To the person who searched and came to this blog asking whether it is pretentious to cite Foucault: only if you're doing it wrong. And generally, in every day conversation, yes, in a paper, no. On my blog? NEVER! Also, there are Foucault puppets.

The Picture of the Condemned

For anyone who has read as much Foucault as I have, the debate over whether to release the photo of a dead Osama bin Laden reminded me more than anything of Discipline and Punish. The interesting thing is that the White House did provide a photo, not of bin Laden but of this:

Foucault notes in Discipline and Punish that punishment is the most hidden part of the penal process. Specifically, punishment of the body is hidden. Public execution no longer exists as spectical, prisoners are not paraded in front of the people. They are secreted away. As such, "the expiation that once rained down upon the body must be replaced by a punishment that acts in depth on the heart, the thoughts, the will, the inclinations (16)." 

bin Laden was not a prisoner in the traditional sense. His compound acted as a self-imprisonment, but he was not in the custody of a government. What's more, the purpose of his punishment was not to change him or even his followers. It had more to do with influencing American citizens. 

Focusing for a minute on what we can see: the eye immediately goes to Clinton's face, her hand over her mouth in tense shock. Is this the coup de grâce? Is something going wrong? Is it simply difficult to watch? My eye then goes to Obama, face tense, gaze unwavering. His jaw is clenched a bit. Obviously something dramatic is happening. The other faces are less expressive but no less engaged. Every eye is zeroed in on what is before them 

The other thing we see is the space: the Situation Room. A place most people never see, but at this moment, the public is allowed to glimpse a moment at the time of punishment. What we see here is not the condemend, but the punishers. The executioner is not masked; instead, the hood is pulled up to reveal heads of state in a photo that will become indicative of the moment. More than likely, this will end up in text books, the illustrative photo of a brief victory in a neverending war. The executioner lifted up for posterity.

The release of this photo is preceeded by Obama's speech, which offers this: “But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.”

Americans seem united in that room. We never saw the execution, but the emotional pull of those expressions pull us in. We as a whole, as Americans, are what matters. To release a photo or show the raid proper puts the emphasis on the spectacle of the body, which would be determimental to the very project of counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorism doesn't just hunt terrorists, it also solidifies the idea of our standing as a nation and of each and every one of us as human beings who need to be saved. What better way to gather the national family around the dinner table than with a photo that tells a story of derring do? It becomes more like another story we are told that defines American values: the mth of the cherry tree. "I cannot tell a lie," says Washington. He never said this. But that doesn't matter because the point was never historical. It was mythological, establishing a value system for Ameircans.

bin Laden's death does remove a horrible person from the earth, but more than anything, it reinforces our understanding of what those who are not the condemned should hold in their hearts and minds. That's pretty fucking fascinating. I won't get into here whether I think those values are good or just. My purpose here is mainly to write a bit about this moment in time and the images we were allowed to see and what that might signify.

Things I Read While Writing This


Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault

Something that is not pretentious to clear your palate

I have this song on my workout playlist, but I always forget it's there, and I start giggling a lot when I hear it. 

A Few More Thoughts on Kateb

A funny thing about academic writing is that a lot of it is done in pieces. You write a chapter for a conference or for a journal and at some point these get mashed into one text and you have a book. This means that you have the option of reading a book out of order, or of just reading one chapter. That said, when you read an entire book you get to the end and maybe have a little sympathy for the author.

I said yesterday that I was concerned that Kateb's writing comes across as very male. He turns to Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman to describe his ideal of the democratic individual. All of these authors are pretty progressive about things like gender and concepts like the hermaphrodite are not unfamiliar to them, though even in their balanced view of the world, the male side generally gets the benefit of the doubt. I think Kateb himself is likely very progressive about these things, but I wish he would think harder about the implications of the word individual because I'm sure the moment we hear the words American Individual, Homer Simpson is probably more likely to pop into our heads instead of say Kima from The Wire. In other words, Kateb's individual is more than likely white and male.

I further suspect that the individual comes from a privileged position because Kateb finds groups to be the root of most evil (I would say all, but I wouldn't ascribe to anyone so thoughtful such an all-encompassing word.) Kateb is consistent on this point - he finds identifying oneself with any group to be problematic, whether that group is a nation, an army, or a group with some commonality. I see his point - he wants to avoid absorption into the whole and the potential for docility that comes with joining others in solidarity (what a rational choice person might call a collective action problem.)

This is something that only someone in an insular academic setting for their entire life could possibly come up with because they really haven't had to deal with the day-to-day bullshit of systems that consistently kick you in the ass because you are female or black or brown or someone who pursues some alternate lifestyle. Those of us who do feel it daily find hope in groups and see them as necessary to finding individual freedom and rights. Kateb, I'm sure, would say that these groups are okay because they are either a) temporary or b) in contestation of government. But the groups I'm thinking of are ongoing in a fight and not necessarily against government. I myself identify as a feminist and see this as a group I will be a part of for my entire life and what I fight isn't necessarily part of a government institution.

Kateb spends a few pages on Foucault in a way that is interesting to me. He brushes everyone's favorite theorist of docile bodies aside because he thinks that Foucault doesn't understand the complexity of the individual. In other words, Kateb's individual isn't docile because his individual is too complex to be formed by being named an individual. I think quite the opposite. Foucault sees the individual as so complex that docility requires a certain internal strength to see where one is being defined and to slowly undo the systems of oppressive definition within ourselves.

Which is also why I think groups can be important to the individual. How do you recognize that you are docile? Perhaps when you talk with a friend and recognize you manifest the same behaviors that have contributed to your oppression. Foucault encourages critical thinking within the individual and part of that critical thinking, I would argue, is to recognize what disciplines you and those like you adopt.

I wonder if Kateb is weak on this point because he sees the only real threat to the individual as governmental. Other individual-threatening entities, in particular the corporation, enter no where into his argument. I’m not the only one who notices this – Thomas Dumm notes, “His [Kateb’s] admirable faith in the capacity of all of us in our own ways to participate in liberal democratic culture sometimes operates as a rhetoric for evading a confrontation with the most damaging conditions created and sustained by its corporate underpinnings (33).”

Where I do fall in love with Kateb, though, is at the end of The Inner Ocean when he talks about Whitman. I think I mentioned before that I love Whitman. He's so earthy and weird. I can't help but feel moved by Whitman. Kateb writes about Whitman in the final chapter and he is so very earnest and honest. Here his individual takes on some depth. Kateb's Whitman-reading individual loves life and seeks it out in themselves and in others, and in doing so leaves room for all manner of being. This I love and can totally endorse.

Things I Read While Writing This
The Inner Ocean by George Kateb
united states by Thomas L. Dumm
I also thought about Foucault in a very general way, but didn't think about one particular text.

Something that is not pretentious to clear your palate: