D&P, "The Means of Correct Training"

 

We began with questions:

How is MF understanding the conception of individuality (184); specification/introduction of individuality (189)?

To whom does surveillance apply?  Does it always also apply to those to whom it applies?

How to articulate the imperatives MF is signaling in a spatial context.  How do we understand this through the lens of space?  Heterotopia? 

Is Bauhaus architecture a case through we can see the operation of discipline in a modernist context?

The language of ceremony (187, 189); the discussion of discipline’s rituals (185).  How related to compulsory objectification?

We could write the schema for the "examination".  See post above/below.

 

 

We moved to discussion:

In discussion of normalization, there is a discussion of the “imposition” of “homogeneity” (184).  At the same time the examination “introduces individuality” (189).

·         Normalization in contrast to judicial power (183).  Judicial power of the law is a law of permitting and forbidding.  Normalization is scaled, gradated, degreed.  Law is binary.

·         Normalization is a power of plotting along a statistical or graded or scaled curve.

It is an analysis of power, not a theory of power.  Analytical work of distinction and distinguishing.  It is a work of nuance.  A political anatomy of detail.  It is only through analytics of power that one can learn, can do inquiry.