From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre-AT-phoblacht.net> Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:09:34 +0100 it is about the application of overwhelming psychological power aimed at the utter disintegration of the character and resilience of a personality - in Ireland it was successfully resisted by a counter power, that of the hunger strike ----- Original Message ----- From: "David McInerney" <borderlands-AT-optusnet.com.au> To: <foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 2:02 AM Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed > The (homo)sexualization of torture might be new to the Iraqis, but I doubt > it, mainly because the Iraqi torturers were trained by the US government in > the 1980s, as the famous 'Michael Jackson' scene in the film _Three Kings_ > points out. US-trained torturers throughout Latin America - notably in > Argentina under the military junta, but in many other places as well - used > all of these techniques, from the materials I've read. It's an attempt to > literally destroy the self, a technology of destroying the self, aimed at > destroying the capacity for resistance. > DM > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly-AT-hotmail.com> > To: <foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 8:54 AM > Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed > > > > hmm . . .since the panopticon is supposed to be *pan*optic, what we are > > seeing is the beginning of panoptics in Abu Ghraib, not its 'reversal'. > > Indeed, many of the complaints are precisely that the panoptic principles > of > > imprisonment were not observed, although there was a level of visibility, > in > > that prisoners themselves saw what was going on as did the guards, and so > > did their superiors (apparently), and copious photography was done, which > > has now made the practices of the prison visible to the world at large. > > The interesting question about Abu Ghraib is what sort of power is in play > > here? It would not seem to be disciplinary, but nor is it the sovereign > > power, as practised by Saddam Hussein, which involved marking bodies by > > violence etc. While the Americans certainly have inflicted brutality, this > > aspect of humiliation of inmates is something rather new. The use of dogs > > and homosexuality is an attack on the inmates via their cultural norms, > > doing things which were unspeakable to them, and as some inmates have > > pointed out, were things that the Ba'ath regime would not have done, > despite > > itssavagery. It seems like an attack at the level of culture, but more > than > > that I don't feel immediately able to characterise it, or ts objectives. > > Anyone else? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "max neill" <meneilu2-AT-student.ucsm.ac.uk> > > To: <foucault-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> > > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:34 AM > > Subject: Panopticon Reversed > > > > > > > > > > Any opinions on the apparent reversal of the 'Panopticon Effect' at Abu > > Ghraib, where now the gaze of the world is focussed on the jailers? > > > > > > "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we > > had > > > not conceived of" Gadamer > > > > > > > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005