And even in fiscally responsible, small-government terms, the (in)security state is not providing a return on investment insofar as security is concerned (it is however, providing quite a lovely return on investment to the various contracting companies that staff the bureaucracy).

Struggling to meet your deadline? Get your work done on time by experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Meet my deadline

THERE ARE TWO PROMPTS AND 4 RESPONSES REQUIRED.
here is the first prompt and first two posts
Foucault argues that in contemporary societies, power is exercised through discipline rather than repression, that social control is achieved through knowledge. Is he right?
What do you think about the long-term consequences of the expansion of state surveillance?
post 1
“The Panopticon is a marvelous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it, produces homogenous effects of power” (Foucault 202). I think Foucault posits a very valid claim that in contemporary societies, citizens are subjected to the field of visibility, and who knows it assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relations in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection” (Foucault 203). The act of surveillance atomizes and disindividualizes power” (Foucault 202). This seems to make it appear as more natural and needed. Therefore people accept it as a natural part of their landscape. On top of that, the false or exaggerated narratives about danger and threat that we self-download allow us to cognitively justify and allow the collection of data. “The stakes are high: an enduring lesson from history is that moments of crisis often recast the roles of governments and the rights of individuals” (SSRC 1). The concerning part that I have learned from this week`s content is that the overstepping of people`s rights continues even after the events that were used to justify a shift toward an authoritative surveillance-based state continue! So much can be done with data! Even if you are not doing anything wrong. Data is at the heart of analysis. Destructive strategies to control and dominate can be formed from said analyses. “Thanks to its mechanisms of observation, it gains efficiency and in the ability to penetrate into men`s behavior; knowledge follows the advances of power, discovering new objects of knowledge over all the surfaces on which power is exercised” (Foucault 204). The data that is collected about all of us clearly seems to be of value! As Foucault asserts, “The Panopticon is a privileged place for experiments on men, and for analyzing with complete certainty the transformations that may be obtained from them” (Foucault 204).
The long-term consequences fall in line with the implications that Foucault outlines. The discipline mechanism: a functional mechanism that must improve the exercise of power by making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for a society to come” (Foucalt 209) is concerning because it is one that thrives on a sense of fear. It is also one that is hard to see, thus allowing it to flourish. Also, the relation of a state to its citizens, when state officials successfully mobilize fear is very concerning because “states often justify their expectations of obedience and loyalty, as well as their establishment of surveillance, police, intimidation, detention, and the repression of criticism and dissent, by appeal to their role as protectors of citizens” (Young 7). This leads to a very low chance of constructive rebellion and social justice movements. Also, this fear creates homogeneity, limits creativity, and creates an echo chamber of beliefs. It will also uphold the current power dynamics and status quo and continue to “strengthen the social forces – to increase production, to develop the economy, spread education, raise the level of public morality; to increase and multiply” (Foucalt 208). Unfortunately, it is one that severely disadvantages marginalized groups. It will embed us civilians deeper into the role of the subordinate citizens that live in the guise of democracy. As said in the “You are Being Watched Video”, our privacy is invaded on an industrial scale and surveillance is a means of control and suppression. A rhetorical question that really got me is … would the Civil rights movement be able to flourish if those leading it were heavily surveilled the way people are now …? It is clear that this form of power is internalized in many societies. It will take a huge societal paradigm shift to recognize the hold it has on us. This shift will be especially important for those who are unknowingly upholding this system politically. “Power has its principle not so much in person as in certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caughts up” (Foucault 202). This perfectly captures the architecture of our society and how it creates a surplus of destructive power.
post 2
“Fear eats at the soul of democracy” (Keane).
As someone who has no recollection of 9/11, it is sometimes really difficult for me to wrap my head around the fact that this one event has done so much to curtail the constitutional protections that Americans should enjoy. The War on Terror is the reason why we have no 4th amendment rights at the border. The War on Terror is the reason why the National Security Agency has the unofficial motto of “collect everything.” And the War on Terror is the reason why we had drone strikes on Americans without due process.
Though the official war in Afghanistan is over, the mass surveillance programs are not. What is peculiar then, is the scramble to find the next target. The CIA (finally?) has a China Mission Center and the DOJ is chasing Chinese economic espionage in the US (supposedly—though the track record does not show that). DHS calls white supremacists the greatest terror threat. And all the intelligence agencies are helping in the Ukraine war effort (though the Biden Administration stresses that the US is not at war with Russia). With the exception of the war in Ukraine, it is clear that these agencies will continue to use their expanded (extraordinary) authorities to chase some (allegedly) nefarious target.
However, because the narrative behind Chinese economic espionage or white supremacy is not as black and white, totalizing, and essentializing as jihadist terrorism. People, who were already ambivalent about the encroachment of the security state, are even less incentivized to keep up with the news on what the Intelligence Community is doing. In many ways, as Young (2003) suggests, the American people have acquiesced to the role of the protected, without questioning whether or not the protector is doing its job. I would personally argue that the (in)Security State is not providing a net positive for the American public. And even in fiscally responsible, small-government terms, the (in)Security State is not providing a return on investment insofar as security is concerned (it is however, providing quite a lovely return on investment to the various contracting companies that staff the bureaucracy).

Struggling to meet your deadline? Get your work done on time by experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Meet my deadline


Comments

Leave a Reply