Categories
Uncategorized

Blog Post 3

In Foucault’s writings he claims that discipline can be applied by any political institution. This includes democracy, which we would like to think would be exempt from harsh discipline as all power lies in the hands of the people. However, this is not the case. Democracy does not prevent the exercise of discipline in all forms. It simply reroutes the discipline from a top down pyramid to a horizontal level in society. Instead of state agents performing random sweeps and instilling a state of fear. Discipline is exercised in a democratic society through the use of social paranoia. Everyone having an equal voice in society means that everyone can equally contribute to the criticization of any action that anyone takes. This means that instead of fearing about the secret police coming to your door to take you and your family away, you have an angry neighbor coming to complain that the grass in your yard is too long. The discipline comes not from stringent laws, but the freedom to criticize those who do not follow the norms of society. We see this on twitter and all over social media when people get cancelled for having storied pasts. We have so much freedom in democracy, we challenge all those who are different to us, where in authoritarianism no one speaks up for fear of being a thorn in the side of the beast that is the dictatorship.

Categories
Uncategorized

Mini-project 1

Hi! Please click on this link, and watch on YouTube, as you will need to access the description box down below the video.

DO NOT READ BELOW UNTIL YOU HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO! Thanks!

If my video was not clear enough, my point is that being enframed or enframing others is simply subjective, not objective, and can be both very positive, neutral, or very negative based on the person, so the person who is being enframed or enframing should be the judge. This little question was enframing, yet it was not negative, and it is my hope that it will actually help us all understand more about enframing, therefore being a positive use of enframing.

Categories
Uncategorized

The question of Progress

The question of technology and progress came up in this weeks discussion. Some believe that technology drives progress, while others believe that progress drives technology. I think that both sides in this are both at least partially correct. I also think that technology is a part of progress. I will break down why I think the way I do on this topic. I think that both sides of this argument are intertwined because the relationship of technology and progress is a circle. This is because we as humans are never satisfied with what we have. No matter our situation, we will always try to make what we have better, whether it be upgrading one’s car or buying a bigger, better house. Because of this desire to upgrade, we use our technology to “progress” our lives and make it better, which goes along that side of the argument. However, we would not have this desire to progress if we could not, in at least some form, imagine the technology required to get us there. If the technology is not in person, it makes us as humans strive to get what we want, which shows that 1, the very idea of technology is making us progress, and 2, this attempt to seek out the new technology will inevitably lead to some failures that show the inventor other forms of technology they were not anticipating. I believe that this ties into the other side of the argument, and completes the circle, and the wants of society combined with technology that already exist turn this circle into a metaphorical “wheel” that drives society forward, because without progress we are nothing. So in that way, both sides push against each other trying to gain an edge, but since they are a wheel, all they can do is unknowingly spin the wheel of society and drive us forward to tomorrow.

css.php