Free Write

I've had a really tough time getting started with this paper. The difficulty and length of Foucault and Berger's articles have given me some trouble. It's obvious that all three articles relate to the power. Berger talks about the power of images, Foucault talks about the division of power through the Panopticon, and West looks at power and the burdens that accompany it. That being said, I don't have a firm grasp on this assignment, but right now I feel like the best way to bring these works back to a common theme is to look at them as all explaining how to optimize power.

Summary of Foucault's Panopticism

         Foucault begins the piece by talking about the measures that used to be taken on a plague stricken town. During these times, he says, "The gaze is alert everywhere." They were treated like prisoners which is evident through use of language like, "everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his own window..." Foucault ties this into the Panopticon, which is a circular room with an observation tower in the middle, and cells all around the walls. The panopticon ensures the correct functioning of power. The inhabitants of the outer rooms do not know if someone is in the observation tower so they must always behave as if there is, and anyone can be in the observation tower because the inhabitants can't see them anyways. Panopticism is similar to modern institutions such as hospitals, schools, and prisons. I feel like what Bentham was saying, and what Foucault was interpreting, is that this is an improvement on our systems we have today. It disburses power instead of giving it all to one person like a warden of a prison.

Response to Madsen

       Kyle Madsen made some interesting arguments about my article, "Why Bother?" I must disagree with some of the counter-argumaents he made though,and counter with some of my own. Madsen says, my "angle of vision may be too dominant and intense for some readers." Well, the way I see it, as an author, is if you're not passionate and intense about what you're writing about, what reason does the reader have to be? Had i written this article with no fire or desperate tone, it definitely would not have had the same effect.
     Madsen also mentions that I put too much stress on the garden-grownig aspect of going green. However, in my text I mention that we should, "change our light bulbs" multiple times. I put more emphasis on growing a garden because that is what interests me, but I give the reader many other ideas and options on how to "go green." I give many other suggestions other than changing light bulbs like, walking or riding a bike to work, turning down the thermostat, and getting off the beef. So, while Madsen's counter-arguments are educated and well thought out, I simply do not agree with them.