freewrite

Between the three texts, all of us can point out the similarity of each being about power. However, which author captures this idea of power the most effectively? Berger in “Ways of Seeing” describes the power of image and how the importance of art in its rarity has changed due to replication; “mystifying”. Foucault presents an idea called “Panopticism” based off of the architectural structure (Panopticn) created by Bentham where power and order can be achieved efficiently. Kanye West exhibits his idea of power through both words and imagery in his music video “Power” where he is portrayed as a man of stature and wealth while women swoon over him.  All three pieces exhibit the authors’ ideas of power; how power should be kept, what makes one powerful, and how image creates power. In my synthesis I would like to discuss which piece exhibits power in a way that is most relevant in today’s society along with their views on the advancement/changes of society in relation to power.

Panopticism

“Everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked…” begins Michel Foucault’s excerpt about Panopticism in his book Discipline and Punish (283). He starts his piece with a description about the procedures taken to quarantine those with the plague in order to introduce the idea for which all disciplinary methods developed from. The way to assure “automatic functioning of power” is explained through the theory of Panopticism (288). Panopticism is based off of Jeremy Bentham’s idea of a Panopticon, which is a circular building divided into cells with a central tower used to look out onto the people in the cells. With this central tower, a supervisor can view the prisoners but they do not know when they are being watched thus creating the idea that “power should be visible and unverifiable” (288). With this idea, power is distributed and not given solely to one individual. The theory of Panopticism can be used in modern institutions such as schools, hospitals and prisons.

Responding to Kyle's response

            There is not one way someone can help to protect our environment as Kyle Madsen has so eloquently stated in his response paper to my article “Why Bother?” He explains my angle of vision as “too dominant and intense for some readers” and therefore some of my readers may be left out. However, I believe my angle of vision actually helps my article capture readers who would have not read it originally. Going “green” seems to be a popular staple for many companies, such as Starbucks as Madsen has already told us. Therefore, many readers may be more opposed to reading another article which has the same message as the movie which was used to scare people about the “climate change”: An Inconvenient Truth. By using more intense writing, I try to not only relate with my audience but I also do so with a persuasive and knowledgeable affect.

            My constant regard to gardening is just another way that I try to show my audience how easy helping our planet can be. Madsen does not realize that just because I strongly believe that gardening has multiple advantages does not mean that I have not included other ways to save our environment including: “forsake the clothes dryer for a laundry line across the yard, trade in the station wagon for a hybrid…” By reiterating the idea of using gardening as a solution, I try to show my readers that just because it is a way for us to help our planet does not mean that there are not other benefits. Not only does gardening “reduce your carbon footprint” but it also is a way to move your dependence from foreign companies to your own backyard. As a whole, Madsen’s response was a very strong way to suggest “realistic alternatives” and  to “learn to bother for yourself.”