Skip to main content

View Diary: The Surveillance State As Foucault's Panopticon (327 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Congrats JosephK74! (7+ / 0-)

    You have officially joined the ranks of Ray-certified Fallacious Disruptors. However, you are allowed to retain your right of Rational Analysis.

    As the most recent member, I welcome you to our hallowed tribe.

    •  This is truly confounding. (8+ / 0-)

      erratic, I know you gave it your best shot, but you can clearly see now that Ray simply cannot engage in a rational way with those who present cogent counter arguments to his posts.

      Ray really doesn't belong here with his constant charges of "Ad hominem!" against those who simply present arguments that don't agree with what he has written.

      Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

      by Bob Johnson on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:07:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hi Bob! (7+ / 0-)

        You warned me, but I just had to learn it for myself.

      •  Bob, just to make sure that these unfounded (0+ / 0-)

        attacks don't go unanswered... I clearly described the type of argument used by JosephK74.  It is right here in black and white.  And the innuendo:

        What I tried to point out in the comment you're responding to here is that in treating the NSA as an all seeing eye you're actually contributing to the normalizing power surveillance is able to exercise because you're cultivating the attitude that the NSA sees all and that therefore we better regulate our actions so as not to bring the government's wrath down upon us.  
        Bob, this is maligning.  I have no such power.  I'm reporting on the NSA issue, and this user turns it around and attacks me; and he engages in "philosophy" outrage.

        I'm calling it out, and everybody can see it.  Now you're trying to incite people to engage in a clear violation of the HR rule:

        Inappropriate Hide Rates (HR) and uprates.
        Our new reporting tools make it easier to track hidden comments and who HR'd them. If we determine that a comment should not have been hidden, those dropping the Hide Ratings will lose their ratings ability for a period of time, progressively longer for each infraction until that ability is removed forever. Uprating personal insults is as bad if not worse than making the insult itself because this rewards the insulters and encourages them to continue the same behavior. Doing so will likewise cost users their ratings privileges for a period, with long penalties for repeat infractions. In baseball, a tie goes to the runner. At Daily Kos, any gray area will be decided in favor of the commenter. So if you're not sure that something should be HR'd, then don't. Because if the situation is that iffy, chances are that it'll be you who gets burned. HRs are for clear and obvious violations.
        Yes, all this is clear for people to see...
        •  Your tired use of "everybody can see it" is quite (6+ / 0-)

          ... comical.

          What "everybody is seeing" is you acting in bad faith and accusing those who counter your writing with rational and reasoned arguments of using ad hominems when none are present.

          You're way off, Ray. It's been your consistent pattern here from day one.

          Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

          by Bob Johnson on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:07:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There was no attack (22+ / 0-)

          and no "philosophy outrage".

          I saw a commenter with full mastery and knowledge of his/her subject.

          Actually, Joseph's comments were quite frankly a thing of beauty.

          Ron Reagan: "Sarah Palin's constituency are people who wear red rubber noses and bells on their shoes."

          by AnnetteK on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:07:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Totally agree. Fantastic comments in here! (4+ / 0-)

            As dumb as this thread is in one way (to me, people taking RP seriously and even bothering to respond to him is a weird phenomena. I tried it once... haha)

            But in this case, the amazing commentary here by JosephK74 is beyond anything I'd expect to find here in the DailyKos gold mine, especially in an RP diary.

            So I thank Joseph for his comments, and I also have to thank Ray for bringing this subject here to be discussed. I had read one of the other linked articles a week or two ago, about this theory and the panopticon -- which I had never heard of and didn't know anything about. It sounded like a plausible theory and I found it interesting, at least as a metaphor.  

            I could not appreciate more this incredible expanding on those thoughts, and the opportunity to really understand a lot more about this philosopher and the relationship to today's world.

            I found this especially on the mark:

            With regard to the docility of Americans on the NSA issue, this might actually arise from the panopticon encountering its limits.  I suspect that many aren't very worked up by this issue not because they think they're being watched and are therefore in danger of punishment if they speak out, but because they imagine that the number of people being watched is so huge that it's incredibly unlikely that they would be noticed by the eye of Sauron.
            Yes, exactly. Nailed it.
        •  How is this (16+ / 0-)

          "maligning"?  I make no claims about your intentions because in a Foucaultian universe it's not what people intend that defines how power functions.  We are, after all, talking about the theorist that proclaimed the death of man or the psychological individual in The Order of Things.  Instead, I was making a point about the functional effect of believing some entity like the NSA is constantly watching you and how that normalizes your action and subjectivity by leading you to restrict your info consumption, deeds, and thoughts.

          In case this point about intentions versus functional effects isn't clear, allow me to draw a parallel to composition studies at the university level.  Nearly every composition professor you talk to will tell you that they're promoting a radical pedagogy to get their students to challenge the system.  This is their intentions and just as I have no doubt of your intentions to challenge power, I have no doubt of their intentions.  Nonetheless, despite their intentions, and for a variety of reasons, at the functional level much of their pedagogical practice is merely producing good neoliberal subjects playing the corporate communications game.  The content of what the composition professor is teaching doesn't affect the form of neoliberal communicative codes and so they're not really challenging that system despite having every intention of doing so.  The case is similar here.  In promoting the idea that the NSA is actually watching you, you are functionally reinforcing the very diagram of panopticon power despite your intentions to do otherwise.  What you miss in your attacks on me is that we're actually on the same side in wishing to challenge this panopticon power.  I merely disagree with your understanding of how that power works.

          •  I think your points are (0+ / 0-)

            very substantive and critical to the debate, JosephK, and I am am sorry if I lumped you in with others here who are latching onto your comments as a way to "get" to Ray.

            I am trying to figure out what his problem with your reply would be, and I am taking a guess that perhaps it is a statement such as this:

            The case is similar here.  In promoting the idea that the NSA is actually watching you, you are functionally reinforcing the very diagram of panopticon power despite your intentions to do otherwise.
            Where he finds issue. Perhaps one may take that statement to mean "ignore the issue and it will go away" or that by acknowledging the problem we are somehow empowering the NSA?

            As I said, I am just guessing. I think your debate with Ray -- if fleshed out without sniping from both sides -- could be very interesting.

        •  Climb down off of your cross. (0+ / 0-)

          No one attacked you. You lost an argument. Get over it.

 longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

          by TFinSF on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 03:31:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I confess I'm (15+ / 0-)

      thoroughly perplexed as to why he accused me of making ad hominem arguments (I wasn't attacking his character nor making an argument based on his circumstances), nor why he suggested that I was lobbing a straw man or making a circular argument.  As someone who does research based on these things and who also teaches, I admit I have a bit of a tick in responding to things that are thoroughgoing distortions of a thinker's positions, but that's not ad hominem.  If anything I'm guilty of being a pedant, but sometimes pedantry is important.  I do think it's revealing that he never addresses the interpretive points about Foucault (beyond talking about "sacrosanct interpretations), but instead immediately jumps to speculations about my motives and character, despite all evidence to the contrary given my diary history and comment history.  

      •  We're similar this way (5+ / 0-)

        My research is in a similar area, it sounds like. Moreover, so was my reception. Ah well. I see what I see with the eyes in my head. What more can you do?

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:09:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm no scholar on the subject (10+ / 0-)

        but I suspect what you're running into is the tendency for theory to be bent to personal, subjective need. That is, the tendency of individuals to be attracted to theories, not on their intrinsic merits but on the basis of perceived utility in servicing such needs, whether political, social or psychological.

        In such instances, theory isn't a method of intellectual inquiry or analysis so much as it is a reified instrumentality, valued only to the degree that it can be used to validate pre-existing assumptions, opinions and attitudes.

        A logical consequence of this is an intensely personal identification with a particular understanding or misunderstanding of a theory. In such instances, any challenge to the reified conception of the theory will likely be subjectively experienced as a challenge to the individual's sense of their own identity, producing an instinctive, emotional, defensive reaction.

        All ideological constructs are subject to this sort of thing but ideologies that recognize no objective standards of proof are particularly prone to it.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 02:09:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  but if your motives and character are left on (0+ / 0-)

        their own for everyone to plainly see, there might be no argument against you whatsoever

        Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

        by Murphoney on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 03:05:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hey ... I got a mention :) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, serendipityisabitch

      Do we have a secret handshake?

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:34:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but you're not supposed to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, serendipityisabitch

        mention that, or the playbook!

        They're top, top, secret. Remember?

        Well, except for Ray knowing everything of course.

        What would mere mortals do without him?

        There is something in us that refuses to be regarded as less than human. We are created for freedom - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

        by Onomastic on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:53:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site