140 likes | 254 Vues
This piece examines the impact of Michel Foucault's ideas on societal perceptions of marginalized groups such as the mentally ill, the poor, and the criminalized. It delves into how they are categorized as 'Others' and subject to control within institutions like asylums and prisons. The text contrasts the concepts of moral agency and dependency, discussing how society's views on inclusivity and equality influence the treatment of individuals deemed 'amoral' or 'immoral.' It questions whether a resolution to these complex issues is achievable.
E N D
“We may have to use other means yet, but it will be a dangerous operation…” By Jayne Clapton PhD School of Human Services
What are the similarities? (Sunday Mail, 7/5/2006)
Making people problems: ‘Mad’ ‘Poor’ ‘Criminal’ ‘Imbecile’ ‘Poor’ The Anomalous ‘Them’
Locking ‘them’ up The social The political The Anomalous ‘them’ The asylum, the institution Law Scientism Medical- Isation Economy The hospital, the prison
Watching ‘them’ – keeping control The dangerous The unhealthy The surplus The useless The contagion The contaminant
Hitting barriers + Sandstone Quartz = Sandstone Quartz
It’s the structure that counts … Sandstone Quartz-cemented sandstone
Amoral: Dependencyis expected Moral agency is suspended or surrendered Seen as ‘pardoned beings’ who require protective action Described as the-not-able-to-be included Based on notions of equality as non-sameness Immoral: Independence is privileged Autonomous individuals who choose not to do the right, good, or just actions Failed citizens who require corrective action Inclusion is restricted Based on notions of equality as sameness The amoral - [im]moral binary <-Medical power