Abstract
The concept of power is one of the highly debated issues in contemporary society. Power emanates from a position that can influence people both positively and negatively. In the field of sociology, power is viewed as a probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests. Various individuals are instrumental in the society in advancing knowledge about the concept of power. One of these individuals is Foucault, whose discussion on the concept of power sparks some theoretical debates. His main focus is how and by what means power is exercised. According to him, power is a construct that any society cannot avoid because it is always exercised and calculated.
Foucault has been instrumental in shaping the understanding of power and seems to dispute an analysis of various actors who use power as a tool of coercion and the idea that various individuals wield power. Two main types of power are outlined by Foucault, and they include, disciplinary power and bio-power. The concepts of disciplinary and bio-power are perhaps the most elusive and arguably the most compelling concepts Foucault has ever developed. He makes broad differentiation of the two concepts, citing the most relevant aspects addressed in each part. Most importantly, this differentiation makes people examine economic thought and other human sciences that are key in advancing relevant knowledge about modernity subjects.
Disciplinary Power
According to Foucault, power is not located at any specific point within the social structure. He also asserts that any individual does not possess power. Rather, it is viewed as a relation that is the productivity of truth and reality. Disciplinary power is exercised among individuals to provide them with various skills and attributes that are key in molding their characters in other ways (Foucault, 2021). For power to be achieved, Foucault maintains that there must be psychological strivings and people’s motivation. Further, this type of power is shaped by individualized effects in which the body is manipulated as a source of force. As a power function, discipline deeply looks at how the relational power operates and sustains its mechanism. To Foucault, disciplinary power is negative and depressing. However, he also argues that this type of power is not repressive but productive. In this view, through the application of disciplinary power, things are effectively done, and an outcome is achieved. Foucault is more interested in understanding how power operates under the systems of command.
Other than operating under the systems of command, other researchers argue that disciplinary power is shaped by the problems that were entirely brought by the industrial revolution. This led to the expansion and regulation of labor’s productive capacity both inside and outside the marketplace (Mackenzie, McGovern, Small, Hicks & Scurry, 2020). Contrary to this, Foucault asserts that disciplinary power is not centered in any state and market operates. Here, Foucault refutes the claims by various researchers that disciplinary power is a structure and an institution. In other words, it is not an attribute that belongs to an individual or a state.
According to Foucault, the main target of the disciplinary power is the soul as well as the productive capacities. For the soul, Foucault argues that disciplinary power is not an aspect of controlling and mobilizing normative regulations. These regulations are defined as values and standards that people must reach and maintain in performing certain tasks. For the productive capacities, Foucault believes that power is constructed and surrounds people within a network of scientific forms of marketing (Foucault, 2021). Further, through the application of disciplinary power, people are encouraged to compare correctly and evaluate themselves against various norms and standards. This makes this form of power appear more productive rather than repressive. In short, what Foucault tries to explain is that disciplinary power operates by making people do things by themselves rather than doing what other people want them to do. To expound more on this type of power, Foucault famously employs Bentham’s notion of the panopticon. This is a disciplinary concept brought to life in the form of a central observation tower placed within prison cells’ circle. A guard can see every cell and inmate from the tower, but the inmates cannot see into the tower. Prisoners will never know whether or not they are being watched (Galič, Timan & Koops, 2017). For Foucault, the panopticon notion largely depicts the aspect of discipline acquisition directed towards the inmates.
Although Foucault seems to celebrate the panopticon’s notion in regard to maintaining discipline, he argues that disciplinary power is instrumental in various aspects of life, such as supervising workers, putting beggars and idlers to work, and instructing school children (Foucault, 2021). This is different from sovereign-judicial power in that instead of emanating from a judge or a sovereign, disciplinary power circulates among the people as they form various significant relationships within the society. Wherever the disciplinary power is exhibited and produced, it regulates bodies. For example, discipline is used in education, hospitals, and prisons to structure its subjects.
Bio-Power
From the historical perspective, the bio-power concept appeared with the transformation of power in most Western societies. It emerged in the 17th century, but much of the changes were felt during the 19th century (Foucault, 2021). The judges’ ability to take or let life be transformed into society’s ability to manage the lives of people. Here, various ways of administering life were developed, and according to Foucault, this marked the new power over life. Over the years, similar bio-power fields have emerged to surround children in schools and patients in hospitals (Manna, 2021). The most significant concepts of power and knowledge work to ensure that individuals’ bodies are useful and docile.
According to Foucault, being a concept of power, bio-power controls the vital process in society. It is the form of power that keeps people alive. At first, he focuses on the assumption that disciplinary power tries to make people obedient and productive. He creates a political perception of the human body while also presenting useful insights on power and society. Therefore, the body must be trained so that it can conform to the type of power that will be administered. The origin of bio-power coincides historically with the multiplication and expansion of human sciences (Foucault, 2021). This body of sciences serves as the discourse of the emergence of this new concept of power.
For Foucault, bio-power is a technology of power for managing humans in large groups. The distinctive quality of this political technology is that it allows for the control of the entire population. In today’s society, the concept of bio-power is relevant for various areas of study such as punishment and sexuality, reproduction, and body transformation. For Foucault, sexuality has extraordinary importance, especially in the network of power relations (Árnason, 2018). It is through it that the essence of personality is identified. The main explanation is how sexuality ties with multiple technologies of power and bio-politics together with bio-power.
Within Foucault’s theoretical framework, bio-politics is closely related to bio-power, which refers to a specific mode of power relations. They form an integral feature and an essential aspect to the workings and make possible the emergence of modern society and other aspects such as capitalism (Kristensen, 2013). Through his bio-power concept, it is evident that Foucault significantly breaks away from the traditional political order altogether. Initially, the judicial power was in the monarch’s hands, which had the power to tell what is right and what is wrong. Additionally, the monarch had the power to take someone’s life (Chen, 2021). With a clear understanding of the concept of bio-power, there has been the creation of current legal norms in which human life is much protected, even if the scientific progress proves the exact contrary. With this regard, it is in the best interest of people to remain healthy while also ensuring their issue is effectively addressed through bio-power.
Covid-19 Responses with Foucault
The spread of Covid-19 grew to be the global news topic after it was first identified in 2019 in China. In an attempt to mitigate the adverse effects that the virus could present, several states have enhanced mechanisms such as a full range of restrictions and limitations that are instrumental in preventing the further spread of the virus (Lavazza & Farina 2020). While most of these restrictions are understood as having positive effects on limiting the spread of the virus, they have also limited people’s movement from place to place. For example, people have been denied the right to move from one country to another or even interact with people from other places. Furthermore, some of these government measures are associated with various effects, such as the feeling of loneliness, worries, and post-traumatic disorders (Giallonardo, Sampogna, Del Vecchio, Luciano, Albert, Carmassi & Fiorillo, 2020).In this regard, it can be argued that the virus itself and the measures of containing it have presented enormous cumulative effects on societies across many societies. It has become an international health crisis, with various nations putting all the measures to address the situation. Considering the economic costs, even great nations such as the United Kingdom have not successfully managed the virus.
Thinking through the spread of Covid-19 in the United Kingdom, the concept of disciplinary power can be applied in a broad perspective. One of the core functions that health systems have applied is surveillance. This includes traditional public health responses such as quarantine and contact tracing, with extended use of varied technologies such as data networks and big data analysis. According to Anderson (2020), some of Foucault’s ideas can present useful knowledge on effective measures that can be employed to avoid the further spread of Covid-19.
Seeing through the Foucauldian lens, the current situation in the United Kingdom is a perfect example of an element of disciplinary power. The disciplinary character of some of the government’s measures is a clear indication that disciplinary power is largely being applied in the current society. For example, the government has imposed quarantine to control the spread of the virus (Shah et al., 2020). As this might be the case, the disciplinary power functions based on creating minimal interactions among the people. This is an important aspect that, if keenly articulated, could help minimize the spread of the virus. To extend this comprehensive measure, the government has further restricted the international border crossings and the selected points in the state territories.
People have shown discipline when it comes to following these government rules. Another issue that is closely related to disciplinary power as far as Covid-19 in the United Kingdom is concerned is the discussion about which age group should be allowed to return to school. One of the aspects of agreements seems to delve into the fact that very young children are not supposed to attend school because they cannot maintain social distance within their school setting (Melnick & Darling-Hammond 2020). This points out that discipline is a long and gradual process that has its roots from childhood throughout the teenage years.
The disciplining power manifests itself through the government’s ability to control the bodily movement imposition of social distancing concept and expects all the people to obey these rules. With reference to Foucault, this is a clear indication that discipline is enforced with governmentality features. In the United Kingdom, the logic of discipline with regard to anti-corona virus measures is the rhetoric that various politicians have assumed that the lifting of the quarantine measures will depend on how the public obeys the measures that are already in use. Sometimes, the government developed a notion that “We are watching you,” which has been used as a perfect example of imposing further restrictions onto those under surveillance. People have to accept the idea that if measures are tightened further, it does not mean that the government and state leaders have made decisions by themselves, but because of bad decisions that people have made.
Concerning the application of the Foucauldian perspective on Bio-power, it can be observed that government regulates and controls populations through this concept. It is directly related to the well-being of populations, and as a result of this, any governance that is based on the concept of bio-politics calls for maximum attention, especially when addressing various diseases such as Covid-19. As the United Kingdom government pursues ways to effectively manage the virus, vaccination is one of the most applied strategies. In a broad perspective of this strategy, vaccination can be viewed as a bio-politics tool. Foucault explicitly expounds on the issue of governability. This concept can be defined as the sum of techniques and strategies applied by various institutions to make society governable (Foucault, 2021). For governability to be effectively executed, multiple actors in human conduct must be incorporated. These actors may include scientific experts, NGOs, media, and corporations. In this regard, it can be outlined that the outbreak of Covid-19 has been a critical issue affecting the state.
The various policies embraced by governments in fighting the coronavirus pandemic differ from region to region and country to country. Every government has packed a different bio-politics approach. For the United Kingdom case, herd immunity has been the policy that was applied in the early days of the outbreak of the pandemic (Colfer, 2020). However, this has ended up causing more infections among many people and created a serious problem. Covid-19 and the social distancing measures that have been utilized to reduce the spread of the disease have made the bio-political practices more visible than ever before. Governments have been subjected to generating new technological surveillance and control tools across particular segments of populations. Bio-politics is the management of populations through population–level regulations. In the current society, governments do not rely on disciplining specific individual bodies. They do confront populations as scientific, political, and biological problems that must be addressed (Sylvia IV, 2020). A good example is the government’s move to manage things like mortality and average life expectancy.
The coronavirus outbreak offers a chance to reflect on this aspect because it is evident how the virus has impacted various sectors of society. The outbreak of the coronavirus indeed lays bare the bio-power of the current moment. Although the United Kingdom has increased surveillance and control measures for the spread of the coronavirus, this occurs within a larger context of racial discrimination. The majority of people are asked to take responsibility for making life and death decisions for themselves. Despite the fact that these trends have been in existence for many years, it seems that the outbreak of corona has made these bio-political practices visible to a much wider portion of the population (Sylvia IV, 2020). The most significant role for the concept of bio-power, as advanced by Foucault, is offering an opportunity to shift public perceptions with regard to data surveillance.
The management of the spread of the coronavirus disease introduces individual bodies to a specific disciplinary relations network. As a form of a disorder, either real or imaginary, the coronavirus has a political correlative. For Foucault, any plaque is met by order, and it is basically when bodies are mixed. With regard to Covid-19, the various restriction placed upon the circulation of bodies indicates that these bodies ought to have a spatial positioning that is determined in advance. This means that their movement is determined by strict measures that may lead to punishment. This is a form of bio-power that is geared towards creating a docile body specific to the condition of the pandemic in which people fear being panelized, fined, or imprisoned (Foucault, 2021). A free circulation of bodies is perceived as a dangerous activity, especially during this time the country and the world at large are experiencing Covid-19.
In the contention of various interventions that various institutions and governments embrace, the management of the coronavirus today carries with the various forms of bio-power. This refers to the power of life, which according to Foucault, was developed in the 17th century. What is witnessed during the coronavirus spread is an enormous increase in bio-power, which controls, limits, and excludes the human body. What becomes clear in the kind of management put in place by the United Kingdom is that the country is still under the system of power. Much of this type of power was advanced in the advent of modernity by the political and medical management of various infections. The whole issue of Covid-19, from spread to the management of further spread, looks like a bio-political dream. By getting advice from the physicians, the government imposes dictatorship on the entire population (Sylvia IV, 2020). The governments get rid of all democratic obstacles, thus being in a position to govern the population.
Both the outbreak of the coronavirus and the United Kingdom’s reaction lay a platform in which human life becomes a subject of governance in contemporary political society. While the pandemic is seen as a global health crisis, it has also demonstrated the issues of democratic regulations by largely expanding from social matters to the inside of the human body. These perceptions of regulatory power are what Foucault terms bio-power. He views it as the power that exerts a positive influence on life and is concerned with promoting, optimizing, and subjecting comprehensive regulations. Ideally, when translated into various forms of implementation, bio-power results in bio-politics (Kristensen, 2013). In this regard, it constitutes measures through which a given state maintains control over its population by subjecting them to mandatory medical checkups. As the human body becomes securitized, their democratic repression expands, and according to Foucault, this can only be achieved through public support. Regarding the application of bio-power in the fight against the coronavirus, whether societies will allow the newly found relationship of these aspects or not, the fact remains bio-power is a decisive choice.
Foucault presents relevant knowledge on the issue of power. He explicitly outlines that power is constituted through accepted forms of knowledge, scientific understanding, and truth. He provides people with a powerful model for thinking about how to fight oppression. The most significant concepts of power that he outline are disciplinary power and bio-power. These concepts can further be described using the example of the Covid-19 outbreak in the United Kingdom.
References
Anderson, W. (2021). The model crisis, or how to have critical promiscuity in the time of Covid-19. Social Studies of Science.
Árnason, G. (2018). Foucault and the human subject of science. Springer International Publishing.
Chen, W. (2021). Theory of Judicial Power and Its Transformation. In Reform and Development of Powers and Functions of China’s Criminal Proceedings (pp. 49-184). Springer, Singapore.
Colfer, B. (2020). Herd‐immunity across intangible borders: Public policy responses to COVID‐19 in Ireland and the UK. European Policy Analysis, 6(2), 203-225.
Foucault, M. (2021). History of systems of thought. In Language, counter-memory, practice (pp. 199-204). Cornell University Press.
Galič, M., Timan, T., & Koops, B. J. (2017). Bentham, Deleuze and beyond: An overview of surveillance theories from the panopticon to participation. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 9-37.
Giallonardo, V., Sampogna, G., Del Vecchio, V., Luciano, M., Albert, U., Carmassi, C.,… & Fiorillo, A. (2020). The impact of quarantine and physical distancing following COVID-19 on mental health: study protocol of a multicentric Italian population trial. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11.
Kristensen, K. (2013). Michel Foucault on bio-power and biopolitics.
Lavazza, A., & Farina, M. (2020). The role of experts in the Covid-19 pandemic and the limits of their epistemic authority in democracy. Frontiers in public health, 8.
Mackenzie, E., McGovern, T., Small, A., Hicks, C., & Scurry, T. (2020). ‘Are they out to get us?’Power and the ‘recognition’of the subject through a ‘lean’work regime. Organization Studies.
Manna, S. S. (2021). Restructuring State, Society, and Human Development: Projecting Post-COVID Pandemic Equations. COVID-19 Pandemic Trajectory in the Developing World, 145.
Melnick, H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Reopening Schools in the Context of COVID-19: Health and Safety Guidelines from Other Countries. Policy Brief. Learning Policy Institute.
Shah, J. N., Shah, J., & Shah, J. (2020). Quarantine, isolation and lockdown: in context of COVID-19. Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences, 7(1), 48-57.
Sylvia IV, J. J. (2020). <? covid19?> The Biopolitics of Social Distancing. Social Media+ Society, 6(3).