“Everything in the processions seemed perfect, almost to the extent of being choreographed. There was total control and order in the way the processions were organized, as well as in the behaviour of the on-lookers. In a way, more than a celebration of solidarity of workers around the world, it was more a spectacle of bodies in total control. This sense of control relates directly to the obvious lack of a police presence during the processions.”_________________________
by Sasanka Perera
(April 16, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In Sri Lanka, the governing factor in most aspects of life seems to be disorder that is apparent from mainstream politics to the malfunctioning of universities and from the dynamics of marketplaces to railway stations. French thinker Michel Foucault, talking about the emergence of disciplinary regimes in Europe in his book 'Discipline and Punish', makes the following observations:
'The historical moment of the disciplines was the moment when an art of the human body was born, which was directed not only at the growth of its skills nor at the intensification of its subjection, but at the formation of a relation that in the mechanism itself makes it more obedient as it becomes more useful, and conversely.'
Foucault's ideas create a useful background to investigate the dynamics of bodies in control, efficiency, discipline, chaos and so on. While individual and collective activities in some countries are marked by order, in others, they are marked by what seem like chaos. These contradictory conditions can be contextualized in the following examples:
In May 1998, I observed the celebration of the May Day in the Swedish city of Uppsala. The first procession that came along the main street was organized by Socialdemokraterna and LandsOrganisationen. The second procession that passed by a few minutes later was organized by Vansterpartiet. When these processions went past intersections, traffic was halted for a few minutes. After that, the motorists and pedestrians went on their separate ways, and there was no litter to be picked up. The leaflets that were distributed disappeared into people's pockets or bags. On the other hand, except for a handful of traffic police, there was no police presence. There were also no indications that other activities or life in general in the city was disrupted due to the processions or other events organized to mark the May Day.
Everything in the processions seemed perfect, almost to the extent of being choreographed. There was total control and order in the way the processions were organized, as well as in the behaviour of the on-lookers. In a way, more than a celebration of solidarity of workers around the world, it was more a spectacle of bodies in total control. This sense of control relates directly to the obvious lack of a police presence during the processions. In a situation marked by an almost total control of bodies, a police presence would be meaningless.
The same event is also celebrated in Colombo each year although in a decidedly different fashion. In Colombo, large numbers of people join the processions organized by different political parties to celebrate the May Day. Entire sections of the city are sealed off, so that different processions emanating from different points in the city could wind through city streets to the points where they would hold their rallies. Prudent motorists know that this is not the ideal time to venture into the city. During all this, there is also a visible and heavily armed police presence, cordoned off areas, roadblocks, as well as alternate but unreliable traffic plans. In some places, the military is also deployed as an ancillary force. Their very presence and the general atmosphere indicate that the notion of the control of bodies is not present in the processions, in the city, or in the minds of the procession participants, onlookers or the police. As such, there was no way that traffic and processions could have co-existed the way they did in Uppsala.
The gestures of those who took part in the processions also lacked any sense of choreography while many such gestures symbolically represented images of violence and aggression. On the other hand, the slogans people shouted were done in unison, mostly because there were specific individuals performing a role similar to that of choir leaders, giving cues and introducing specific slogans. After the processions go along city streets and later disperse after holding meetings and rallies, there is usually a great deal of litter to clear: sticks, parts of plastic and paper flags, plastic banners, rotting food, food wrappers, newspapers, leaflets and so on. Compared to the aftermath of the Uppsala celebration, this scene would have looked more like a war zone. Chaos, would perhaps be a better word to describe what goes on in Colombo and the general spirit of the atmosphere.
This then is the problem we need to pose. How is it possible for two groups of humans in different locations in the world to undertake structurally similar activities, perceivably for the same reasons, and proceed to implement them in fundamentally different ways?
The vast differences in the processes of discipline involved in the examples from Sweden and Sri Lanka outlined above refer to fundamental differences in the regimes of discipline or control involved in the two sites. The examples I have used above are not images I have placed out of context. They typify human activities in these two countries in general, and in the way discipline and control is conceived and utilized. What is clear here is, greater the degree of control of bodies, the greater the efficiency of the activities such bodies are involved in. On the other hand, this kind of control is not possible under conditions of anarchy, dictatorship or subverted democracy. Efficient discipline becomes possible and effective usually under conditions of democracy. For instance, the control of bodies was also possible under slavery, where certain individuals actually owned bodies, which could perform whatever functions their owners demanded. But as Foucault has observed, in the post 17th and 18th centuries, disciplines as general formulas of domination, differed from slavery, because they were not based on the literal appropriation of bodies. He further argues that the elegance of discipline lay in the fact that it was able to discard the costly and violent conditions inherent in slavery, and came up with a regime of control which could produce 'effects of utility at least as great.' That is, what is important is not merely discipline, but efficiency and the cost effectiveness of that discipline. These conditions are more likely to be found in conditions of democracy, than in other systems of governance.
It is in developed democracies that efficient controlling, disciplining and regulating mechanisms are in place, in an unobtrusive manner, where such controlling mechanisms are part of life. Due to this control and regulation, it is possible to achieve a desired goal in the minimum possible time using resources efficiently. This can be done because conditions for efficiency are already in place. Besides, the whole idea of democracy in modern nation states was geared up in the first place to achieve such a state of affairs. But once the disciplining apparatus is in place, it works both ways. That is, it allows for the emergence of efficiency, and those same mechanisms of efficiency take control of the bodies and regulate them. For this system to operate as a systemic whole, it needs to work both ways as a cyclical process.
Comparatively, the reality in countries like Sri Lanka where democratic structures and practices are underdeveloped, undeveloped, or under serious stress, is very different. Every activity, from receiving service from a post office to meeting a public official works on an ad hoc basis, and takes a great deal of time and effort.
The operative logic here is the survival of the fittest, where efficiency in controlling bodies, or regulating time and resources has very low priority. In this system, there is enormous wastage of time, resources, and energy.
In a situation where efficiency of basic resource management, work and routine life has been achieved, individuals can concentrate on the finer and more creative aspects of life. That is, their bodies have already undergone a regime of control and discipline at the level of society, which not only give such bodies efficiency as individual units, but also make available for them basic services in a relatively effortless manner. In such a situation individuals can concentrate on more creative aspects of life, without having to concentrate on achieving more fundamental goals or needs, which the efficiency of the system is capable of supplying. It is in this context that one could understand the general capacity for higher standards of products and stylistic innovations in developed democracies in greater numbers and more consistently, than in places like Sri Lanka. This is one reason why in under developed democracies, there is a greater tendency to produce inferior goods and services, despite expending a great deal of time.
It needs to be stressed again that the kind of discipline, control and regulation of bodies that can be achieved with efficiency in the process and in terms of results is only be possible within the confines of a functioning democracy. In such a system individuals would have allowed the control of their bodies willingly, in exchange for order, efficiency, and predictability. Until we achieve such a basic foundation, all efforts at making our bodies and service systems efficient simply cannot work.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment