Can blogs be understood as panoptic environments

I'm currently reading The Electronic Eye by David Lyon, in particular chapter 4 addressing the matter of panopticism and surveillance. The question Lyon Poses is this: can panopticism be applied as a generalisable concept across a variety of sociological environments? (p. 72)

Lyon's question urges the reader to consider the possibility that Foucault's theory of panopticism may in fact not be applicable to all settings, and the one that is of interest to my research is the matter of employees who maintain a personal blog that, at least at some point, focuses on some aspect of their employment.

To review the applicability of Foucault's theory I will need to answer some basic questions:

1. Can the existence of constant "always on" surveillance be shown?
2. Or, does their exist a mechanism whereby a blog author would have reason to believe such surveillance may exist?
3. Are their indicators that the subjects of surveillance becoming their own watchers, their own governors, modifying their own subjectivity in order to comply with rules and regulations?
4. Can it be said that the subjects of such surveillance show indications of normalisation?
5. What might be said about the spatial aspects of Foucault's conception of panopticism in relation to blogs and employee bloggers.

These are some preliminary questions that may serve to guide my later thinking as I build up a section of my thesis on the techniques of power utilised by employers.

Reference

Lyon, D. (1994). The Electronic Eye. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Self-writing, frank and fearless speech

I've been reading The Political Mapping of Cyberspace by Jeremy Crampton (2003) after finding a comment about one of my posts on Jeremy's blog. Jeremy's comment lead me to begin an exploration of the terms "hupomnemata" (self-writing) and "parrhesia" (frank and fearless speech, particularly spoken against the powerful) (p. 107). This post, therefore, is an attempt to distill and focus those parts of Crampton's writing that have particular relevance to my upcoming thesis. I claim no special knowledge or understanding of the topics about which he speaks and invite any meaningful critique of this summary.

One of the struggles I've been waging is to distill a thesis statement; and have had even more difficulty conceiving of a way into the discussion of the tensions experienced between employee bloggers and their employers. In this regard Crampton's approach may prove highly valuable. He frames his own work as a focus on the "contact point" (p. 17) between Foucault's concepts of the technologies of the self (he explains these in detail later in the book) and the technologies of domination utilised by those in power. The overlap of these two forms of government - the government of the individual self by the self and the regulation of institutions - produce a domain of contestation and the necessary recalcitrance and resistance required for the existence of a power relationship. Looked at in this manner the tension between employee and employer has two connected but separate domains that continually bear and act on one another.

Expectedly Crampton invests a section of his book on the technologies of the self in which he critiques the concept of "confession" (he notes that there has, to this point, been little meaningful discourse on the concept despite its centrality and importance to Christian societies) and explains some of techniques of self such as hupomnemata and parrhesia.

Crampton notes the importance of confession of truth about oneself in the process of authentication of self in cyberspace (user names and passwords require confession of truth to a system/person of power) and without this confession the authentic self is denied access.

He points out that the "technologies" (of the self) to which Foucault refers have a broader meaning then how we might imagine technology (computers, calculators, electricity grids); a production, a fabrication, a bringing forth, not something that is hidden, needing to be found, but something to be produced as an artist or craftsmen would their work (p. 84). In other words:

"What is brought into existence in technologies of the self is precisely the truth about oneself" (p. 85).

These "techne" are techniques that mould, shape, and produce the self. As opposed to a self that is already existent, the self becomes a deliberate act performed and produced by the self - one must work to be attain the gay life he notes Foucault as saying (no doubt this idea might not go down well for those who propose the existence of the gay brain, but that's a discussion for another day). One of these techne is the already mentioned hupomnemata (it's a Greek word), a way of self-writing, not as some form of Christian confessional in order to reveal ones true self, but as a way to transform the self through the process or act of writing. Crampton believes that such non-confessional self-writing has rich potential for the practice of the self, a framework in other words, or a process in which we might write our self into being, or finally a way of "working on oneself in the context of a community (world)" (p. 95).

It is this sense of community that Crampton uses to direct his attention to the matter of the world of blogs; personal online journals around which develop various levels of community. But Crampton is aware of the manner in which much of the understanding about cyberspace in which blogs exist hinge on the twin concepts of authenticity and confession; understandings that he holds has problematic. In relation to the concept of confession he notes that the confessing of one's sins (or the truth about oneself on the psychiatrists couch) are designed both to allow for the emergence of the pure, sinless self and for the normalisation of the individual (how far from the norm do our sexual tastes, behaviours, and psyche vary?). He further notes the all-pervasive nature of the confession (TV shows, fields of medicine, law) each reliant on the revelation of the truth of the inner self and each creating, more or less, the normalisation of the subject. Little wonder, therefore, that the concept of the confession has been taken to the extreme by scholars such as Dodge and Kitchin and Turkle who propose that the confessional finds its ultimate manifestation in the online world where cyber-dwellers may disavow their own bodies in a space that allows finally the discovery of one's true, but heretofore, lost identity.

As appealing as these theories may sound, says Crampton, they cannot be sustained in that they conceive of cyberspace as being a separate, heterotopian (with a nod of the head to Foucault?) space as opposed to another part of the real world in which various technologies (including the Internet and "cyberspace") has been introduced. Technologies and cyberspace did not form the real world but rather came out of the real world as ways to make life more enjoyable/easier/more comfortable. Insofar as cyberspace is conceived of as a separate space, Crampton claims that the confession and authentication required to access this space requires or creates a form of subjectivity by which people become "discriminable individuals with identifiable selves, who dwell in physical space, and who produce the truth about themselves in order to enter the separate domain of cyberspace..." (p. 100). And in the process of the conceiving of cyberspace as a separate space subjects are normalised, cyberspace becomes opposed to real space, and human beings are denied the opportunity that cyberspace provides for them to practice the self.

As part of this practice of the self blogs provide individuals with a means by which to resist the forces of individualisation and provide a process through which they might work on oneself to fully become. Crampton posits that "blogging [is] a deliberate strategy of resistance against the normalized, confessional conception of the self" (p. 104) and an expression of "a care of the self through techniques of self-writing" (p. 105). Bloggers, he proposes, through their writing, develop themselves rather then expose a previously hidden inner truth from within. In other words the self of the blogger is constructed and brought to life through self-writing not discovered through the peeling away of layers via confessions.

Connected with the idea of resistance (and I will say connected also to blogging) Crampton builds the Greek concept of parrhesia on which Foucault built a considerable volume of work in the early 1980's. Crampton shows that parrhesia means "frankness; speaking everything on your mind and not holding back" (p. 107) but the concept also means that there must be a telling of what one knows to be true (not in the evidential manner of the word but through something known morally; to speak one's own truth I would say) and an element of risk or danger in the telling (risk of losing a job, risk of losing a relationship, risk of beheading). Parrhesia stems from a sense of duty, is made without coercion, and does not share the same sense of compulsion found in the concept of confession.

In the context of power relationships (I imagine here the tension between employer/employee) Crampton explains Foucault's notion of the "parrhesiastic contract" (p. 108) wherein a ruler, invested with great powers, allows and encourages courtiers and advisors to speak their mind, assuring them of their bodily safety despite the 'truth' they might tell. What is curious and fascinating about this contract is what each of the parties bring to the relationship; the powerful has the power but not the truth, the subject has the truth but not the power. Therefore the two become complicit in each other's strategies and in the maintenance of the power relationship. On the one hand the rulers "govern with a light hand" (p. 108) permitting and encouraging the governed to publish and speak openly and freely, on the other, the ruled legitimate the rulership of those in power through the maintenance of their ongoing relationship with the rulers.

Such a legitimation does not suggest that the contract is fixed either by its terms, domain, or consideration. Rather the lines of a parrhesiastic contract are always, or at least often, being negotiated and renegotiated. Using the example of Diogenes and Alexander, Crampton explains how new ground and new lines of contestation are opened and created; but these are not just any battles. Unlike struggles that react to various instances of the implementation of power, parrhesiastic struggles, in the true manner of the Cynics, question the very foundation of - the basis of - power. The parrhesiast is concerned less with winning the debate at hand and more with the addressing the very relevance and structure of the debate.

It is worth pointing as an aside here the relevance of the work of Jodi Dean in regard to the location of power structures within society. As I have posted previously, Dean's critique of Habermas recognises the messiness of civil society and the importance of recognising the fragility of embodied human beings, and of thus allowing power relationships to contest the very structure and formation of the debates in pubic discourse. In this regard Foucault, Crampton, and Dean all share a common conception of the problematics of the public sphere and the sense of possibility arising from the recognition of the existence of power structures deeply embedded within the social body. It is this continual resistance to power at all levels of society which Crampton believes holds great promise for the possibility of change.

Crampton's book is more far-reaching than I have portrayed here, delving into the world of cartography and the politics of the mapping of cyberspace (hence the name of his book). However I have attempted to constrain my comments here to matters which affect and address concepts that may be covered in my thesis. These concepts must now include the technologies of the self as suggested by Foucault and techne including hupomnemata and parrhesia, both of which go directly to the methods used by the employee blogger. Whether using blogs as a process for writing oneself into being in the world or used as a means for questioning the foundations of authority and bringing about change Crampton's work is highly informative and worthy of further investigation.

Reference

Crampton, J. (2003). The political mapping of cyberspace. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Thesis statement

Here's thesis statement v2.01.

Analyse the potential effects on the subjectivity of employees in an employment relationship arising from their publishing of work-related personal blogs?

Is it focussed enough? Does it make sense?

Refining my thesis statement

Re-focus the analysis of personal blogs away from legal debates about human rights and employment law to an investigation of the processes through which work related posts found on personal blogs become a cause for conflict and contestation between employers and employees.

Sex Blogger Files for Bankruptcy | Breitbart

Contestation in power relationships involve strategies that include court action by others associated with a work related blog post. The story of Jessica Cutler finds a day in court driven by an ex-lover/worker/colleague. They sure can be messy.

Clarification on The Washingtonienne

My last blog post questioned the motives of Jessica Cutler. Could she perhaps have been blogging for leverage in a relationship? What were her motivations? I'll let Cutler clarify the matter in her own words.

"I don't want to hear that I'm trying to embarrass anyone or get a book deal. That so isn't what sex blogging is about! For me, it's about writing realistically about sex so that people can take it in stride and not be all "Oooh, look what this slut is doing!" I may have failed at this objective, but it's nice to know that others are doing it despite hostility towards sex writers, threats of lawsuits and so forth."

Whilst Cutler's explanation is hardly an insightful revelation into her motivations it nevertheless highlights the contested nature of the blog as a space referring as she does to hostility and lawsuits that may arise from personal blogging.

The Washnigtonienne and what this blog may mean

I'm thinking that my thesis about blogs being expressions of a persons efforts toward emancipation, and I'm blaming the Washingtonienne.

Jessica Cutler, blogging as the Washingtonienne, described in reasonably graphic details her alleged sexual encounters with a number of people in and around Washinton DC. She was fired for the misuse of government property (computers) as she kept her private blog updated during working hours and using work computers. But reading through the archive of her blog (the blog was removed on the day of her sacking) I could find little that would support an assertion that she was blogging as a means to achieve enlightenment, self awareness, or emancipation. To the contrary, the blog posts are non-reflexive and merely descriptive of her sex life. On a couple of occasions she justifies receiving money for sex on the basis of her meager salary.

Clearly Cutler's blog was a personal blog and she blogged about her work. These two facts place the blog in the domain of investigation for my research. But I would be hard pressed to support an argument that it was even a site of contestation in a power relationship in that she appears to be driven by little more than the achievement of self-gratification. I wonder though about her motives in providing an obfuscated description of each of the people she claims to have been involved with. Was it attention seeking? Was she developing a means by which she had leverage over one or more of her partners?

These questions bring me to the question: What of all the work-related personal blogs that don't lead to a person being sacked? Are these sites of contestation in a power relationship? If an employee blogs with the knowledge and approval of their boss have they already submitted themselves as subjects of an existing power relationship?

Head of UN mission in Sudan expelled for contents of blog

Bloggers don't just get fired for work related blogs, they also get expelled from countries.

Jan Pronk worked for the UN in late 2006 and was expelled by the government for supposedly undermining the efforts of the army in Darfur.

I've not read a great deal of Pronk's blog (aside from the October 2006 post that lead to his expulsion) but I suspect he was blogging out of frustration with the pace of efforts toward peace and the self-serving nature of the efforts of the Sudanese Army.

BBC reports of his expulsion can be found here, here and here.

Power and resistance

Struggle and resistance - the self-expression of a free subject - are inevitable wherever and whenever power is exercised (Smart, 1985). In the context of blogging this concept is important to keep in mind.

In the case of Heather B. Armstrong, the struggle began before she was fired whereby she attempted to obfuscate the identities of the individuals about whom she was blogging. One could reasonably speculate that Armstrong may have been aware that, had she blogged about clearly identifiable real life characters, her firing would have come much earlier and with much more certainty. Her attempts at blurring identities could be seen, at least in Foucauldian terms, as means of struggle and resistance (if you're going to catch me I'm going to make it difficult for you.

Ellen Simonetti continues her efforts to seek redress and justice in the wake of her firing. Signs of her struggle are clearly evident on her blog as she points out what she alleges to be hypocrisy on the part of Delta Airlines and encourages readers, by way of various small advertisements, to take up the issue of free speech in the work place.

These examples are particularly narrow observations of the applications of the mechanisms of power and the responses they might receive.

Smart, B. (1985). Michel Foucault. Sussex: Ellis Horwood Limited.

Thesis statement and outline

I've just met with my supervisor and what came out of that meeting was a few ideas - lots in fact- of the direction my thesis could go. So here are my thoughts in very raw form and quite unedited.

We started out with what I meant be emancipation and my answer was that I really didn't have an answer that was theoretically sound. What I intended from the use of that word was to highlight the struggle with employers through which personal bloggers often proceed. To my way of thinking these struggles reminded me of some form of Judeo/Christian struggle to achieve enlightenment. Through a struggle comes a realization of ones self and an understanding of our limits and abilities. There's something mythically compelling about David and Goliath stories where the small and disadvantaged has taken on the behemoth and won. That's the notion I was attempting to convey; but I understand that there are significant theoretical difficulties.

I've been reading a lot in and around Foucault's theories of power/knowledge, and I believe this may be fruitful ground. Much can be said about the way in which personal blogs that mention or relate to an employees work are creating a new domain for the contestation of power. They provide a new means to articulate a new form of power relationship between employer and employee.

The nature of a personal blog is a many faceted artifact. Is it a public or private space (a blog about work can be password protected and available to only family and close friends or it can be available to anyone with an Internet connection), how does technology (RSS feeds, blog aggregation sites) change the nature of the blog, what effects are created by the use of pseudonyms, and what can be said about fictionalised accounts of a person's working life?

Then there are the numerous examples of bloggers getting dooced (fired for the content of their blogs) and what these examples tell us about the perceived nature of the power relationship between employer and employee. We've tentatively agreed to focus on just one example, that of Heather B. Armstrong. Armstrong, on her blog dooce, made a number of remarks (using various methods to obfuscate the real life identities of the characters in the narrative) about her work and this led to her being fired. Much of the literature I've reviewed to this point treats Armstrong's (and other employee bloggers) from the perspective of established power structures; the rights to free speech emanating from the US First Amendment and 'at will' US employment contracts whilst only a small body of literature has focussed on the underlying negotiation and renegotiation of existing power structures as a result of Armstrong's blog. The nature of the blog and Armstrong's case could form a second chapter.

I believe there is enough published about Armstrong's blog and her sacking from which I could build an extensive Foucauldian analysis about the agonism of the power relationship between employer and employee. I have not read sufficiently to describe two further chapters here but certainly I would want to address issues of surveillance and the hierarchical gaaze (Panopticism complimented by Deleuze's Postscript on Societies of Control) that lead to her blog being found, the examination of her blog (the obectification of Armstrong-as-blogger who then becomes a subject in the realm of power that has now extended to the Internet), and normalising judgement wherein the employer refers back to notions of normality as defined by management, (possibly) corporate lawyers, and popular business practice surrounding the censorship of employees. I could also discuss the matter of the power relationship existing between her and her employer and the ways that is agonised and the ways by which the intransigence of Armstrong's free will became evident. There is much more that can be found in Foucault's Power and the Subject that could provide fascinating analysis of the scenario. Finally I could turn to the matter of how Armstrong's actions have changed the balance and nature of the power relationship by turning the gaze back to the company (hmmm, Armstrong didn't name the firm she worked for but this would work with the QueenofSky example) where the company's work practices became the object of observation after the fact of the termination (I think I could build something here, but it's early days in my thinking).

Might it be possible to uncover new perspectives and understandings about the power relationship between Armstrong and her employer by utilising a Foucauldian analysis of the various texts that serve to define the events related to the termination of her employment?

I'm pressing the publish button without proof-reading so don't be to upset if you find a typo or three.

Proposed thesis/chapter outline

My supervisor has asked me to start thinking about my chapter layouts and I can say, at this early stage I'm struggling with how this might look.

The part I'm struggling with is the "emancipation" part of my research question. The more I read the further I seem to be straying from any concept of emancipation. There are three major concepts that are jumping out about employees and private blogs and they are power/knowledge, surveillance (feeds back into power/knowledge), and free speech. I'll attempt to explain here how they might fit into my thesis, but whether they can be worked up into a chapter in their own right is another question, although I believe they probably can.

I'm reading and writing about Foucault's concept of power/knowledge, particularly his article The Subject and Power. I think I could build up an argument about the manner in which companies employ a constant gaze through technologies of surveillance (RSS, Bots, web crawlers, Technorati alerts) that objectify individual employees and submit their blogs and themselves to examination. There are a number of notions here about the importance to power of the pre-existence of the essential freedom of the individual to create a relation of power, and this could matter could be explored more fully. By this I mean that, in most advanced democracies free speech is considered to be a basic human right, and in many companies free speech receives numerous platitudes in company mission statements. The issue though is the manner in which companies respond to individuals who chose to avail themselves of this human right bringing. Here is where the strategies of power come into play through a series of steps used to limit a person's free expression.

The chapter might address some of these questions:

• How do companies use surveillance technologies as a means to increase the field of visibility and therefore expand their domain of power?
• In what ways to employees become subjects of power relations and how does the agonism of power relations show up?
• What broader categories of knowledge are at play in determining the "normal". Here I refer to those assumptions that are at play that are go unquestioned in an employment relationship (I pay you wages and therefore can tell you what you will and won't say about my company)

As I write this, a very rough and unedited stream of thought (TOL - thinking out loud) I'm thinking that what I may have just described is my whole thesis. My general theme would then be power relations between organisations and employees with private blogs. Maybe my chapters would be:

1. A detailed exploration of Foucault's concept of power/knowledge (possibly including Deleuze as his theories relate to surveillance).
2. The case for free speech - why it's important, what it means.
3. How employees with private blogs lose their free speech through the expansion of domains of power.

My thesis question/statement would read:

• Do employees risk losing their right to free speech by maintaining private blogs?

A response to the Jodi Dean post

A response to my post about Jodi Dean can be found here. A comment on that post raises issues about my use of the term emancipation and I will continue to discuss this matter with my supervisor. I have so much to read and learn about emancipation. I may just stick with a Foucauldian analysis of blogging by employees in relation to power/knowledge and Panopticism.

This journey is both exciting and frightening.

Personal emancipation

I'm having trouble with the term personal emancipation and the way it is so related to Kantian notions of emancipatory struggle. Perhaps something more along the lines of 'sites of resistance' which refers back to Foucault's Power and the Subject and possibly to some of Deleuze's work might work better. I want to demonstrate struggle, but more from the perspective of an essential human freedom.

Blogs in academia | Mortensen and Walker

Whilst I agree that most people think that what is written on the Internet lacks credibility, it is not a view shared by a growing number of academics. Rather they see a substantial and growing body of work that is highly credible, highly reliable, and a valuable

contribution to knowledge.

Mortensen, T. and J. Walker. (2004). "Blogging thoughts: personal
publication as an online research tool."   Retrieved April 4, 2008, from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&cluster=1764821237272525813.

See also

Mortensen, T. E. (2004). "Weblogs and the Dilemma of Academia."
Retrieved October 6, 2007, from
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/personal_publication.html.

Weblogs and the dilemna of academia | Mortenson

I may have posted this link before but this scholarly review of blogs, quoting Habermas and Bourdeiu is excellent reading and relates directly to my research. In fact I might do a review of it at some point soon

Thesis question

I'm starting to think that I may need to lose the word "emancipation" from my thesis question. It tends to drag the research back to the Enlightenment and struggle. Since then much has been written about the creation of the self and subjectivity which has moved understandings beyond a static self and emancipatory struggle to much more complex and subtle notions of what it means to "be".

As I read more of Foucault, Giddens, Poster, and Derida I think I'll come up with a replacement word. Nonetheless the basic direction of the research remains unchanged.

New Spaces | Foucault

Just read a book chapter written by Foucault (1998) on the subject of new spaces. He describes the way that looking in a mirror creates an image of the self in a place the self is not, but the means for the creation of the image - the mirror - is real. He describes "heterotopias", new spaces that, like the mirror, create new imagined spaces; or perhaps they in fact create new planes of spaces.

In any case the article may be worth going back and reviewing. It may be possible to apply the term heterotopia to the Internet and to blogs; spaces which aren't the real person but are perhaps an even more systemised version of the real person.

Foucault, M. (1998). Different Spaces. Aesthetics, method, and epistemology. P. Rabinow. New York, The New Press.

Accessed from Curtin University e-reserve April 3, 2008.

Foucault on power relations

Please note: this post is under construction whilst I read the article below. This notice will be removed when it's complete.

The subject and power

Why study power? The question of the Subject

Foucault states that it his intention to establish the historicity of the modes by which individuals become the subjects of power. Foucault believes there are three modes of objectification by which a person becomes a subject; the subject being the focus of his work. These modes are:

1. Modes of inquiry that attempt take on the status of science e.g. the analysis of economics and wealth through the measurement and examination and objectification of the productive subject and the objectification of the fact of a person's being alive in the study of natural history.
2. Modes of objectifying through "dividing practices" whether that be dividing the subject from others or dividing the subject internally e.g. the good and bad, the sick and healthy, and the rich and poor.
3. Modes by which human beings turn themselves into subjects e.g. objects of their own sexuality.
   

Foucault notes that an examination of the concept of power had, until his analysis of the subject, only relied on a study of the legitimation of power through models offered by the legal system and of institutional models through examination of the nature of the state.

So what does Foucault mean when he discusses power? In order to outline a new economy of power relations we need to look, as a starting point, the forms of resistance against different forms of power. These forms of resistance are a "chemical catalyst" to highlight power relations, locate them, and demonstrate the methods used. Power relationships can therefore be analysed through the antagonism which can be found in their strategies.

What do these struggles against authority have in common?

1. They can be found anywhere in the world, under any government.
2. Their aim is to put effect to power, for example the way medicine has uncontrolled power over the lives of its subjects.
3. The struggle is against an immediate enemy, with an immediate solution.
4. Struggles are against the "government of individualisation, asserting the right for humans to be different but fighting the separation of, the "individualisation" of the individual.
   
5. They are opposed to the effects of power through the use or abuse of knowledge, competence, and secrecy, in other words, they are a fight against the privileges of knowledge. "What is questioned is the way in which knowledge circulates and functions, in relations to power" (Foucault, p. 781)
   
6. These struggles revolve around the question "Who are we?"

In summary it could be said that all struggle is a struggle against a "form of power" that "categorises the individual, marks him by his individuality, [and] attaches him to his own identity". In short this form of power is one that "makes individuals subjects", subjects who come under the control and dependence of another, or tied to their own identity through "conscience or self-knowledge" (Foucault does not elaborate on the concept of conscience and how conscience may be affected by self-knowledge privileging conscience with an almost mystical quality that creates subjectivity).

Having outline the commonality can be found in forms of resistance Foucault proceeds to outline three types of struggle: against domination on religious, ethnic, and religious grounds, against exploitation that separates individuals from that which they produce, and subjection caused by tying an individual to themselves and submitting them thus to others. He points out that state power tends (or tended) to be totalising, ignoring the individual but a new form of power - pastoral power that is at once both individualising and totalising - has come to dominate the social body.

Pastoral power derives from the development of Christianity that organised itself through the development of churches and, amongst others, the appointment of pastors. The form of power can be noted as being:

1. Aimed at assuring individual salvation in the next world.
2. It doesn't demand a sacrifice from the subject to save the sovereign but rather is prepared to sacrifice itself for the salvation of the individual.
3. It looks after the community but also the individual for life.
4. It requires an intimate knowledge of the mind of the individual, their conscience and secrets in order to provide direction.

This individualising form of power, despite the decline in the pastorate, has become diffuse through the social body through its adoption by the state. Whereas once pastoral power came from individual salvation, the meaning of salvation acquired new meanings including wealth, well-being, prosperity, and security. Concurrently the number of officials charged with providing pastoral care increased and included police, welfare agencies, agencies of the state, and the field of medicine. Additionally those in positions of power began to collect and develop knowledge; knowledge that was both globalising and quantitative concerning the population as a totality and analytical knowledge concerning the individual. As a result this pastoral power came to be an individualising mechanism pervading every aspect of the social body, from the family to medicine to politics and all the places in between.

The individualisation of society is problematic for Foucault. He questions the relevance of answering or even posing the question put by Kant as to who or what we are in relation to the Enlightenment. Rather the refusal of what we are deserves much thought and effort, largely as a way to break free from the individualising and totalising power of these new power structures pervading the social body. The imperative therefore becomes: "We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us for centuries" (Foucault, p. 785). (Let us bury the ghost of Descartes).

How is Power Exercised?

To assume power just "is" may be a form of fatalism according to Foucault. Rather then answering the question "what is power", which assumes it already exists Foucault explores the exercise of power through the the means by which power is exercised, how it might come into existence. There are three aspects to power each of which are independent but overlapping. First the physical, the capacity to shape objects, to bring them into being, to destroy them, to change them, to make them different to what they were. Secondly this form of exertion is distinguished from power that is exercised through relationships existing between individuals and groups. Finally, there are relationships of communication through which relationships of power may work but that may not be utilised as a means for the exercise of power.

Foucault doesn't expand here how power might be put to effect without relationships of communication. How is it possible for a relationship of power to exist without the agency of communication, some means by which meaning is signified to another? I suggest that relationships of communication may exist without the need for the existence of relationships of power but the reverse isn't possible. Communication, some form of exchange of meaning, must surely be essential in the structuring and maintenance of any form of relationship.

"Blocks" in which power is exerted include the school, says Foucault. The layout of school buildings and windows (objective capacities), relationships of communication through lessons, demonstrations, tests), and surveillance, reward, and punishment (power relations) all exist and are finely adjusted to maximise the extent of the exercise of power within the block. Thus the block becomes a place for the constitution of disciplines, for the ongoing adjustment of capacity-communication-power to produce an ever more rational and economically focussed society.

What constitutes the specific nature of power?

Foucault next turns his attention to the nature of power which he believes is exercised through the relationships of power with the aim of using actions to modify the actions of others. Power therefore exists only when put into action and is not a function of, or reliant on, consent; although consent may be given. Power then doesn't act directly on another, it acts to take action that affects the actions of others. Power is not violence, although violence may be used. There are two essential elements required for the articulation of a power relationship; the "other" maintained always as a person who acts, and an endless amount of options available as potential actions. Power then is:

"...a total structure of actions brought to bear upon possible actions; it incites, it induces, it seduces, it makes easier or more difficult; in the extreme it constrains or forbids absolutely; it is nevertheless a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action. A set of actions upon other actions" (Foucault, p. 789).

The exercise of power, therefore, requires the guidance of another's actions and this is done through 'government' as a means to structure the available choice of actions of the governed; a way to give structure to the possibilities available to a subject. In the interplay between actions upon actions guided through government we see that an important element must be present; and that element is freedom. Power can only be exercised over a free subject and only to the extent that they are free. Slavery is therefore not a relationship of power, and power and freedom are mutually exclusive. The two are constantly involved in a struggle, an "agonism":

"At the very heart of the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance of the will and the intransigence of freedom" (Foucault, p.791).

How is one to analyze the power relationship?

Foucault believes that it's quite possible to define and analyse power by focusing on specific institutions such as schools, hospitals, and asylums. He notes the problems of such an analysis, particularly that one might attempt to explain power as something emanating from the institution. In this regard he highlights the importance in an analysis of power to recognise that the fundamental anchorage of relationships of power is external to the institutions in which they are found. Rather relationships of power are found deep within the social body, not as a political overlay supra to the social body.

At this point Foucault appears appears to develop a criticism of the Habermasian notion of the public sphere by suggesting that power comes from deep within society. Habermas contended that power was external to the public sphere, whereas notions of civil society as proposed by Dean and others side with Foucault positioning power as an integral part of civil society.

"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 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" (Foucault, p.791).

Resulting from the deep-seated nature of power relationships Foucault proposes that their study and analysis and the analysis of the "agonism" occurring within power relationships is an inherent political task of social existence. In order to undertake such an analysis he proposes five points that must be established as follows.

1. The system of differentiations which is to say the difference that is required by and caused by a relationship of power (economic, competencies, linguistics).
2. The types of objectives that are being attempted to be achieved through actions upon the actions of others (profits, legislation, control).
3. The means of bringing power relation into being: how power relationships come into being (threat of violence, legislation, rules, surveillance).
   
4. Forms of institutionalization: what types of institutions are used (state legislation, economic/financial/commercial, closed, systems of surveillance)
5. The degree of rationalization: how effective are the instruments of power in relationship to their effect? Are they appropriate to the ends? Cost effective?

Relations of power and relations of strategy

Referring to the achievement of power being actions taken on the actions of others Foucault outlines three uses of strategy: the means to attain an end; the manner in which a person anticipates and responds to the moves - anticipated and actual - of their adversary; and the means by which a combatants might end a struggle by depriving the other of the resources and/or will to continue. These elements of strategy are that which is utilised in all power relationships as part of the essential struggle, potential flight to freedom (with a possible nod of the head to Deleuze), the agonism that marks a power relationship.

"...there is no relationship of power without the means of escape or possible flight. Every power relationship implies, at least in potentia, a strategy of struggle, in which the two forces are not superimposed, do not lose their specific nature, or do not finally become confused. Each constitutes for the other a kind of permanent limit, a point of possible reversal" (Foucault, p.794).

The end game of a relationship of confrontation is a relationship of power. The finality of a relationship of power is either total subordination (unlikely) or ongoing confrontation with a newly acquired adversary.

At a later date I intend to expand on the relevance of Foucault's work in relation to employee bloggers. How might the subjectivity of an employee be affected both by the very fact of their writing about their work, and by the response to their blog from the people in a position of power, their employer? How might we relate to the power/knowledge shift when it comes to bloggers? What could be said about surveillance? Are employees engaging the same methods of surveillance on their employers as employers are imposing on employees? Is their a shift away from the judicial system in terms of the source of potential strategies available to both?

References

Foucault, M. (1982). "The subject and power." Critical Inquiry 8(4): 777-795.

Note

Ontology - the study of being or existence; a specification of a conceptualization; the theory of objects and their ties.

Where do I stand?

In relation to my thesis question, where do I stand? A story or two here may help.

Firstly, when I was a councilor at REIWA I was censured by council for submitting a review of one of the acts to the Ministry of Fair Trading. My review differed in substance and conclusion from REIWA's views, and I went to some length to distance myself from REIWA and to show the work represented my opinion and not that of REIWA. I thought then, and still do, that REIWA had no jurisdiction to tell me what I could or couldn't say on matters of public interest. As a councilor I was happy to support the organisational line, as a private citizen I had the right to say my piece in a legitimate public environment. The fact that I was censured smacked of insecurity and fear on the part of the leadership group and failed to respect my rights as an individual.

The second comes from my experience growing up as a member of the Jehovah's Witness religion. At lay person level there exists no mechanism by which a person may question, especially publicly, dogma as handed down by church hierarchy. The use of thought and reason for the purpose of questioning such dogma was, and, as far as I'm aware still is actively discouraged, with the ultimate indignity to be disfellowshipped thus losing favour and contact with family and friends. I believe that such rules and regulations affect peoples lives in a very direct and negative manner and it is this form of abuse of power I believe everyone should be on guard.

For these reasons I position myself as holding that the greatest organisational good is achieved through creating an environment that respects the fundamental rights of a person to seek their own enlightenment through self-expression seen in the broadest possible terms. At times these expressions of the self may appear on face value to be opposed or to actively question authority within the organisation, however, allowing such expression, and the resultant debate provides for a far healthier, more nurturing, and prosperous working environment.

An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment? | Imanuel Kant

Some observations on An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?" by Immanuel Kant.

I find it interesting that Kant uses metaphors denoting struggle, effort, and breaking of bonds as essential to the achievement of enlightenment. By my reading of Kant it is impossible to achieve enlightenment, a state of human maturity, by doing nothing. One must make an effort and toil to achieve enlightenment. Kant believes that public/societal enlightenment can be achieved by ensuring the freedom of the individual to reason in public.

"Thus it would be very harmful if an officer receiving an order from his superiors were to quibble openly, while on duty, about the appropriateness or usefulness of the order in question. He must simply obey. But he cannot reasonably be banned from making observations as a man of learning on the errors in the military service, and from submitting these to his public for judgement."

Kant uses the example of a clergyman who is compelled to preach in accord with church dogma while in church, but who must be permitted to use his public reason in a public domain in oder to achieve his own enlightenment:

"For to maintain that the guardians of the people in spiritual matters should themselves be immature, is an absurdity which amounts to making absurdities permanent."

Kant believed that rules and edicts that are set in stone for all time are contrary to progress toward enlightenment which he says is a human entitlement.

Which leads me to the tension that is at the heart of my thesis and that is who has sovereignty over what a person says about their work in a public space? Where does work begin and end? And even if a company can argue that they do have dominion over a person's speech on a private blog, is the denial of their rights, and therefore of their potential to achieve some form of enlightenment, the best or smartest strategy.

I argue it's not.

Foucualt's response to Kant

Foucault critiques Kant's article Was ist Aufklärung? and notes that Kant believes that enlightenment is both and individual task and a responsibility of society. He shows how Kant believes enlightenment cannot be achieved whilst we are immature, by which he means that we simply take orders where reason could be applied. Examples are given. Relying on the answer in a book, relying on the orders of a spiritual advisor for our conscience, and being told by a doctor what to eat.

Kant observes the way reason can be applied in public for reason's sake. We might pay our taxes and then debate the rationale behind their payment, or we could give pastoral care and then debate religious dogma. Using reason for reason's sake demonstrates maturity, a necessary step toward achieving enlightenment. He distinguishes between public and private reason and notes that private reason may be willfully circumscribed by reason of a person's station in life. A person in the army may not have the same degree of latitude to debate an order but reason would have it that obeying the order provides a worthy end.

"...when one is reasoning as a member of reasonable humanity, then the use of reason must be free and public. Enlightenment is thus not merely the process by which individuals would see their own personal freedom of thought guaranteed. There is Enlightenment when the universal, the free, and the public uses of reason are superimposed on one another."