Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Surveillance and privacy
Essay on The Surveillance Society
Views of foucault
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Foucault’s concepts of power, discipline and governmentality are fundamental for understanding media and is a unique theory about media practises. Foucault demonstrates how reality TV is conducted and played out, such as the reality TV programme Big Brother. Big Brother expresses how surveillance is used to discipline citizens through the ‘public gaze’. Foucault’s approach to reality TV is distinguishable to alternative approaches, such as critical political economy. Political economy is the theory of how politics and the economy influence forms of media production, whereas Foucault’s theory is based on how citizens are disciplined through visibility and has no connection to the political economy (Hardy 2010). Foucault’s theory suggests that …show more content…
Unlike other theories of power, Foucault (1998: 63) argues, “power is everywhere and comes from everywhere”, it is distributed throughout society and not held by the dominant class. He also states that power makes human beings who they are. Foucault’s theory is particular in that he doesn’t just viewed power negatively, but rather acknowledges it to be productive and a positive element that “produces reality” (Foucault 1991:194). These ideas contrast political economy, which suggests that the dominant class do hold power and influences the media. The idea of power producing reality reflects in the reality TV show Big Brother. Big Brother demonstrates how Foucault sees power as an everyday phenomenon, which produces reality. Big Brother is a show consisting of housemates who are everyday people living in the Big Brother house together. Big Brother produces the positive side to power that Foucault suggested, as watching over the housemates becomes a productive way to monitor their behaviour, without coercion. Foucault’s theory on discipline and disciplinary power hold a special quality. Foucault (1977: 201) contrasts other theorists stating that discipline can be produced through surveillance and “permanent visibility”, causing people to discipline themselves, with the absences of violence. He (Foucault 1977) suggests this can be used in prisons, schools and workplaces, through the idea …show more content…
For Foucault (1991) disciplinary technologies are the techniques involved for producing obedient people. In reality TV disciplinary technologies are strongly shown through programmes such as Big Brother, Survivor and The Biggest Loser. Big Brother uses the techniques of surveillance and the public gaze to make the contestants feel visible and therefore disciplined. The show might slightly shape how citizens behave. As viewers watch and judge the contestants, they form an opinion on the type of person they would like to be in terms of wrong and right behaviour. This impacts citizens who watch Big Brother and allows them to form opinions on what types of behaviour is deemed acceptable and unacceptable by Big Brother and the public watching. However there are lots of people who view reality TV as ‘rubbish’ and refuse to watch it. Often these people have already formed opinions on the contestants of reality TV programmes, and view the contestants as ‘stupid’, ‘naïve’ and ‘attention seeking’ people for participating in reality TV and making the time to partake. These people have only watched reality TV a few times and are therefore only slightly shaped by it. They have viewed reality TV as ‘rubbish’ and so would never want to behaviour in the same way as contestants on reality TV programmes. This has shaped how those citizens behaviour, however they are not
Untasteful, feral, depraved viewing; Euphemism for palpable voyeurism; Is spelling the end of decent, moral society - Slagging out reality TV from a high culture standpoint is as easy as taking candy from a blind, paralysed, limbless baby. Reality TV is a significant part of popular culture in the current settings of mainstream Australian society. Counting the number of reality television shows on two hands is now a physical impossibility. But what impact is this concept having on society now and into the future?
How Reality TV affects the audience and the characters who were participating into it? Does it really give knowledge to people who were watching and supporting? Or is it just the sake of money and exposing their appearance on television? When it comes to watching television, people at home can choose which types of program they want to want for many reasons. Some people look to television for inspiration; others want to be kept informed about their surroundings and the world. In the article entitled, “Reality TV and Culture” by Jack Perry, he argues, there are some good points to how reality television are formed and offered. Perry explains that, not all of the shows are designed to encourage and promote dangerous and unrealistic. However,
Among the books discussed over the duration of the course, the most recurrent theme has been the dominance of power relationships and the construction of institutions driven by power. The framework for these socially ingrained power relationships that has been transformed over time has been laid out by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. According to Foucault, power is everywhere, dispersed in institutions and spread through discourses. The state functions on a number of dispositions which are hierarchical, naturalized and are the modes of power for the power elite. The result of this social and economic control is observed in nations and across nations through the beauty myth, the prison system, the creation of informal systems or the overarching cultural hegemony and attempted reform of the non-western world. The key to the success of this has been through the misrecognition of the constructed systems of power which are instated through very fundamental mediums that they are not questioned. These structures of control by the state are adopted and reproduced from the base of the familiar, through arrangements and dispositions that pose themselves as natural, as they are embodied and programmed in the play of language, in common sense, and in all what is socially taken for granted. In this essay I will examine these above mentioned structures of the power and how these models are used to discipline individuals and states.
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
The writings of Foucault, Bartky, Butler, and Bordo are significantly separate from each other in the issues that they grapple with within the body of their texts but their also overlap on major points, as is to be expected when many people write on the same subject. Each of these writers is concerned with different aspects of power and how that power is used and how it operates within our society. Most of these writers are feminist theorists and concerned with the ways that the female body is affected by power used against her while Foucault is less concerned with how power affects female bodies specifically but that can be seen as a result of his lack of connection to feminist thought. If Foucault mentions women and how they are affected
The issue of the relationship between the mass media and the popular culture has always been a controversial issue in social sciences. The political economists insist on the role of the media industry in the creation of this phenomenon of the twentieth century. Though, advocates such as John Fiske, argue that popular culture is actually the creation of the populous itself, and is independent of the capitalist production process of the communication sector. Basing his argument on the immense interpretive power of the people, Fiske believes that the audience is able to break all the indented meanings within a media message. He also believes- by giving new meanings to that specific message they can oppose the power block that is trying to impose its ideology to the public. Consequently, this anarchistic activity of the audience creates the popular culture as a defence mechanism. Even when we accept Fiske’s ideas, we can not disregard the manipulative power of the media and its effects on cultural and social life.
As each person feels alone and alienated under big brother’s watchful eye, they have no choice but to build the only relationship and bond they can, with that of their oppressor. The knowledge that the thought police watches the citizen’s every move influences the masses towards a “norm” of a constant state of fear and discipline resulting in utmost loyalty to Big Brother. Also, because people have no idea when they’re being watched, they learn to behave as if always under scrutiny. This transforms people into their own forms of a panoptic gaze, policing their own thoughts and actions from the fear of possible surveillance. Foucault refers to it as “ becoming the bearers of our own oppression”.
Pierre Bourdieu was a highly influential theorist. He provides a unique and fascinating definition or understanding of power as well as an explanation and analysis into how power works. This work serves to outline what is this specific concept of power means and contains, how it is created, what are the various forms it takes on and in general, how power works. Power is a difficult concept to define conclusively or definitively however, Bourdieu explains power to be a symbolic construct that is perpetuated through every day actions and behaviours of a society, that manipulate power relations to create, maintain and force the conforming of peoples to the given habitus of that society (Bourdieu, 1977). Power, is a force created through the social conventions of a specific community that dictate what is expected or accepted by the people while also determining how they understand the world in which they live (Bourdieu, 1977).
Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman’s work was centralised around there two different concepts of how your identity is formed through the process of power and expert knowledge. This Essay will discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault who was a French Social Theorist. His theories addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and how both of these are used as a form of social control through society. The essay will look at Foucault’s work in The Body and Sexuality, Madness and Civilisation and Discipline and Punish which displays how he conceptualised Power and identity on a Marxist and macro basis of study. The Essay will also address the Ideas of Erving Goffman who was A Canadian Born Sociologist who’s key study was what he termed as interactional order, that is how the functions of ritual and order of every individual member of society, in everyday life, interact to form social order. He suggested the metaphor of the stage, where people play roles in specific everyday situations using trust and tact, the control of bodily gestures, face and gaze and the use of language to set the parameters of their social interactions. People individually participate in these rules of conduct to produce social order Looking at Goffmans work of the Presentation of One Self in Everyday life, Stigma and Asylums t Goffman argues that it is these interactions, or the interactional order that constructs society. This Essay looks to give an Insight of how Foucault and Goffman Compare and contrast in their theories to give an understanding of how the exertion of power and expert knowledge constructs individuals Identities.
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
A. “Reality TV Offers an Amoral Message.” Reality TV. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Ph.D. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2008, 32-37. Print.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
Reality television has become nearly unavoidable and American society is more affected by reality television than they realize. Society can be shaped from reality TV in many ways like the way people act, and also the way people can perceive a problem. I never really could have thought just some of the stuff we watch on television like Big Brother, could be impacting us in any way. I always thought the reason people said reality television is bad for us was because we would get addicted and not want to leave the couch. I started to research reality television by looking up what could be the potential impact and I was shocked by the results that were good and bad. Coming from the article by John Perritano he says “Many say reality TV has put
More recent studies in the last decade have focused on the power relation between the media and their publics as a key factor contributing to the growth of the reality television around the world, based on the concept of ‘audience activity’...
Reality television has changed the world today by encouraging violent behavior, elevate imprudent personalities, and depict woman of their values. Many reality TV shows are driving young kids to be driven by money and fame. Our reality television make us seem ignorant to other countries. Young viewers of these reality TV shows do not realize that most of the shows are often scripted and are not “real”. Although the programming of reality TV can be highly entertaining, it is important to be aware of the messages, and values that these shows often portray. Since reality TV has such a strong foothold in American pop culture, it is likely not going anywhere or changing its content any time