In the modern world, power relations and structures have undergone significant changes and given way to transitioning from a disciplinary society to a society of control. Through this conception of shifts of power that Deleuze and Foucault have made, they bring out the transition of mechanisms that help to regulate individual behaviour and assert authority over them. The essay critically analyses the role of surveillance technologies, large corporations, and the loss of the conventional forms of social regulation that the shift from big government to big business entails. By comparing and evaluating evidence from empirical research and theoretical perspectives, this essay aims to unfold the social control issues and the possible oppositions facing the hegemonic structures.
EVIDENCE/ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
The article reviews the idea of transformation from the age of disciplinary societies to the societies of control observed by both Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault. It emphasises that organisations like families, schools, and prisons are usually the institutions of encirclement or are the disciplinarians. They regulate and confine their members. While the age of control brought in the modulation of behaviour, constant surveillance, and manipulation of the public through technology and corporate structures is now abundant, this is becoming commonplace (Abdullayeva, 2021, p. 10). This has relevance to broader socio-economic dynamics, including the transformation of capitalism towards service and stock manipulation. The work of external researchers confirms these points, as they underline the growing interconnectedness of surveillance technologies and the prevalence of corporate power (Brusseau, 2020, p. 10). Given all these arguments and reasons, any transformation of this kind will be crucial for individuals, power, and resistance in society.
THE INFLUENCES OF THE ARGUMENTS
The article consists of arguments whose essence is influenced by Deleuze and Foucault’s works, which mainly relate to power dynamics and social control. Deleuze’s concept of control societies and Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary societies give the necessary theoretical framework for comprehending the paradigm shift described in the essay. Also, the article suggests applying different societal examples of family, school, and business to illustrate the concept of virtue modification. Influences on the argument are diverse, such as social theory and political and economic trends. In comparing contemporary science scholars, particularly on surveillance capitalism and neoliberalism, we see the separation of means and consequences of societal control (Skonieczny, 2021, p. 205). Besides, socio-historical factors, such as the beginning of post-industrial capitalism and technological development, determine the discourse on societal transformation (Schröter, 2020, p. 5). These influences enrich the analysis by contextualising it within intellectual and socio-economic paradigms.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY DESIGN
Fundamental to the strength of this study design is the theoretical grounding in Deleuze and Foucault’s works, a solid conceptual framework upon which the study of societal changes is based. These influential theories are instrumental in formulating research highlighting how power relationships and social control mechanisms operate. Furthermore, illustrating the examples with numerous societal institutions improves the study and makes its reality possible in the real-world context. However, there are also some challenging facts to be taken into account. First, the study depends on theories and needs empirical evidence to sustain the arguments. Even though theoretical analysis is essential, empirical research could further prove and enhance the degree of nuance in the arguments. Moreover, the study focuses mainly on Western societies, therefore decreasing the possibility of generalising the results in cultures where social control differs from that shown in the study. Besides, the article fails to develop counterarguments or other opinions, which could enhance the conversation and provide a comprehensive viewpoint on the topic (Berry and Galloway, 2016, p. 122).
THE INTERPRETATIONS MADE
The author brings new understandings of societal control to attention by using theorists like Deleuze and Foucault to expand the literature. The article underlined the importance of technological development and economic restructuring that lead to changing power relationships by focusing on transitioning from disciplinary societies to control societies (Wheeler, 2022, p. 10). This article not only accentuates the all-pervasive nature of surveillance technologies and big corporations in the reconstruction of individual behaviour but also breaks the traditional notions of institutions as it bends institutional controls and regulations and subjects them to the will of the corporate domain.
However, some limitations can be found in a critical review of these interpretations. The article takes a deterministic approach and is liable to disregard the role of individuals and the complexities of social change (Stanley, 2020, p.170). In addition, the emphasis on Western frameworks may partially cover the variations in the landscapes of social control among different cultural and geopolitical areas (Gontarski, 2020, p.70). A complex outlook would include the diversity of elements contributing to societal transformations and showcase the potential for resisting forms of governance different from the hegemonic.
THE AUTHOR’S ARGUMENTS, OPINIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The author’s arguments concerning the shift from hierarchical societies to societies of control are coherent and theoretically substantiated. Using Deleuze and Foucault’s works, the author efficiently captures the transition from material imprisonment to social controls that become more diffuse with time but utilise technologies and corporate structures (Kelly 2021, p. 151; Berry and Galloway 2016, p. 160). Dissecting institutions like families, schools, and workplaces as regulating units rather than prisons points out the extent of the control mechanisms exercised in modern society.
Nevertheless, the author’s deterministic view of the transition may need a balanced view of the complexities of social change and may need to consider the potential for resistance. While the power of surveillance technologies and corporate might is undisputable, the article would only be complete with a more balanced view of individual autonomy and social power as critical factors in redefining societal order (Konik and Kvonik, 2016, p. 40). However, the concentration on Western sources may limit the adaptability of the analysis for different cultural settings with unique organisation and resistance strategies (Berry and Galloway, 2016, p. 161). Involving a more balanced method that considers the problems that control societies might pose and the options for action and social change they present will make the author’s conclusions and recommendations more credible and informative.
CONCLUSION
The transition from disciplinary to control societies threatens personal freedom and privacy. Monitoring technologies and companies’ power become the central features of such relationships, while empirical studies supply mechanisms for resistance. To advocate for an alternative form of rule, it is essential to recognise the collective power of the people. This article emphasises that bottom-up mobilisation is necessary for a more just society. Critical reflection on these matters promotes equality of individual liberties and people’s rights.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdullayeva, M., 2021. Power And Progress In Late Capitalism: An Exploration Of Gilles Deleuze’s ‘Postscript On Societies Of Control’. Kent Law Review, 6(1).
Berry, D.M. and Galloway, A.R., 2016. A Network is a Network is a Network: Reflections on the Computational and the Societies of Control. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(4), pp. 151–172.
Brusseau, J., 2020. Deleuze’s postscript on the societies of control: Updated for big data and predictive analytics. Theoria, 67(164), pp.1-25.
Deleuze, G., 1992. Postscript on the Societies of Control.” 1990. Cultural Theory: An Anthology, pp.139-142.
Gontarski, S.E., 2020. The “Limits of Control “: Burroughs through Deleuze. symplokē, 28(1-2), pp.65-81.
Kelly, M.G., 2015. Discipline is control: Foucault contra Deleuze. New Formations, 84(84-85), pp.148-162.
Konik, A. and Kvonik, I., 2016. Digital aesthetic war machines in societies of control: Perrin and Cluzaud’s Oceans (2009). Phronimon, 17(2), pp.17-50.
Raley, R., 2020. Out of Control. symplokē, 28(1-2), pp.163-180.
Schröter, J., 2020. Money, Technology and Capitalism in Deleuze’s “Postscript”.
Skonieczny, K., 2021. Deleuze’s Remarks on Control Societies. Consequences for Work and Education. Living and thinking in the postdigital world: theories, experiences, explorations, pp.205-218.
Wheeler, L., 2022. Uncoiling the Serpent: Towards an Anthropology of Control Society. Pp. 10-20.
write