anyway.
And lastly, by impeaching the president prior to the elections would mean that our government will be the one to choose the replacement for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as she is impeached. This indeed becomes unjust to the masses, the masa, as they once again lose their rights on selecting their leader / president through elections, which happened during the impeachment of Joseph Estrada during People Power two.
So if I were the opposition, I would rather just sit down, chill and do things normally rather than standing up enraged and throwing pies at her simultaneously with other fellow opposition members. Let’s give her the last hurrah in her last years (hopefully) as president.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Evolution of Punishment
When the word punishment comes into mind, I think of such a word as a tern that refers to the repression of certain privileges due to an unacceptable behavior. Punishment, in my own understanding, has been an important element towards reforming the person from his or her unacceptable behavior in society through the forms of repressed freedom, penalties, fines, and the like. But that was not the same form of punishment Michel Foucault has talked about in his book, “Discipline and Punish”, towards the first few pages.
Through reading the first few pages of Discipline and Punish, one can perfectly visualize the ancient way of punishment, and that is through a means of public humiliation and brutal, merciless, and slow death of the convicted. The description of such a spectacle during the medieval times may be very disturbing and bloody for the modern man like me, but such spectacle was for me the perfect execution of absolute and infinite power of the prince, the kings, and various leaders. This execution of power was able to present to its people the sense of discipline in the eyes of a prince. This imagery of the overwhelming power of the prince (or any leader during the medieval age perhaps) was the primitive form of punishment that has existed.
Imagine: breaking bones, burning hot pincers, beheadings, horse pulling, limb separations, burning bodies - these very graphic images were not of horror for the people back then, but more of a spectacle. It is like they do not care for the body of the convicted. It is like they do not fear God. It is like the princes are the God themselves. And yet this grand execution of power just showed how fragile it is at the same time; these grand representation of power can go down to the ditch. An example? When people would find out that their prince is useless. The overwhelming power of the Prince in this case can be destroyed or overcome by the people, leading to a great downfall to the prince.
And after decades of years, the definition of punishment has drastically transformed from a brutal, spectacular, majestic scene into a humane, static, and reformist scene.
Through the introduction of the prison, the brutal killings were stopped. The majestic power is gone. The people no longer see a fantastic spectacle of a ruthless death. Instead, we are now faced with the reformation of the human convict through going through a daily routine as he is deprived of his freedom, a cause for his unacceptable and immoral behavior in society. To make things simple, punishment in the modern sense has become a light of hope for the convict instead of a fatal nightmare, as represented with the spectacular death of Damiens the regicide in 1757. Eighty years after his spectacular death, the way convicts were punished became a time-table based way of punishment, where the officials reform the convicts instead of killing them publicly.
Sure the way convicts were punished became somewhat very bland and static, but I believe such change occurred for a reason. One main reason is that power is not absolutely strong and overwhelming at all. Through the existence of a time-table based schema for a prisoner’s daily life, the power of officials are re-channeled such that these officials realize after eighty years since Damiens’ death that these prisoners can actually do something less inhumane; simply speaking, I guess that the officials have a more merciful heart and soul as compared to before, that is why they had a one-hundred-eighty degree change on how they would punish the convicts.
Another plausible reason for this is that the rationale behind a time-based schema as a means of punishment is the fact that the objective of punishment was changed by itself: instead of eliminating the convicts and keep the state pure of immoral individuals, they instead insisted on correcting these individuals, which for me is the more appropriate part. Instead of killing them brutally, they are corrected through enclosing them in a protected area, where they have a daily set of activities, from waking up, eating lunch, attending class, praying, to even leisure time. Such time-based principle has helped the convict to reform himself and save himself from humiliation for his inappropriate acts at the same time.
As a result of this, reforming the convicts would mean for the leader better productivity of the state; through reforming them, they go back to society after serving a number of years in the prison, being able to be of help in the constant progression of the state and society.
This long duration of labor being implemented at the prison becomes like a purgatory for the convicts; they stay in this enclosed, heavily guarded area, they follow a certain schedule and a particular set of activities, and become reformed through education, interaction, and the like, coming down to a point wherein once they go out of the prison, they are a totally different person: a person who is no longer a convict but can serve society.
Through reading the first few pages of Discipline and Punish, one can perfectly visualize the ancient way of punishment, and that is through a means of public humiliation and brutal, merciless, and slow death of the convicted. The description of such a spectacle during the medieval times may be very disturbing and bloody for the modern man like me, but such spectacle was for me the perfect execution of absolute and infinite power of the prince, the kings, and various leaders. This execution of power was able to present to its people the sense of discipline in the eyes of a prince. This imagery of the overwhelming power of the prince (or any leader during the medieval age perhaps) was the primitive form of punishment that has existed.
Imagine: breaking bones, burning hot pincers, beheadings, horse pulling, limb separations, burning bodies - these very graphic images were not of horror for the people back then, but more of a spectacle. It is like they do not care for the body of the convicted. It is like they do not fear God. It is like the princes are the God themselves. And yet this grand execution of power just showed how fragile it is at the same time; these grand representation of power can go down to the ditch. An example? When people would find out that their prince is useless. The overwhelming power of the Prince in this case can be destroyed or overcome by the people, leading to a great downfall to the prince.
And after decades of years, the definition of punishment has drastically transformed from a brutal, spectacular, majestic scene into a humane, static, and reformist scene.
Through the introduction of the prison, the brutal killings were stopped. The majestic power is gone. The people no longer see a fantastic spectacle of a ruthless death. Instead, we are now faced with the reformation of the human convict through going through a daily routine as he is deprived of his freedom, a cause for his unacceptable and immoral behavior in society. To make things simple, punishment in the modern sense has become a light of hope for the convict instead of a fatal nightmare, as represented with the spectacular death of Damiens the regicide in 1757. Eighty years after his spectacular death, the way convicts were punished became a time-table based way of punishment, where the officials reform the convicts instead of killing them publicly.
Sure the way convicts were punished became somewhat very bland and static, but I believe such change occurred for a reason. One main reason is that power is not absolutely strong and overwhelming at all. Through the existence of a time-table based schema for a prisoner’s daily life, the power of officials are re-channeled such that these officials realize after eighty years since Damiens’ death that these prisoners can actually do something less inhumane; simply speaking, I guess that the officials have a more merciful heart and soul as compared to before, that is why they had a one-hundred-eighty degree change on how they would punish the convicts.
Another plausible reason for this is that the rationale behind a time-based schema as a means of punishment is the fact that the objective of punishment was changed by itself: instead of eliminating the convicts and keep the state pure of immoral individuals, they instead insisted on correcting these individuals, which for me is the more appropriate part. Instead of killing them brutally, they are corrected through enclosing them in a protected area, where they have a daily set of activities, from waking up, eating lunch, attending class, praying, to even leisure time. Such time-based principle has helped the convict to reform himself and save himself from humiliation for his inappropriate acts at the same time.
As a result of this, reforming the convicts would mean for the leader better productivity of the state; through reforming them, they go back to society after serving a number of years in the prison, being able to be of help in the constant progression of the state and society.
This long duration of labor being implemented at the prison becomes like a purgatory for the convicts; they stay in this enclosed, heavily guarded area, they follow a certain schedule and a particular set of activities, and become reformed through education, interaction, and the like, coming down to a point wherein once they go out of the prison, they are a totally different person: a person who is no longer a convict but can serve society.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
To forgive and forget?
The reign of totalitarianism has ended for many years now, but through critiquing the flaws and the terror totalitarianism has come into mind, the question to ponder with totalitarianism as being a part of history is on whether we should forgive and forget the existence of totalitarianism or not. Such an act seems to be very plausible in modern society, of which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the best example for such an act as she granted executive pardon to the ousted president Joseph Ejercito Estrada for his case involving plunder and corruption, among a long list of crimes committed by the ousted president. It may seem to be the ideal act, given in the context of the Christian Roman catholic Church, where we are taught to forgive our enemies for any wrong acts they have committed on us.
And yet this act is heavily debated when it comes to the case of the totalitarian government. Some people refuse to forgive and forget it, while others would prefer to simply forgive it and forget all about it. When asked about my opinion regarding the said debate, I would go for the former. But why be unforgivable to a type of government that has not even existed during the time I was born? Why be mad still at Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Lenin, even if they are dead already? Why should I support Arendt’s view of totalitarianism as an evil government, even if the real intention of totalitarianism was not meant to be as evil as how Arendt has pictured it?
First of all, we should put in consideration the very fact that the human being is by itself an historical being, meaning that by being historical, we all progress ourselves throughout the course of time, by learning the successes, failures, mistakes, and good decisions of the past. Having said that, I beg to disagree in forgetting the evil Totalitarianism has brought us in the books, the documentaries, and the testimonies of people who were a part of such reign of terror. Forgetting totalitarianism is tad amount to saying that totalitarianism was nothing, and that totalitarianism is something of insignificance to the human race. It is obviously not like you can make up for the millions of deaths it has occurred. I mean, even if Adolf Hitler’s descendants pay the Jews even a trillion dollars just to make the Jews forget the brutality of Hitler’s reign and in his effort in exterminating the Jews, the past is past; you can never pay up for the death of a human person
Second, we should not forgive totalitarianism because of the inhumanity it has caused to people, especially to the Jews. By the mere fact that totalitarianism is incomparable to any other form of government system that has ever existed and by the fact that totalitarianism has degraded the state of humanity is a clear, pinpoint indication that it should never be forgiven or forgotten as being part of history. Hitler may be dead, but that does not mean that we forgive him for his brutal acts. The same applies to the likes of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot. These leaders, no matter what, have become perfect representations of abusive power and reigns of terror, that our descendants should hand down to their children and beyond. This era of terror should serve as a reminder of the flaws that man has made in an attempt to stabilize society.
Hence, although there have been recent criticisms on Hannah Arendt that she made the idea of totalitarianism purely evil in her own perspective, I guess she had every humanly possible right to do so, even if it may be right or wrong. First of all, she is a Jew, and seeing Germans brutally killing her race by itself can be very traumatic to a typical Jew like Arendt. If I were a Jew (realistically I am a Roman Catholic), I would do the same thing that Arendt has presented totalitarianism to my fellow Filipinos as well. How would you feel if a certain leader attempts to exterminate your race for no particular reason but just because of black propaganda? I myself would be perpetually infuriated by such an act. If it was possible, I would plan a counter-attack against the race of Hitler, doing the same brutal acts to his fellow people. But that is on the ideal perspective.
In the more realistic perspective, the rationale on why Hannah Arendt had to describe totalitarianism that is because she wanted the world, her audience, to see how injustice, racial discrimination, and dehumanization was done to a particular group of people, in her case, the Jewish people. By describing the horrors of totalitarianism, Arendt depicts to the audience that although the era of brutal killings and excessive racial discrimination has ended already, Arendt wants to serve this as a reminder of the mistakes committed in the past and through this she hopes that these mistakes should not happen again.
Hence, my rationale why I refuse to forgive and forget totalitarianism for what it has done and for what it has contributed in history is that what totalitarianism has caused should mark as a reminder that we should be careful with what we want in the progression of both history and humanity; going beyond human means could possibly destroy this important progression if we just forget about totalitarianism.
And yet this act is heavily debated when it comes to the case of the totalitarian government. Some people refuse to forgive and forget it, while others would prefer to simply forgive it and forget all about it. When asked about my opinion regarding the said debate, I would go for the former. But why be unforgivable to a type of government that has not even existed during the time I was born? Why be mad still at Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Lenin, even if they are dead already? Why should I support Arendt’s view of totalitarianism as an evil government, even if the real intention of totalitarianism was not meant to be as evil as how Arendt has pictured it?
First of all, we should put in consideration the very fact that the human being is by itself an historical being, meaning that by being historical, we all progress ourselves throughout the course of time, by learning the successes, failures, mistakes, and good decisions of the past. Having said that, I beg to disagree in forgetting the evil Totalitarianism has brought us in the books, the documentaries, and the testimonies of people who were a part of such reign of terror. Forgetting totalitarianism is tad amount to saying that totalitarianism was nothing, and that totalitarianism is something of insignificance to the human race. It is obviously not like you can make up for the millions of deaths it has occurred. I mean, even if Adolf Hitler’s descendants pay the Jews even a trillion dollars just to make the Jews forget the brutality of Hitler’s reign and in his effort in exterminating the Jews, the past is past; you can never pay up for the death of a human person
Second, we should not forgive totalitarianism because of the inhumanity it has caused to people, especially to the Jews. By the mere fact that totalitarianism is incomparable to any other form of government system that has ever existed and by the fact that totalitarianism has degraded the state of humanity is a clear, pinpoint indication that it should never be forgiven or forgotten as being part of history. Hitler may be dead, but that does not mean that we forgive him for his brutal acts. The same applies to the likes of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot. These leaders, no matter what, have become perfect representations of abusive power and reigns of terror, that our descendants should hand down to their children and beyond. This era of terror should serve as a reminder of the flaws that man has made in an attempt to stabilize society.
Hence, although there have been recent criticisms on Hannah Arendt that she made the idea of totalitarianism purely evil in her own perspective, I guess she had every humanly possible right to do so, even if it may be right or wrong. First of all, she is a Jew, and seeing Germans brutally killing her race by itself can be very traumatic to a typical Jew like Arendt. If I were a Jew (realistically I am a Roman Catholic), I would do the same thing that Arendt has presented totalitarianism to my fellow Filipinos as well. How would you feel if a certain leader attempts to exterminate your race for no particular reason but just because of black propaganda? I myself would be perpetually infuriated by such an act. If it was possible, I would plan a counter-attack against the race of Hitler, doing the same brutal acts to his fellow people. But that is on the ideal perspective.
In the more realistic perspective, the rationale on why Hannah Arendt had to describe totalitarianism that is because she wanted the world, her audience, to see how injustice, racial discrimination, and dehumanization was done to a particular group of people, in her case, the Jewish people. By describing the horrors of totalitarianism, Arendt depicts to the audience that although the era of brutal killings and excessive racial discrimination has ended already, Arendt wants to serve this as a reminder of the mistakes committed in the past and through this she hopes that these mistakes should not happen again.
Hence, my rationale why I refuse to forgive and forget totalitarianism for what it has done and for what it has contributed in history is that what totalitarianism has caused should mark as a reminder that we should be careful with what we want in the progression of both history and humanity; going beyond human means could possibly destroy this important progression if we just forget about totalitarianism.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Totalitarianism: The surprising facts
Through re-analyzing the important points and view on Totalitarianism through Hannah Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, one can see many unexplored views on Totalitarianism that most of us would often misinterpret about.
Among the first essential points I would like to discuss here is the fact that the concept of a stateless society. One of the potentially dangerous things Totalitarianism has done is the fact that when it meant a socially equal society, it meant the removal of the identities of the human person, that is, the human person as being unique and different. In the case of Totalitarianism, it has transformed every human person into a mere big group of species. Resulting from the abusive power of Capitalism, as seen through Marxism,Totalitarianism likewise treats history as a perpetual process, revolving on the cycle between the totalitarian leader and the masses following the totalitarian leader blindly. Likewise, Totalitarianism is considered to be a part of modernity due to the exchange of roles of the public and the private sphere. Before, the public sphere in classical political theory is managed by the lawmakers while the private sphere is managed by the people of the state. In modern political theory, what happens is the the public sphere becomes the people, in the case of Totalitarianism, the masses, while the private sphere became the rulers, and in the Totalitarian aspect, the Totalitarian leader who has absolute control over the masses.
Like how Arendt discuss how Totalitarianism came about, we can look at Totalitarianism as being originated from Capitalism. How? Because in Capitalism, the main goal of it is to gain as much profit as possible with the least investment. Hence, Capitalism attempts to expand the overall power of the nation state, but what it has underestimated is the fact that this “stretching of power” has a certain limit; there will come a time wherein there are little to no possible ways of expanding the profit power of the nation state. As a result of this Imperialism was born.
Through Imperialism, the emerging capitalist nation state now then expands without any concern for territorial borders, capturing as many states as possible. Now because of this further expansion of the capitalist nation state to other states, the capitalist nation state would then give an illusion of helping the other states of their needs, yet in reality, this certain support the capitalist nation state can give would be only guaranteed to its people; hence, it does not give absolute protection to every state it captures since the capitalist nation state would not bother to protect nation-less states. The main priority of the capitalist nation state is always its people first.
As a result, the captured states are then absorbed to a bigger blob - that is, the capitalist nation state, and hence would result into the degradation of the people of these captured states into the mass man, wherein they are species being who do not belong to anywhere, which has been the case for the anti-semitism approach of the Nazi party during the rule of Adolf Hitler.
Another important point that is seen with Totalitarianism is the nature of the masses being discussed here. The masses here are being described into a feeling of uselessness - a result of the first point - and hence bringing the masses into a state of loneliness. What happens is that the totalitarian leader, through the power of propaganda, tries to “relate” to these masses, and hence persuading the masses to join his movement. What happens then is the masses becoming obedient blindly to the totalitarian leader, and because they are the followers of the totalitarian leader, they end up being dependent with the totalitarian leader.
Now what makes the totalitarian leader problematic? First of all, the problem with this is that the masses, which would amount to millions of people, end up trusting this sole human person leader they have when it comes to outside relations, giving the image of the totalitarian leader having control of one big blob, that with the one big blob, everyone should agree to it at all costs. In addition, because of the existence of mass movements being for the leader, criticizing the leader for his wrong decisions or flaws is now an impossible task since the mass movements are people who are brainwashed in the first place, and because they still remain powerless, the result of it becomes simple: the masses believe therefore that the leader is always right.
This does not mean therefore that because of this the totalitarian leader is absolutely powerful; it has its downfall as well. The major downfall of Totalitarianism, which is surprising, is its lack of ambition. Because of the totalitarian leader being “perpetually” right in away, this makes the leader himself not desiring for more as he has reached the end of the line. Also, because of the blurring between friends and career in a Totalitarian government, the leader therefore is torn apart, ending into an uncompromising desire.
Among the first essential points I would like to discuss here is the fact that the concept of a stateless society. One of the potentially dangerous things Totalitarianism has done is the fact that when it meant a socially equal society, it meant the removal of the identities of the human person, that is, the human person as being unique and different. In the case of Totalitarianism, it has transformed every human person into a mere big group of species. Resulting from the abusive power of Capitalism, as seen through Marxism,Totalitarianism likewise treats history as a perpetual process, revolving on the cycle between the totalitarian leader and the masses following the totalitarian leader blindly. Likewise, Totalitarianism is considered to be a part of modernity due to the exchange of roles of the public and the private sphere. Before, the public sphere in classical political theory is managed by the lawmakers while the private sphere is managed by the people of the state. In modern political theory, what happens is the the public sphere becomes the people, in the case of Totalitarianism, the masses, while the private sphere became the rulers, and in the Totalitarian aspect, the Totalitarian leader who has absolute control over the masses.
Like how Arendt discuss how Totalitarianism came about, we can look at Totalitarianism as being originated from Capitalism. How? Because in Capitalism, the main goal of it is to gain as much profit as possible with the least investment. Hence, Capitalism attempts to expand the overall power of the nation state, but what it has underestimated is the fact that this “stretching of power” has a certain limit; there will come a time wherein there are little to no possible ways of expanding the profit power of the nation state. As a result of this Imperialism was born.
Through Imperialism, the emerging capitalist nation state now then expands without any concern for territorial borders, capturing as many states as possible. Now because of this further expansion of the capitalist nation state to other states, the capitalist nation state would then give an illusion of helping the other states of their needs, yet in reality, this certain support the capitalist nation state can give would be only guaranteed to its people; hence, it does not give absolute protection to every state it captures since the capitalist nation state would not bother to protect nation-less states. The main priority of the capitalist nation state is always its people first.
As a result, the captured states are then absorbed to a bigger blob - that is, the capitalist nation state, and hence would result into the degradation of the people of these captured states into the mass man, wherein they are species being who do not belong to anywhere, which has been the case for the anti-semitism approach of the Nazi party during the rule of Adolf Hitler.
Another important point that is seen with Totalitarianism is the nature of the masses being discussed here. The masses here are being described into a feeling of uselessness - a result of the first point - and hence bringing the masses into a state of loneliness. What happens is that the totalitarian leader, through the power of propaganda, tries to “relate” to these masses, and hence persuading the masses to join his movement. What happens then is the masses becoming obedient blindly to the totalitarian leader, and because they are the followers of the totalitarian leader, they end up being dependent with the totalitarian leader.
Now what makes the totalitarian leader problematic? First of all, the problem with this is that the masses, which would amount to millions of people, end up trusting this sole human person leader they have when it comes to outside relations, giving the image of the totalitarian leader having control of one big blob, that with the one big blob, everyone should agree to it at all costs. In addition, because of the existence of mass movements being for the leader, criticizing the leader for his wrong decisions or flaws is now an impossible task since the mass movements are people who are brainwashed in the first place, and because they still remain powerless, the result of it becomes simple: the masses believe therefore that the leader is always right.
This does not mean therefore that because of this the totalitarian leader is absolutely powerful; it has its downfall as well. The major downfall of Totalitarianism, which is surprising, is its lack of ambition. Because of the totalitarian leader being “perpetually” right in away, this makes the leader himself not desiring for more as he has reached the end of the line. Also, because of the blurring between friends and career in a Totalitarian government, the leader therefore is torn apart, ending into an uncompromising desire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
