By contrast to the 18th century “public torture” and the 19th century “prison imprisonment”, fukuo revealed a modern transformation of the logic of power control. In the eighteenth century, public torture (such as the whipping, execution of prisoners to the square) was used to deter the population through “violent displays” in order to maintain obedience with fear, at the core of which was “extraordinary coercion”. In the nineteenth century, prison alternatives to torture became the main form of punishment, and the control of power became more efficient and covert — by “time management” (getting up on time, working, putting out lights), “codes of conduct” (conforming clothing, organizing internal affairs), “psychological rehabilitation” (pedagogical education, repentance) so that prisoners moved from “physical obedience” to “psychological obedience” and were able to observe social rules even after their release. The most representative of these are the “round prisons” model (design of the border), which perfectly reflects the core logic of modern discipline: the prison centre is a watch tower, surrounded by circular cells, and prisoners are in a state of “possible surveillance” at all times without knowing when they are being watched. This “uncertainty surveillance” gradually allows prisoners to learn to “self-inspect” - even without a prison guard, to follow the rules on their own initiative because of “the fear of being found to be in violation”. Fukuo believes that round prisons are a microcosm of modern discipline: power no longer requires the threat of violence, but by creating an “invisible surveillance network” that allows individuals to proactively internalize discipline into “self-restraint”, like the modern system of attendance, surveillance cameras, performance evaluation, which is essentially an extension of round prisons - – the staff, if not supervised in the office, will get to work and work on time; students will be disciplined in the classroom, even if the teacher is not present, and will be empowered through these systems to make “subordination” an instinctive response。
Main construction: from “constructed self” to “aware survival practice”
At the heart of fukuko's idea lies ultimately in the construction of the “subject” — he has completely broken the traditional notion that “self is the nature of nature” by stating that “the so-called `self' is not inherent in nature, but rather the product of the progressive shaping of power and knowledge through continuous discipline”. A person's perception that “i am a self-regulating person” is not born: when they were young, their parents taught him that “irregularity is wrong” by “sleeping on time, organizing toys”; after school, teachers reinforced the notion of “self-regulating = excellence” by “paying on time and observing classroom discipline”; and after work, companies tied “self-regulating” to “professional literacy” by “paying cards, performance goals”. For a long time, he has internalized these external regulations into self-requirement and even blamed himself for “sluggering occasionally” — the “self-responsible” — as a result of the rule of power。
But foco's theory was not a “negative decision theory”, and he emphasized the “problem of breaking rules”: by going back to the history of power and knowledge and seeing the logic of power behind self-recognition, one can break the “negative” rule and redefine itself. This “aware survival practice” can take place at three levels: and when we're faced with "this is the truth of science," "this is the only way." such words should not be accepted blindly, but rather ask: “who produced this knowledge? What is the logic of power behind it?" for example, the term “women should take the family first” is based on the idea that traditional gender power through “social and ethical knowledge” regulates the role of women. It defines “family” as the only value field for women, while ignoring their own needs. At this point, we can reject this single criterion and choose “to combine family and career” or “to prioritize the pursuit of self-worth” and not to be kidnapped “rightly” by power。
On that basis, we also need to break the “self-single” — not bound by the “who you should be”. In modern societies, standards such as “success = wealth and status”, “good parents = sacrifice of all time with children”, are power-based “tempo-self”, which ignores the uniqueness of individuals. A person can be both “working hard in the workplace” and “a person who likes to lie down occasionally”; “parents who value the family” and “individuals who keep their preferences” — self should not be a single template for the definition of power, but should be open and shaped, allowing for the coexistence of diverse needs。
