Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, I'm just going to backtrack and say that I don't have any anti-humanist qualms about the original FB post. My sensitivity to anthropocentrism derives methodological assumptions grounded in an elevation of human perceptivity or consciousness, not from the proposed stakes of scientific discoveries that might potentially yield benefits for humans. For me, the former is an epistemological matter; the latter is an ethical one.
Dak
mentat
In all seriousness, I don't know how we can untangle ethics from everything else.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
This is a decent piece, although, as always, the mistranslation of Derrida near the beginning is endlessly frustrating. But the rest on Foucault is pretty good. Nothing new, just a little homage.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever
And the prison model can be extended to the entirety of modern society, which is the implicit point. The structure of modern society compels us all to regard ourselves as subjects of observation, susceptible to correction at the hands of numerous apparatuses. Foucault called this the society of surveillance, which has since exploded, beginning right around the time Foucault was writing, into a global system of ubiquitous surveillance. This produces what Deleuze came to call the society of control. I find these different paradigms of vision and observation, and how they're institutionalized, absolutely fascinating.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever
And the prison model can be extended to the entirety of modern society, which is the implicit point. The structure of modern society compels us all to regard ourselves as subjects of observation, susceptible to correction at the hands of numerous apparatuses. Foucault called this the society of surveillance, which has since exploded, beginning right around the time Foucault was writing, into a global system of ubiquitous surveillance. This produces what Deleuze came to call the society of control. I find these different paradigms of vision and observation, and how they're institutionalized, absolutely fascinating.
Dak
mentat
I can see the parallels obviously, but it's important to note that the majority of prisons are ill-equipped to handle a mutiny. There's a tenuous agreement between the outnumbered guards and the prisoners, who have their own separate power structures that fill the prison and even connect with/extend to the outside.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yeah, I think that's true, and Foucault's research likely didn't cover the means/methods by which incarcerated kingpins manage their groups from inside. The concept of "discipline" doesn't cover physical violence though, which is one kind of power but not a disciplinary kind. In Foucault's definition, discipline is a form of nonviolent coercion, organized through various social institutions, to inculcate specific forms of behavior. Criminal organizations invoke their own forms of power, but they're not disciplinary in the sense of that prisons, schools, hospitals, etc. are.
It is important to note that Foucault's research focused on nineteenth-century institutions, and his argument is very much historical. He suggested that disciplinary measures are still used in our culture today, but more interesting (in my opinion) is Deleuze's articulation of the control society, which he never really expanded on, and only briefly wrote about in a short piece called "Postscript on Societies of Control." Deleuze basically agreed with Foucault but believed that a new element needed to be added to the disciplinary mix, and he termed it "control." Control doesn't rely explicitly on apparatuses of vision (like the panopticon, which Foucault used as a symbolic example), but rather a paradoxical ubiquity of vision, more aptly represented by (for example) big data, global communications, and other kinds of post-1945 technologies that developed largely out of World War Two.
It is important to note that Foucault's research focused on nineteenth-century institutions, and his argument is very much historical. He suggested that disciplinary measures are still used in our culture today, but more interesting (in my opinion) is Deleuze's articulation of the control society, which he never really expanded on, and only briefly wrote about in a short piece called "Postscript on Societies of Control." Deleuze basically agreed with Foucault but believed that a new element needed to be added to the disciplinary mix, and he termed it "control." Control doesn't rely explicitly on apparatuses of vision (like the panopticon, which Foucault used as a symbolic example), but rather a paradoxical ubiquity of vision, more aptly represented by (for example) big data, global communications, and other kinds of post-1945 technologies that developed largely out of World War Two.
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
One other point of contention, and this may be due to the datedness of the reference point for prisons, but that there is little to no "correction" work occurring in the modern prison system. Simply minutely regulating activity doesn't correct any particular antisocial behavior, and it may decrease overall personal discipline in many persons that have already demonstrated some lack of personal discipline.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Sure, there certainly used to be corrective measures. Prisoners used to be forced to pray, attend lectures on the evils of alcoholism, perform hard labor, etc. With funding for federal prisons what it is, it's no wonder corrective punishment is on the wane.
But discipline is also a function of observation and subjectification. Institutions frame individuals as subject to correction, which in turn has the governmental advantage of making individuals see themselves as subjects susceptible to corrective measures. Foucault also talks about how good behavior is rewarded in a disciplinary institution, and this "double-system" is still at work in prisons today: i.e. prisoners are rewarded for good behavior, and are punished for bad behavior (they have a certain number of strikes, for instance, or they're put into solitary).
But discipline is also a function of observation and subjectification. Institutions frame individuals as subject to correction, which in turn has the governmental advantage of making individuals see themselves as subjects susceptible to corrective measures. Foucault also talks about how good behavior is rewarded in a disciplinary institution, and this "double-system" is still at work in prisons today: i.e. prisoners are rewarded for good behavior, and are punished for bad behavior (they have a certain number of strikes, for instance, or they're put into solitary).
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, robot ethics is an actual field.
Obviously, in this case robots wouldn't be "paying taxes" themselves, the business-owners would be; and I'm sure that won't go over well at all, seeing as the shift to automation is for the purposes of cutting costs.However, I have to think that taxing automation would be less expensive for employers than paying wages to individual employees, of whom it will take more to do what fewer robots could (probably) do. So if there's some concession to be made, perhaps it would actually be desirable...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/?utm_source=twb[/QUOTE]
I read about this from a link on Facebook the other day. I think it makes sense.
The truth is, institutions like church and the military provide foundations for solidarity. Obviously, there are other communities that can do this (school, employment, family, etc.); but the modern disenchantment between personal religious belief and participation in a religious community do seem to correlate with poor social consequences.
Coincidentally, Frederic Jameson wrote back in the 1970s (in a piece called An American Utopia) that a utopian society should practice mandatory conscription because the military strips you of personal beliefs/commitments and molds you as part of a community--e.g. "we don't give a shit if you believe in Jesus or Mohammad, if you're Christian or Jewish," etc. I'm not sure this is true, but I was talking with someone whose brother is in the military now, and his experience seems to correspond to this (but maybe you have an opinion on this, Dak). At any rate, Jameson's ideas on Marxist praxis have always been a bit too Stalinist for my tastes, but it does go to support the argument for solidarity that derives from community participation of this kind.
Dak
mentat
Well, robot ethics is an actual field.
However, I have to think that taxing automation would be less expensive for employers than paying wages to individual employees, of whom it will take more to do what fewer robots could (probably) do. So if there's some concession to be made, perhaps it would actually be desirable...
Maybe there could eventually be robots that can pay taxes
. But yeah, I think instead of having "payroll" taxes you see something more in the direction of VATs that take into account production regardless of whether or not there is related payroll figures.Psych research into this sort of thing notes a few important components (for solidarity): Common experience (particularly if an unpleasant experience), shared goals (superordinate goals), and a common enemy. 19th and 20th century nation states did a pretty good job of hitting these (of course with lots of problems because of them as well), and the military - particularly a volunteer force - also does a good job of hitting these. Clear in groups and outgroups, with more or less concrete superordinate goals. Churches not only functioned as another type of ingroup, but generally supported the nation - giving it a moral veneer. From the end of the 20th century through today though, forces of globalism have tried to eliminate national groupings and arguably religiousity. There has been much success for the better part of 20+ years, but the problem is that when there are no outgroups, there is no ingroup either, and we see this atomization of the individual start doing serious social damage - and people will look for anything to create a new ingroup - and giving those new ingroups moral veneers.
Every so often the idea of 2 year mandatory public service commitments for 18 year olds is floated. I think, in practical terms, this is a much better idea than mandatory military participation. The military is for fighting wars. If you increase the size of the hammer, we are likely to go looking for nails moreso than we already do. But it won't do any good anyway if there's still this push to eliminate the nation state while at the same time using them. There's a high level of dissonance required to be dedicated to the ingroup known as America and also be pro-globalism, and dissonance is psychologically painful. The "international society" is going to have to come up with some other way to avoid constant war than the attempt to eliminate borders, cultures, etc.Unless we find some sort of unfriendly aliens which are technologically equivalent anyway.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
I don't really know what the writer was ultimately trying to get at. Reading it felt like a bunch of boxes being opened with a bunch of semi-related concepts pulled out that suggest a lot of problems going forward, and then a quick wrapping paper job with a messy bow over the mess trying to appeal to "things are actually better than they feel".
I did like the bit about how the West progressed because big thinkers talked to people who make cool machines. Ideas need application to be ultimately worthwhile.
I did like the bit about how the West progressed because big thinkers talked to people who make cool machines. Ideas need application to be ultimately worthwhile.
Dak
mentat
Not sure exactly where this quote comes from but it's decades old at the least:
Seems pretty spot on.
Seems pretty spot on.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Is the the implication that prosperity and comfort are the reasons for dissent and dissatisfaction in modern society? Because prosperity and comfort have never been globally present or evenly distributed; and in plenty of places, prosperity and comfort don't exist. I'm not sure I think the upheavals of our historical moment can be explained by the boredom of success.
Dak
mentat
Dissatisfaction occurs not when people have it the worst, but just when they think they might could have it even better. From another direction, the banality of cycle of produce-consume-(sleep), divorced scientifically and socially from any higher meaning or cause, drives one to either dispair or desire for that thing lacking. In the age of Reason we have no reason for living.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
If there appears to be no possibility of improvement and/or the situation is so dire so as to consume all your energy to get along from day to day, thoughts of dissatisfaction are in the first case pointless, and in the other case, dangerous.
