As a member of Westminster Round (Whitworth's English Department club for those of you who aren't in the know), I've often run into problems while attempting to navigate a chartered club's place within the student-government system. After mulling it over for several months, I still don't quite have the language to describe my frustrations with some of ASWU's decisions. Yet, after reading Foucault's analysis of the carceral system, I think I finally have a way to (partially) air my grievances.
I think my issue with ASWU really started when I discovered all the strict regulations the organization imposes on chartered clubs. Whether it be organizing a budget or events, it seems like our club is constantly jumping through hoops in order to function. I guess the underlying annoyance here is in regards to student bureaucracy. It seems rather silly to have kids in their late-teens and early-twenties playing at democracy, but I guess I could quote simply Foucault on this one: "They were taught the art of power relations" (1492).
In essence, this is all ASWU does (by which I mean it teaches students how to function within a certain power structure). Ok, that's a bit harsh. I'm aware that members of the organization arrange events and launch conversations for the student body. But, at the same time, ASWU exists as an extension of Foucault's carceral system because of its relationship with its students.
Because ASWU is, in a way, the "unified" voice of the student body, their claim to power is to benefit the students. This seems particularly troubling when one considers the provisions that clubs must abide by (chartering, budgeting, etc.) and the punishments they potentially face. As Foucault writes: "Carceral continuity and the fusion of the prison-form make it possible to legalize, or in any case to legitimize disciplinary power, which thus avoids any element of excess or abuse it may entail" (1497). While I may think it's ridiculous that clubs need to pay a charge whenever they use a car to pick up materials for an event, legislation that ASWU passes legitimizes any action they may take. As one student noted in a conversation I had last semester, "they are our elected officials, after all."
Yes they are and that's part of the problem. Under the guise of governance, ASWU has the ability to act on the behalf of the student body, to authorize decisions because they are an authority. You may be thinking, yeah, that's how student government works. I won't argue with that. I'm only offering a reading of a problematic existence.
Anarchy! Anarchy! This is an interesting read, Nick. Here's my pushback. I may have an inability to see past the structure (pseudo-democracy) I exist in, but it seems like ASWU's organization does benefit Whitworth, at least in their ability to organize large-scale events. That being said, I'm all for decentralized government, and Westminster Round should definitely get to do literally whatever it wants (ha.)
ReplyDeleteMy question back is this: Does Foucault acknowledge the need for governing bodies and institutions to exist? Or are they inherently carceral, inherently tending towards synthesizing together into an conglomerate that punishes abnormalities? Can a school be anything but carceral?
Yeah, and as we know, there are systems behind/beyond systems. As if ASWU has true autonomy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dana and Doug. I think it is difficult to reimagine any system— whether that system is ASWU, Whitworth, or US Democracy— as non-carceral simply because the carceral is so pervasive. Can we reimagine ASWU as autonomous, free from restrictions (and therefore free from placing restrictions upon others), or is this impossible? I think the latter. And that's why Foucault is important— he is so, so, so right. The discussion of structures within structures (within structures) also could point us to a rhizomatic understanding of the carceral. Yes? No? Maybe?
ReplyDelete