An acquaintance, facing spatial marginalization bereft of social and cultural capital, once shared, "I deliberately address most in academic circles by their names, even avoiding titles like chechi, as it ensures seamless conversations." In my interactions with a master's student from two years ago, who I had only taught (shared not taught) a single Dutch history class with, there was a consistent use of my name, and our exchanges that continued even after the lecture were marked by a sense of dignity.Others, burdened by the title 'chechie' seemed to carry the weight of social hierarchy and invisible power. The subtle power dynamics at play can be invisible or its internal force is not revealed, yet potent, so it can subjugate us, thus underscoring the need for continuous resistance and dissent.
In Foucault's examination of Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon, a architectural construct featuring a central tower facilitating observation of every enclosed cell, the paradox of visibility unfolds. While each individual is subject to scrutiny, communication between occupants and overseers, as well as among prisoners themselves, is rendered imperceptible—creating a condition of invisibility. The collective entity dissipates, as the Panopticon instills a pervasive awareness of constant visibility, thereby sustaining the efficacy of power. Bentham, prescribing that power should manifest as visible yet elusive, orchestrates a scenario wherein the prisoner, perpetually observable, remains uncertain about the source of surveillance, epitomizing the synthesis of seen and unseen dynamics.
Thus, doing dissent/ engaging in dissent is crucial. Must we continue to be prisoners of societal constructs?
PS: The write-up stems from the conversations that took place with Athira K Chandrababu the other day in Room No. 47 of Poorna Hostel at Sree Sankaracharya University.
No comments:
Post a Comment