'Sociological Theory in Transition' (always ..?)
Conclusion: Sociology as a Skin Trade
In other writings (O'Neill, 1972, 1985) I have set out a rival conception of the embodied subject who suffers the hopes and defeats of what I have called 'sociology as a skin trade'. At the same time I began to renovate the imagery of society as a body-politic, to differentiate the levels of the bio-body, the productive body and the libidinal body as sites where human beings pursue the relevant knowledge and values of health, work and happiness. Each level of discourse requires he formulation of relevant technical knowledge (medicine, political economy, sociology and psychoanalysis) and each level has its own emancipatory discourse about health creativity and self-expression. Because each of these discursive interests is likely to be articulated by professional social scientists and therapists, it is necessary to require the institutionalization of mechanisms of political and ethical accountability to laypersons' common-sense knowledge and values regarding their bodies, their families, their work and their souls. Medical and sociological nemesis is not the result of a therapeutic conspiracy against society. It belongs to the radical technological a priori of Western knowledge whose ambition is fundamentally bio-technological. The sin of Adam and Eve was the best humankind could manage at the time. In today's laboratory Adam and Eve can be bypassed and life can be set in motion according to the best genetic formulas. Huge legal, ethical and sociological problems are simultaneously generated. And thus we step into a new 'crisis of opportunity` for which very few social scientists are prepared - whether by training or morals.' p.35.
INDIVIDUAL
|
INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES
HUMANISTIC -------------------------------------- MECHANISTIC
SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL
|
GROUP
| psychoanalysis | body as a machine body- bio- |
sociology |
-politic bio-politics of the population |
'In concrete terms, starting in the seventeenth century, this power over life evolved in two basic forms ... One of these poles - the first to be formed, it seems - centered on the body as a machine: its disciplining, the optimisation of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the parallel increase of its usefulness and docility, its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls, all this was ensured by the procedures of power that characterised the disciplines: an anatomo-politics of the human body.
The second, formed somewhat later, focussed on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes: propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the conditions that can cause them to vary. Their supervision was effected through an entire series of interventions and regulatory controls: a bio-politics of the population. (Foucault, 1980a, p. 139; altered for my emphasis)' p.24.
'Bio-power regulates bodies individually, as in the clinical model. and collectively, as on the model of social medicine. The two strategies are combined to produce the most complete system of discipline ever known in the history of power. Disciplinary power works in hospitals. schools, prisons, armies, factories and bureaucracies. It is compatible with shifting vocabularies of rights, reform and welfare. It is intimate and collective; it is obeyed not because of its power over death but because of its power over life. It is this shift in emphasis that is the source of the expansion of bio-power whose corresponding apparatus we may call the therapeutic state.' p.25.
O’Neill, J. Sociological Nemesis: Parsons and Foucault on the Therapeutic Disciplines, Chapter 1 (pp.21-35). In. Wardell, M.L. and Turner, S. (Eds.). (1986) Sociological Theory in Transition. London: Allen & Unwin, Inc. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/phi_facpub/86
.jpeg)
orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-8965
