Louis Althusser was a French philosopher and theorist, best known for his contributions to structuralist thought within a Marxist frame. In one of his most renowned essays, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, he introduces readers to the idea of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) and its counterpart, the Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs). 

Within his frameworks, readers come to understand these two concepts in a deeper sense. We learn the ways in which societal mechanisms and frameworks have come together to maintain our current state powers and perpetuate rigid and dominated ideologies. 

Within the repressive state apparatus are the “..police, military, the prison system, and government…” (1284). Althusser says that these systems “…attain their power not by means of explicit coercion or force but through implicit consent realized in ‘accepted practices’” (1284). Inside the labyrinth of the RSA, we are made to understand that there is a necessary means for the RSAs to exist; that without these systems, chaos would wreak havoc on our world. Therefore, there is an agreed upon contract to give these systems authority, sometimes unquestionable authority. This can potentially turn dangerous as it increasingly limits people’s ability to think for themselves and exercise their right of intellectual curiosity. RSA’s ultimately suppress dissenting voices. 

Conversely, ISAs can be a little more flexible. They consist of “…churches, schools, the family courts, political parties, the unions, the media, the sports and the arts..” (1284). One may think that abandoning these values might come easier than simply ignoring the rules and order stemming from the RSAs, such as the police. In the ISA organization, you are led to believe that you are often free to choose whether or not you pursue higher education, practice religion, or are active in the media, etc. But living in such a multifaceted world, it has become increasingly difficult for the average person to choose a different path. When you try and choose to detach yourself from the ISAs, you risk being viewed as uneducated, sinful, immoral or just downright “weird”. This social crucifixion of your reputation can push one right back to the unyielding chains of the ISAs disguised as malleable free will. 

These two entities are not always separate organizations existing in a vacuum however. Oftentimes, the ISA is needed to condition us to come to the point of widespread social agreement regarding the role of RSAs. Althusser specifically points out schools as the ultimate ISA in the modern era as this is where children are modified to learn beyond just the basic core subjects. Children are subconsciously trained to behave in the “correct” etiquette such as: needing permission to speak, to use the bathroom and having a highly rigid and routine schedule. Children are also introduced to social hierarchical structures where teachers sit atop with unquestionable authority on their side. Through reading Althusser, we come to understand that as these children begin to transform into fully formed adults, these subconscious behaviors are ultimately recast as blind obedience to the RSAs.

In Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, she essentially discusses how the oppressed have been forced to accept and believe what the oppressors shove down their throats; whether it be different literature/studies or social structure, etc. Spivak states that there was a “codification of Hindu Law (2002).” She expands on this, stating that there’s an unsettling division between the local, now-alternative tradition of Sanskrit “high culture” and the disciplinary formation in Sanskrit studies resulted from the establishment of a variant of the British system; as aforementioned, the legal project’s epistemic violence was matched by the cultural answers produced by reputable intellectuals in the former (2003).

Spivak also makes a point to discuss the “episteme” and how historiography always aligns with the oppressor (“winner”) rather than showcasing the perspective of those that are oppressed and their insurgencies; Spivak furthers this argument by expanding on the “Subaltern Studies group”. The Subaltern Studies group focuses rethinks “Indian colonial historiography from the perspective of the discontinuous chain of peasant insurgencies during the colonial occupation (2004).”

Furthermore, the Subaltern Studies group, as aforementioned, attempts to “rethink Indian colonial historiography from the perspective of the discontinuous chain of peasant insurgencies during the colonial occupation (2004).” Essentially, they address how “the phased development of the sub­altern is complicated by the imperialist project (2004).” The perspective from the peasant insurgencies has such limited media, since it isn’t ever a prominent or a “significant side” to cover. Nobody wants to know about the “dirt”, history is all about who won what and more often than not, the oppressors are the “winners”. I found it interesting that there’s a group dedicated to the study of rethinking historiography from the peasant insurgency perspective. Moreover, “It is, rather, to continue the account of how one explanation and narrative of reality was established as the normative one. A comparable account in the case(s) of Cen­tral and Eastern Europe is soon to be launched (2002).” Spivak notes that there is essentially one narrative that is established and it’s the one that everyone knows. It becomes standard knowledge when it comes to that event and any other narratives are pushed into its shadow. I was very excited to see the mention of “Silencing Sycorax: On African Colonial Discourse”, as I dissected it in one of my previous classes, and it led to me seeing Spivak’s work in a different light as well. (I’d be super interested in any recommendations for similar works such as “Silencing Sycorax” if you know of any!)

Spivak’s “Can The Subaltern Speak?” outlines the epistemic violence that oppressed people undergo as a result of their oppressors determining the knowledge that they must know and deciding the kinds of works that they must value. In the case of India under British rule, Spivak lists the ways that the Anglo colonizers shaped and changed knowledge in South Asia through the laws that they imposed, replacing the complex “polymorphous Hindu Law” that was already established with a disjointed codification that was coordinated to the Eurocentric “binary vision,” the intentional cultivation of a new class of colonial subjects, acting as interpreters between the colonizer and the colonized (subjects who looked like the OPPRESSED but had and shared the knowledge of the OPPRESSORS), and the prioritization of Eurocentric literary works, reforming the preexisting disciplinary formation in Sanskrit studies to an alternative focus on “high culture” Sanskirt. Even in the sector of education and the pursuit of knowledge, the dominating force intervenes itself to maintain control and power within its colonies.

As a product of being a colony and having a dominant entity dictate every aspect of their life, the oppressed societies develop distinct classes and groups. I have already noted the first that Spivak portrays: the indigenous interpreter. More importantly, Spivak also illustrates a class that she derives from Gramsci: the Subaltern: the people on the bottom of the social hierarchy. These bottom-of-the-barrel people are characterized by their lack of access to knowledge, low education, and inability to “speak” for themselves. As the people on the bottom of the society, they do not possess the means to combat against oppression, improve their lives, and reform society. This brings up the question: Can the Subaltern ever speak for themselves?

I think that the answer for this comes from Fanon’s “The Wretched Of The Earth.” In this literary piece, he describes a particular and special individual, “While at the beginning the native intellectual used to produce his work to be read exclusively by the oppressor, whether with the intention of charming him or of denouncing him through ethnic or subjectivist means, now the native writer progressively takes on the habit of addressing his own people” (1363). Similarly to Gramsci’s concept of the Organic Intellectual, an individual who arises from a particular class and has the potential/ability to speak and connect to the masses, the Native Intellectual arises from oppressed spaces. While the majority of colonized people either undergo a “cultural freeze” or defer to the colonizers (typically the “educated”), the Native Intellectual sets himself/herself/themself apart by developing new works and literature and being able to go against the colonized frame. In a way, they’re able to transcend their restricted state by being able to ultimately and truly connect to the people who he/she/they represent. The Native Intellectual, like the Organic Intellectual, has the capacity to either push against the imposed Hegemonic Structure or nudge their society towards a separate, existing Hegemony.

I believe that these kinds of individuals have the power to influence the masses and has the drive to unite his/her/their people together. Spivak brings up an incredible and valid point: the Subaltern will never be able to speak. However, I think that Fanon provides a genuine response and possible solution to her point: there is still that possibility of an individual to arise and bring about change, a Native Intellectual who, through their words, speeches, and works, can speak for the Subaltern.

I think that the success of revolutions and the influence of movements are extra proof of that.

Michel Foucault’s article, “Society Must be Defended,” explores the relationship between power, knowledge, and society through an analysis of the mechanisms and strategies of power deployed in modern societies. These lectures mark a crucial stage in Foucault’s development of his theory of power and his genealogical method. Foucault begins by examining the emergence of modern forms of power, particularly focusing on the shift from sovereign power to biopower and the disciplinary mechanisms that underpin it. He states “Beneath that great absolute power, beneath the dramatic and somber absolute power that was the power of sovereignty, and which consisted in the power to take life, we now have the emergence, with this technology of biopower, of this technology of power over “the” population as such, over men insofar as they are living beings. It is continuous, scientific, and it is the power to make live. Sovereignty took life and let live. And now we have the emergence of a power that I would call the power of regularization, and it, in contrast, consists in making live and letting die.” (Pg. 1445). He argues that power operates not only through overt repression but also through the regulation and control of populations, institutions, and knowledge production. Central to Foucault’s analysis is the concept of “biopower,” which refers to the regulation of populations and individuals through techniques aimed at maximizing life and controlling bodies. He traces the historical development of biopower, exploring its emergence in the context of modern states and the rise of disciplinary institutions such as prisons, schools, and hospitals. Throughout the lectures, Foucault emphasizes the interconnectedness of power and knowledge, highlighting how systems of knowledge production serve to reinforce and perpetuate existing power structures. He examines the role of various discourses, including medicine, criminology, and political theory, in shaping our understanding of society and legitimizing forms of power. Moreover, Foucault explores the ways in which resistance and struggle are intertwined with mechanisms of power. He argues that power is not rigid or unidirectional but is constantly contested and negotiated by individuals and social groups. “Society Must be Defended” offers a rich and complex analysis of power dynamics in modern societies, challenging traditional notions of power and offering new insights into the ways in which power operates at both macro and micro levels. Foucault’s article invites readers to critically interrogate the relationship between power, knowledge, and social order, opening up new avenues for understanding and resistance.

The interesting ideas of Fanon and what he thought was in the essay starts with stereotypes with both colors whites and black people. The black subject themselves as negor’s. Fanon interacts as “In particular, Fanon tells of his own struggle to make sense of the white world and to address it on its own rationalist terms, only to be rejected on the basis of his race and driven back by white prejudice to an antirations, primitivist stance. Then, realizing that such primitivism was taken by whites as simply verifying their own stereotypical attitudes toward blacks, Fanon began to explore the cultural achievements of African civilization, finally achieving a dialectical resolution between Western rationalism and Africanist primitivism”(1351). The strategies that identify the problems that Fanon does as he said “growing bolder, I jostled him and told him point-blank, “Get used to me, I am not getting used to anyone.” I shouted my laughter to the stars”(1355).  According to Fanon he mentions that “colonial domination, because it is total and tends to oversimplify, very soon manages to disrupt in spectacular fashion the cultural life of a conquered people. This cultural obliteration is made possible by the negation of national reality, by new legal relations introduced by occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs to outlying districts by colonial society, by expropriation, and by the systematic enslaving of men and women. The essay ends with “I feel in myself a soul as immense as the world, truly a soul as deep as the deepest of rivers, my chest has the power to expand without limit. I am a master and I am advised to adopt the humility of the cripple. Yesterday, awakening to the world, I saw the sky turn upon itself utterly and wholly. I wanted to rise, but the disemboweled silence fell back upon me, its wings praralyzes. Without responsibility, straddling Nothingness and Infinity, I began to weep” (1360). The new changes “on the ground” and the culture changes that Fanon mentions is that “After national free: dom has been obtained in these conditions, there is no such painful cultural indecision which is found in certain countries which are newly indepen-dent, because the nation by its manner of coming into being and in the terms of its existence exerts a fundamental influence over culture. A nation which is born of the people’s concerted action and which embodies the real aspirations of the people while changing the state cannot exist save in the expression of exceptionally rich forms of culture”(pg,1366). 

“Society Must Be Defended” was my personal introduction to Foucault. I had very little knowledge of him before this class, but I believe that I have emerged from our simple discussion with a basic understanding of his principles and arguments in his essay. What struck me most about “Society” is his theory of biopolitics and the “new” right of “make live and let die” (1441). This new guiding principle of society, since its initial development in the 18th century, is the result of innovation and modernization of medicine, government, and all other forms of technology. As society develops these innovations, the more people will be born and people will be less vulnerable to disease and illness. Biopower is enforced to man-as-species, meaning that this authority is imposed over individuals if they are a part of a collective. Through “massifying” man does biopower get its strength. Take, for example, the anti-LGBT rhetoric and regulation pushed by the United States government (e.g. men who have sex with men cannot donate blood, gender-affirming care, etc.) and examine it through Foucault’s theory. I would argue that a large portion of these acts stem from the fact that growing acceptance of gender and sexual exploration — alongside the cost of living — is leading to fewer people having children and producing the next generation of Americans. As I understand Foucault, his theory of biopower is applicable since the hegemony of the traditional nuclear family dynamic that promoted reproduction not just as an achievement in life, but also as one’s duty to their country and their values. When this hegemony is threatened through individualization, the masses are cut off from “life” and are essentially left to die. 

What I find to be so fascinating about this argument is how it takes place. Rather innocuous sounding at first, censuses, mortality rates, birth rates, abilities and disabilities, all contribute to the creation of biopower. When humans are turned into data that can be manipulated, biopower rises as a serious threat to individualism. When the one-child policy was still active in China, it was to stop overpopulation. However, when the data showed that they were on a path to extinction with the lower birth rates, that policy was reversed and tax breaks and other financial benefits were offered to the people. The danger of biopower is the separation of humanity. People become rats in a laboratory and are constantly monitored and exploited in the name of the future and the preservation of society. 

Through his study of “biopolitics” and “disciplinary” power, Michel Foucault illustrates how power functions in society. The primary differences between these two types of power are found in their methods, goals, and subjects of control. According to Foucault the first form, disciplinary power, is the careful control of people inside certain establishments like hospitals, jails, and schools. It is focused on using processes of monitoring, standardizing, and individualization to shape bodies, minds, and behaviors. The panopticon, a hypothetical prison design with a central observation tower that allows for continuous surveillance without the convicts knowing they are being observed, is one of the most famous examples of disciplinary power. Discipline authority works in this manner to shape and manage the person in restricted areas, encouraging compliance by strict regulations and hierarchical structures. However, Foucault’s concept of biopolitics moves the emphasis from controlling individual behavior to managing entire communities. This type of power encompasses wider societal issues including health, demography, and population well-being in addition to its influence within particular institutions.

Biopolitics itself is the study of population regulation, statistical analysis, and the application of laws intended to control society’s collective existence. Biopolitical tactics then focus on the health and vitality of entire populations rather than individual bodies and behaviors. An example of a biopolitical campaign would be theanti-smoking campaigns run in America. These campaigns use a variety of instruments, such as laws, educational initiatives, and public policies, to affect the general population’s health. Biopolitics is the study of population regulation, statistical analysis, and the application of laws intended to control society’s collective existence. When it comes to disciplinary authority, the focus is on the small scale, where organizations carefully control the behavior and identities of individuals. This is more so similar to a school setting where tight regulations, hierarchical structures, and surveillance tools are used to enforce disciplinary power. In addition to teaching, the aim is to mold each student’s conduct and thinking by enforcing discipline and conformity. With teachers acting as the watchers, schools have a panopticon-like atmosphere that functions as a form of disciplinary power. It is the constant observation that shapes people’s behavior and promotes compliance and self-regulation.

On the other hand, biopolitics addresses the health of entire populations by zooming out to the macro level. Campaigns for public health place more emphasis on the statistical patterns and demographics of smoking in society than they do on specific smokers. Policies are designed to affect the way people behave as a group and their overall health; this is a change from carefully controlling people inside of institutions to managing the health of society as a whole. A more expansive and abstract type of power is embodied by biopolitics, when governance transcends the boundaries of particular institutions to include the more general aspects of a population. The study of biopolitics and disciplinary authority by Foucault offers a theoretical framework for us to comprehend how power systems have evolved into contemporary society. It reveals how our idea of government is evolving from a narrowly focused, institution-centric system to one that is more broadly focused and population-oriented. With the use of these ideas, Foucault challenges us to consider the complexities of power critically, showing the ways that we manage the well-being and health of entire populations within larger societies as well as the lives of individuals inside institutions.

The immediate line that stands out in Foucault’s argument is “the right to make live and let die” (1441). Foucault’s argument is that as society continues to increase modernization there is greater development of power in biopolitics. As society continues to develop there are new obstacles that are brought to light. Biopolitics involve the ability to understand and sometimes decide who controls birth rates, mortality rates. This is significant because politics decides whether it is legal or illegal to get abortions for example. Biopolitics is sort of where the government is having control over people’s bodies. This is brought to life because in the past medical buildings and hygiene didn’t exist. Therefore, mortality rates were higher in the past compared to the present. Now there are medical and hygiene protocol in place. His argument says that biopolitics include mechanisms. These mechanisms introduced by biopolitics are, forecasts, statistical estimates, and overall measures. This means that through these estimates people can control who can live. An example of this is the pandemic.  The problem was controlled with estimates about daily reports of how many people had covid and passed away from covid. So biopolitics tracks these estimates based on actual findings and were able to prevent a high mortality rate. During covid, people were social distancing, wearing face masks, and sanitizing. People worldwide were put on lockdown. We couldn’t go outside. So biopolitics is similar as to what happens when there is discipline and lack of discipline. Someone who isn’t disciplined about their body wouldn’t know the after-health effects. Compared to someone that is disciplined about their body, can live a longer life.
The nineteenth century is talked about in Foucault’s argument. The idea of sovereignty. The king or queen had most power. The people listened to sovereign power. However, this could be dangerous because people are entitled to racial prejudice. Sovereign power controls who get to live and who dies. There is some sense of control because the wealthy people often get what they want because they have money. This leaves poor people to suffer because they are not wealthy. There is some racial prejudice because people of color are often poor whereas white people are wealthier. This is the sovereign power because they decide upon the individuals. They decide what people do. They control the rights of the minority. Most of the power is shared amongst wealthy people. People who make the laws and structures depend on that power. Then people must abide by the laws and decide how to live in their own body and mental health. This is biopolitics.

As promised, here is what to expect for the midterm exam on Monday 3/18:

• after some thought, I’ve revised the contract terms for the midterm downward, eliminating the big essay. Here are the new requirements:
  • A contract: complete nine short answers (there will be at least 12 to choose from)
  • B contract: complete seven short answers
• we will review for the exam by surveying the study questions on our site: come to class on 3/14 with questions in hand so we can use the time efficiently
• all devices and books will be put away prior to the exam, and all responses will be entered onto “blue books” I will provide. Each student can bring one page of notes (handwritten or typed on one side). If you elect to bring notes, you must submit the sheet with your exam, with your name on it.
• make arrangements to be present and be on time on Monday 3/18 without fail. Unless there is a documented excuse (serious illness, injury, or other serious problem), there will be no make-ups.
• as stated in the contract, students who give satisfactory answers for the minimum number of questions for your contract will pass. Students who write unsatisfactory exam maybe downgraded to a lower contract (i.e., from an A to a B or B to a C).

Feel free to ask questions or express concerns via email or in class.

In “The Wretched of the Earth”, philosopher Franz Fanon brings forth the idea of the “native intellectual” (1363). The native intellectual is someone who has emerged out of a nation that has been decimated by imperialism, where its true culture is at risk of being completely wiped out by the culture of the colonizer (usually a Eurocentric/Western culture). The native intellectual serves a very important social role in the struggle against colonial oppression. There are also strong attempts to embrace a culture that may no longer exist in a postcolonial world. Having a strong intellect or culture allows oppressed individuals to declare their right to exist in a world that suppresses their identities. Initially, the native intellectual may have catered his work to appeal to the eyes of the colonizer. This most likely resulted from an awareness that they can be lost within Western culture. By turning his attention to his own people, the intellectual can correctly capture the struggles that they face on a daily basis. A new facet of their culture can emerge from their struggle and fight for their identities. The native intellectual creates forms of expression that can cater to the masses, and give the people something that they can recognize as their own.

The work of the native intellectual can create a sort of “national consciousness” among the people of a colonized nation, which can be defined as a shared sense of national identity. A strong sense of national identity allows the emergence of nationalism within a region, which is the creation of a national identity separate from its oppressors. Having a shared national identity, as well as developed nationalism, allows oppressed people to assert their right to exist and fight for their place in the world against imperial domination.

A main issue that can arise is the valuing of a native culture within the framework of a dominant imperial force. For example, this can be seen in the presence of stereotypes in media, which always display an oppressed person in relation to their oppressor rather than as their own person. They are constantly reminded of their “otherness” rather than the achievements and beauty within their native culture. Through the process of decolonization, these people can see themselves in a new light, away from the perils of imperialism. The native intellectual works diligently to undo this framework and spread a strong sense of national identity within his culture.