Foucault highlights a significant concept here: that sovereignty is based on the authority to determine life and death. By this, he means that the ultimate power of a sovereign lies in the ability to control whether an individual should be put to death or permitted to live. In Foucault’s view, the right to determine life and death holds greater importance as it symbolizes the ultimate power and control wielded by the sovereign. The transition from take life or allow life to make live or let die makes me think of the sovereign as taking a power trip. There is a saying that its easy to die but it take more effort to live. The new model reflects this as ” It is the power to “make” live and “let” die ” insinuates that there is a mercy in permitting death and the living part is a torture. The difference between disciplinary power and biopolitics is their target demographic.  Disciplinary powers target individuals in order to control their interest of an existing system.The strategies used associated with this is surveillance and knowledge. In contrast, biopolitics targets the mass and track/ manipulates the ratios of birth – mortality, reproduction, fertility, longevity, etc. Disciplinary powers shape individuals to conform to societal norms. An example of this is a student raising their hand in a classroom to cue that the student wishes to speak. An example of biopolitics would be the ability to declare someone dead even when they remain “alive”. The view of death changed as it became perceived as something permanent or constant and therefore, normalized. Even today there are individuals that are desensitized to death because it is so common or they are largely exposed to it. In the end, both of these powers are combined in sexuality as it is the point where body and population meet, which calls for both discipline and regulation.

The term “double consciousness” relates to the idea that one sees themselves through two distinct points of view. One perspective being how they see themselves and an alternate view of how others see them. This is typically seen and/ or associated with the African American community. The alternate perspective heavily influences how black individuals think of themselves. In Du Bois’ Souls of Black Folk, the narrator recognizes that the lingering question behind a Caucasian’s tongue is “how does it feel to be a problem?” This question is peculiar because it insinuates that the individual has caused a disruption or disturbance. Of course, the only “crime” they have committed is being born black.  Accommodating both perspectives causes an internal struggle to balance remaining true to and embracing their blackness with assimilating to white standards in a white dominating society. The three elements of double consciousness consist of the veil, twoness, and second sight. The veil is a figurative representation of the color line. It works as a one- way mirror where white people infuse their own fabrications of black people, and it is reflected at them. They have the liberty to self-identify so the idea of racial subjugation is lost to them. A sense of twoness comes from the reality behind the veil of what life as an African American really is– the black world versus the constructs and false ideologies made to dehumanize them in the white world. Lastly, second sight is basically the equivalence to having a third eye. This permits African Americans to peek into the white world, which is supposed to be unobtainable.  

“One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls,
two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark
body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.”(846)

Should the black community be grateful for the insight into the white world? Does it somehow provide African Americans with a tool to withstand the veil?

Women in cinema were always portrayed as a love interest or an object of the leading man’s desires. Women were typically given roles to portray a sexy young woman who acts as a temptation for male characters or simply serve as eye candy for the audience. A prime example of this is the iconic Marilyn Monroe. Historically in cinema women have existed to make the leading male protagonist look good and add to his character by essentially acting as a trophy and emphasizing his masculinity.  Mulvey adds to this and declares that another way women are illustrated as inferior to men is through the phallocentric system. To suggests that women are envious of men because we lack a penis is blasphemous and uncredited. Especially considering that men feel threatened by us women for the very same reason, so much so that they must try to control or save us to make themselves feel better. This calls into question, who is really the superior sex if women inspire fear in men. However, in recent media these portrayals of women are adopted and continue to be carried on like a tradition. In 2022, the reality star Kim Kardashian wore the iconic Marilyn Monroe dress to the MET Gala which is an event where women basically compete to have the best look and all eyes on them. Another example of this culture shining through is a game of family feud. The question was Why might someone not be casted as a lifeguard? Answers varied from the actor being too old to not having the ideal body. Hollywood has kept this concept alive for decades. Mulvey relates scopophilia to Lacan’s Mirror Stage. Mulvey explains Lacan’s idea of recognition and misrecognition. Applying this to the cinema, “… demands identification of the ego with the object on the screen through the spectator’s fascination with and recognition of his like” (1958). This is a function of desires rooted from the ego. Essentially, the ego and sexual desires have found a common ground to produce fantasy for men as their repressed impulses are projected onto the performers. This projection allows the spectator to experience a sense of control and satisfaction through the protagonist’s actions as if they were performing the acts themselves. The characteristics of a male actor are seen as representing an idealized version of the self, rather than simply serving as an object of erotic gaze. 

Throughout the article focuses on scopophilia, and the pleasure men obtain from viewing and essentially objectifying women. The gaze on women is both pleasurable and threatening. The females lack of a penis ignites a fear of castration in men. “For this reason, the controlling male ego must attempt to escape the threat of castration evoked by the very gaze that gives it pleasure.” The attempts to regain control and combat fear involve voyeurism by demystifying her and either criticizing or saving her. Another tactic is to provide a substitute for the object of the fetish with something less frightening and more assuring. Overall, the focus on women is centered on how they make the men feel and what they inspire the men to do. The woman herself is insignificant on her own. Her purpose is to embody a sexually suggestive item and be visually appealing to either the characters or the audience.  

Overall, Mulvey discusses the significance of images in shaping the imaginary realm, recognition, misrecognition, identification, and the formation of subjectivity. It explores how the visual experience, particularly in cinema, plays a crucial role in the development of self-awareness and the relationship between image and self-image. The text also delves into the idea of the cinema as a space that allows for both temporary loss of ego and reinforcement of ego, as well as the production of ego ideals through the star system. It highlights the complex interplay between image, self-image, and ego in the cinematic experience. This stems from the female form as it poses a complex issue represented by the absence of a penis, suggesting a fear of castration. Womanhood is fundamentally defined by the lack of a penis, which is essential for establishing the castration complex and the symbolic order. Women are viewed as objects for male gaze and pleasure, inherently evoke unease due to their symbolic importance. The male subconscious deals with castration fears by either intensely scrutinizing women or idealizing them to ease anxieties about castration. This contrast is evident in film themes and the adoration of female celebrities. 

Intersectionality exist between the relationships of labor and product, distribution and social class, and elite intellectuals versus mundane intellectual. While reviewing Marx and Engels’ Capital, we dove into what Marx intended to highlight by establishing the difference between use value and exchange value. “A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses” (668). Here it is clear that the labor workers perform becomes a commodity and is perceived/ recognized as nothing more than the result. The quote emphasizes that the relationship between producers and their labor is exhibited as a social relation between the products, rather than the individuals themselves. A quote from The German Ideology supports this notion by relaying, “Thus in this double respect the worker becomes a slave of his object, first, in that he receives an object of labour, i.e., in that he receives work; and secondly, in that he receives means of subsistence. Therefore, it enables him to exist, first, as a worker; and, second, as a physical subject. The extremity of this bondage is that it is only as a worker that he continues to maintain himself as a physical subject, and that it is only as a physical subject that he is a worker.” (658) This vantage point draws attention to the duality of the nature of commodities, indicating that they are both tangible and imperceptible. The value of the object diminishes in retrospect to the effort put into producing product and capitalist systems erases the exchange of hands that delivered the product to you from the harvesters, manufacturers, packers, delivery guys, etc. The power does not lie within the laborers who manufacture and prepare these goods. Instead, the influence on society stems from what Gramsci refers to as the “elite intellectuals”. Gramsci states that people at a high level of social elaboration must be of a “certain technical capacity”, meaning that individuals within a society that has reached a high level of complexity and sophistication must possess a specific level of technical skills and capabilities. In order to navigate and contribute effectively to a socially elaborate environment, these elite intellectuals are expected to have the power, knowledge, and influence to act as a monopoly and control the direction of society’s future. Gramsci argues that traditional intellectuals are a separate entity in society that stand strong throughout the changes of history. The elite’s intellect permits them to maintain eloquence and control the distribution of goods and by extension the laborers. 

In “On Truth & Lying,” Nietzsche would likely discuss the relationship between the visual image or concept we have of a “rock,” the word “rock,” and an actual rock, in the context of his critique of language and truth. Nietzsche argues that language is a system of symbols that is detached from the actual world and is a product of human interpretation and perspective. He suggests that the mental picture or concept we have of a “rock” is a subjective interpretation of our sensory experiences and is influenced by our individual perspectives and cultural conditioning. Similarly, the word “rock” is a representation of this mental concept, but it is not the actual rock itself. Nietzsche raises a thought-provoking question regarding the suggestion for society if no human being can truly convey the truth through language. He highlights what he perceives as a problem, namely our tendency to label and categorize things to understand them. Nietzsche suggests that this sets us apart from the creatures of nature, as we prioritize constructing a general understanding rather than paying attention to the intricate details. For this “deception” is at the heart of language and cognition because he believes that language is a product of human interpretation and perspective. He suggests that language is inherently deceptive because it creates the illusion of capturing objective truth when, in fact, it is a human construct that can never fully represent the complexity of reality. To demonstrate he remarks, “ Every concept comes into being by making equivalent that which is non-equivalent. Just as it is certain that no leaf is ever exactly the same as any other leaf, it is equally certain that the concept ‘leaf’ is formed by dropping these individual differences arbitrarily, by forgetting those features which differentiate one thing from another, so that the concept then gives rise to the notion that something other than leaves exists in nature…” (p. 755) Nietzsche emphasize how we generalize the meaning of a leaf while overlooking the fact that not all leaves are identical. Nietzsche’s critique implies that our reliance on language and generalizations can hinder our ability to grasp the true complexities of the world that surrounds us. Therefore, he would argue that our foundation for knowledge is hindering our ability to truly comprehend nature and there is a fundamental disconnect between our mental representations and the words we use to describe them.