Bartky "Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power."

In this essay, Bartky describes how power is internalized by our bodies and uses Foucault's idea of the panopticon to help. Foucault described how institutions shape our lives and internalize power by controlling our bodies. These institutions, like schools, the military, factories, etc..., also control our bodies' time and space. Bartky argues that modern technology can not only control our bodies now, but our minds as well. The subject will begin to police herself because she knows there is a certain type of mental control over her. Bartky argues that there are disciplinary principles that produce feminine bodies. These feminine bodies are created by males.  "A panoptical male connoisseur resides within the consciousness of most women: they stand perpetually before his gaze and under his judgment.  Woman lives her body as seen by another, by an anonymous patriarchal Other."There are three practices of this mental control  on females: Size and configuration of the body, body comportment, and additions to the body. Technology, like the media, tell the subjects that they are inferior and thus have to change their body image, how they walk, and add additions to the body, like makeup and jewelry, to meet society's (men's) standards. I agree with Bartky's point that men define women. Many women dress up and look nice for men and go further than men do. Women always do their hair and makeup regardless of where they go out. It's acceptable for men not only to not do their hair, but to not look nice either. If a woman goes to the store with no makeup, messy hair, and sweats and a sports bra, she will be looked at and ridiculed. If a man went to the store with messy hair, unshaved, with sweats and a t-shirt, it would be normal.

Foucault- Discipline and Punish "Complete and Austere Institutions"

Foucault argues that the prison has been integrated into our society so deeply that it has become a crucial element of society. We have no other options. Punishment revolves around the prison system.  We can only talk about what to do with prison, we give no alternative solutions. Prisons are very effective because they force open the world of the prisoner. All othe prisoner's actions are taken into account and monitered. The main focus of the prison is the stripping away of freedom. The secondary goal is reformation of character. I think that in our mnodern age, we have begun to stray away from the prison idea that Foucault talks about. There are an increasing number of alternatives to prison, like community service. Eventhough community service is monitored it is still more free than the prison itself. The idea behind community service is not necessarily reformation of character, but paying back the community rather. I believe this is a start to an alternaive to the prison idea.

Michel Foucault "Docile Bodies"

Foucault begins by arguing that the classical age has emphasized the body as the target of power. He uses the solider as the ideal. The body of the solider is disciplined and categorized. The solider must be docile, ready to learn, so as to make him more efficient. It seems like Foucault is arguing that there has to be a balance between the individual's own will, and the greater mission given to him by his superiors. He then references how this is similar in monasteries. One of the most effective ways to control bodies is making them subject to a timetable. Controlling the schedule of one's life has been in use in armies almost since their beginning. In the more modern age, this starts to be seen by everybody's work day being regimented into a concise schedule. This was made easier by machines which divided up and capitalized time. Time became extremely important to the working man and in a way became a more powerful force of control in his life. I think Foucault's argument makes a lot of sense. The common phrase "time is money" basically sums up the argument and by its popular use and practice almost proves it. I think the ideal of the monk and solider are perfect because both give up much of their will and become "docile". Today, many people could be in the same category, especially over zealous business-minded people. I think Foucault might also be saying that people have given up their focus on some "greater good" for a present temporary focus that depends entirely on time and a regimented schedule. Whether he's sees this as a good r bad thing I'm not so sure of.

Hannah Arendt Ch.10 of Vita Activa

In chapter 10 of the Vita Activa, Hannah Arendt describes some peculiarities of doing good works and the concept of "goodness". First of all, we have two types of evaluating good actions. The old, antique way is just doing anything good, whether public or private. With the rise of Christianity, we then see that evaluating good changes. Now, good can only be done in a private, non-public way. "The one activity taught by Jesus in word and deed is the activity of goodness, and goodness obviously harbors a tendency to hide from being seen or heard." The life "as far removed from the public realm as possible" became the the model for living a life full of good works. In this way good works are done for the good itself, not for an ulterior or personal motive. "When goodness appears openly, it is no longer goodness." She then makes a similar argument for Socrates' discussion of wisdom. According to Socrates once somebody claims to be wise he proves he isn't. The quest to be good and wise become never-ending. She then goes on to talk about how it's necessary that both wisdom and goodness involve another person. I believe that this is a reinforcement of an argument she made makes earlier in the Vita Activa that humans cannot be fully "naturally" human and be totally isolated at the same time. I agree with her analysis. Even though there are very solitary aspects in good works and wisdom, it is impossible to separate them from the public realm.

Nietzsche 2nd Essay Sections 11-25

In Nietzsche's final sections he tries to wrap up his arguments. His main thesis seems to be the idea of the will to power. He speaks about justice, that it is "quite senseless to talk about it in itself" because "'just' and 'unjust' exist, accordingly only after the institution of the law". He then talks about how punishment is "supposed to possess the value of awakening the feeling of guilt." Criminals do not have this feeling of guilt which allows then to do what they want. This is tied to the "instinct for freedom" or in Nietzsche's language: "the will to power". To me, here Nietzsche confirms finally that he is a skeptic. The only feeling that should compel human action should be self-interest. Feelings of self-denial are unnatural and are "tied to cruelty". In the final sections he criticizes the Christian and Greek gods. The Christian god "was therefore accompanied by the maximum feeling of guilty indebtedness on earth." God is just a form of social control while the Greek gods were "reflections of noble and autocratic men, in whom the animal in man felt deified and id not lacerate itself, did not rage against itself." The Greek god represented the true human nature. I think Nietzsche makes some good observations but I would like to critique two points. Firstly even though his argument that our morality is based on guilt, and that our true human nature is that of animal-like competition, I believe it also makes for a difficult society to live in. Humans are much more efficient when working together as opposed to doing everything on their own. For cooperation to work there has to be some kind of self-denial. Second;y, I agree that the Greek gods were reflections of how humans are, but I argue that it wasn't the gods who people wanted to emulate, it was the heroes. The men like Aeneas, Heralcles, Perseus, were self-sacrificing men who often were at odds with the gods.

Nietzsche "On the Genealogy of Morals" Preface and First Essay Parts I-II

Nietzsche writes about the origin of our concepts of good and evil. He goes back to his childhood, when he first began questioning the origin of evil and he "gave the honor to God, as was only fair, and made him the father of evil." So he first attributed the cause of evil to God, but after a while he learned to "separate theological prejudice from moral prejudice and ceased to look for the origin of evil behind the world." The more he examined the topic the more it pushed him to believe that good and evil are just social constructions that are meant to shape societal behavior to benefit the ruling class: "Rather it was 'the good' themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common and plebeian." In the following sections he goes on to describe how in many languages the words for good come from words that mean noble or ruling class while words for bad come from words that mean common or simple. I think this is a very good observation. It's obvious that the etymology of these words have connotations that imply "high class" tendencies. I also agree that they play a part in shaping social attitudes. However, Nietzsche sounds identical to the ancient Sophists in defining good and bad.They believed they were purely subjective terms for reasons similar to Nietzsche. I have to be like Socrates and disagree with Nietzsche on this point. I believe that there are things which are intrinsically good and intrinsically evil. That which is beneficial to mankind is good, while that which is harmful is evil. Although my definition is very vague, I can't bring myself to believe that there really is no objective good in the world.

"Alienated Labor" by Karl Marx

In Marx's manuscript "Alienated Labor" he explains how labor in a capitalist system estranges man from his nature. He first describes man as a conscious animal: "Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from life activity of the animal." This is very similar to Plato's description of man as a rational animal. Marx then goes on to  say that labor in the Capitalist system is unnatural. Labor is meant to be used for the benefit of the worker, but in the Capitalist system it does the opposite. "In these two respects, therefore, the worker becomes a slave to his objects; first... as an object of labor... and secondly that he receives the means of subsistence." It forces the worker to use his skills for the betterment of the owner of production.  He argues that there is a direct reciprocal relationship between the "value" of the worker and the "value" of the product. The better the worker produces a product, the more he devalues himself. He likens it to religion: "The more man attributes to God, the less he retains in himself." This type of labor makes man believe that his essence or true nature is only to work. This is not the true nature of man. Man, as a conscious being has the right to choose his own essence. I think Marx offers a very interesting perspective. I'm sure many people might feel very similar to his sentiments. Many blue collar workers may feel that they are "slaves" to the system because the more work they put in it seems like their bosses get richer but they stay the same. It reminds me of the scene in the 1999 film Fight Club when Tyler Durden is talking to the narrator in the bar and says "The things you own end up owning you." Although I might not agree entirely with Marx's arguments, I believe there is a valid sentiment in that our work doesn't directly pay off the way the Capitalist system claims to.

Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison, author of federalist paper # 10, argues that a loose federation of states connected by a central government is the recipe for happiness. People are going to argue and have different opinions on subjects regardless of any situation or circumstance. He seems to attack the belief that a democracy will quell the harshness of factions. "From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction." And so he proposes that a republic which he means "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." Republics allow for equal representation, so the total population doesn't effect the representation. The republic would be ideal for the United States because unlike a democracy where laws and statues are passed and all have to obey, each state would retain a great deal of autonomy and yet still have an equal representation in the federal government. I couldn't agree more with Mr. Madison. I believe the autonomy of the states has allowed the US to survive as a nation for so long. As much as we may protest federal laws, there are very few which we are forced to follow. Besides that, it seems that it is an unwritten rule that the federal government stay out of the affairs of individual states for the majority of matters. The more autonomy we give to an entity, the less it feels threatened and the more it is encouraged to grow, strengthen, and develop.

Rousseau "On The Social Contract" Book I

Rousseau begins by talking about the origins and purposes of a society. At the beginning, it sounds like he is writing to refute the works of Grotius, he clearly has a grudge against him. He also refutes Hobbe's argument of "might makes right". Then he goes in to explain in Chapter 7 that slavery is illegitimate. His argument for this, I believe, is his main argument in book I. It is very similar to Locke's. Consent is the basis for political legitimacy. In a slave-master relationship there is no consent, therefore the authority is invalid. He argues this point with conquests in the later chapters of the book. Like Locke's argument, I agree with consent being the basis for legitimacy, even if it is tacit consent. However, I would like to comment on his "social conflict" theory. In his argument against slavery he writes "Men are not natural enemies, for the simple reason that men living in their original state state of independence do not have sufficiently constant relationships among themselves to bring about either a state of peace or war." This sounds like he is saying that men, in a state of nature, lack relationships and property. I disagree. Even in a state of nature man has "putative" property. If this putative property is infringed, conflict will occur. More so in the state of nature than in society will conflict or war arise between two parties when property of any kind, be it real or putative, is infringed.

Machiavelli, "The Prince"

Machiavelli's concern in this essay is how to gain power and stay in power. Violence is a critical and necessary component to staying in power. He talks about deception and the importance of appearance. It is important to have the support of the people. Therefore the ruler's appearance must be shown as upright and benevolent in order to have their support. He paints politics in a new light as having their own morals and rules. Anything goes as long as it is for the good of the state. This type of morality can be classified as consequentialism. I agree with Machiavelli on most of his point except consequentialism. Politics is all about being able to get things done, about alliances and appearances. Although I don't agree with physical violence to make a political statement, I do believe at times one has to sabotage an opponent or do verbal or political harm to them. In order to stay in power you have to look like a god, and make your opponent look like evil incarnate. However, if you take consequesntialism to be your ethics, you risk compromising the true objective of politics, the well-fare of the state.