Thoughts on Foucault and Butler

Foucault uses the concept of the panopticon to demonstrate the extent of a governing body's ability to influence its people. If people are willing to govern themselves in accordance with the governing body's intentions and conventions, then the government need do very little governing. Given that there is no such thing as a system where the individuals govern themselves completely, it makes sense that Foucault does not promote the panopticon in a literal sense. There are very few instances where governments were able to govern without resorting to physical means of punishment or threats of violence. Our nation is an example of this. For the most part, we as Americans abide by rules and laws not necessarily because we think they are 'correct' or 'just' but more so to avoid the embarrassment or shame inherent in getting caught. This is a form of self-surveillance. If there were large goons with guns pointed at us, we would be more likely to act out of fear of actual violence than out of fear of embarrassment.

However, it is more than evident that many individuals within this American society of ours do not act in accordance with these principles of self-surveillance and fear of being socially ostracized. These individuals are either incapable of watching their own behavior or simply don't care. Hence, a governing body must step in and dictate exactly and explicitly how these individuals must be treated and how they should act. Knowledge itself is not enough. Now they must resort to the 'plague' system of supervision and overt threats.

My point is that these varying ways of governing individuals within a given society are also indicative of the ways individuals are gendered within society. When a girl is born, she is wrapped in a pink sheet. She is raised to be less aggressive and less outspoken than her male counterparts. She eventually learns to instill these behaviors and traits within herself. She watches herself and her body and her voice and her facial expressions to make sure she is acting in accordance with the governing body's prescribed notion of what it looks like to be a feminine female. It is imperative to enact these gender traits because not doing so would bring great shame and social rejection.

Of course, just as there are 'madmen' and criminals, so are there men and women who reject their prescribed gender roles. These individuals construct themselves differently--they become androgynous or too masculine for a female or too feminine for a man. These individuals either cannot help their inability to fulfill traditional or conventional roles, or they simply do not care. They want to live how they want to live and are not afraid of social rejection or shame. And just as the government punishes individuals who break the law, so does society punish individuals who break convention. There is no perfect society where everyone watches him or her self perfectly, nor should there be. The problem is not in whether or not people act in accordance with the law or convention of their own volition, but rather whether or not the laws and conventions are viable.