Human Obedience Essay Example

"Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power," by Sandra Lee Bartky, presents Michel Foucault's argument on obedient bodies. The author uses the example of a 17th-century soldier, who is clearly recognizable in both physique and behavior, to illustrate obedience. As a result, the obedient body is put to work, strengthened, and exposed to a variety of modifications to fit into the proper position.

In the essay,  Bartky also offers the example of children in a school with a commanding teacher. A individual is assigned to a seat that they are often unable to leave, and their classification is read from the classroom's systematically organized and designated system. Using Foucault's argument, Bartky describes control and consequence in disciplinary systems that have been able to generate docile bodies.

Humans are born male or female, rather than masculine or feminine, according to the author. Throughout the essay, the author analyzes the disciplinary procedures that result in a body that appears feminine in presence and movement. The author looks at three different categories: those that try to portray the body as a decorative exterior, those that depict the body as a specific collection of gestures, physical orientations, and movement, and those that try to create a body of a specified overall shape and size.

The author discusses the first type of disciplinary techniques: those aimed at shaping a woman's body into a particular proportions. The author goes through numerous ways that women might maintain to a certain shape and size to feel self - assured.

Different magazine promotional components regarding how a woman can lose weight are provided by the author. The slender dominance causes women to diet as a form of discipline, restricting their food consumption to prevent weight gain. She backs up her findings with a range of statistical data and compares and contrasts men's and women's perspectives toward eating and weight gain. She believes that men and women both exercise, but that women find it difficult to differentiate between being accomplished for physical health and what is accomplished to uphold femininity.

She goes on to talk about gender classification, mannerisms, orientations, and physical motions. Women, according to Bartky, are much more constrained than men in terms of physical movements and everyday experiences. Women appear to be confined and trapped in their mobility, and any woman who deviates from the norm is considered as a loose woman. The "loose woman" is unafraid to walk around and say anything she wants. The disciplinary approach subjugates women by conditioning their facial expressions to be submissive in relation to their bodies.

The enhanced exterior of a woman's body is the final subject she discusses. Her argument is that a woman's skin is expected to be delicate, hairless, and smooth, and that it shouldn't exhibit signs of aging, experience, or introspection. "Beauty experts," according to Bartky's, recommend a skin-care regimen that includes treatments like cleaning the face mulitiple times daily, using facemasks, cleansers, moisturizers, and much more. The author compares it to a student or a prisoner who must follow each step as if it were a routine to accomplish the intended objective, which is flawless skin.

She also refutes the notion that wearing make-up is artistic expression or a demonstration of feminine individuality. Applying make-up, in her opinion, is essentially the same procedure repeated with little diversity, drastically limiting one's capacity to express oneself. It is a disguised strategy, according to the author, because it is confined to what is suitable for professional and casual circumstances. Women have realized their roles as male subordinates, according to the author, and are doing things like wearing make-up and displaying themselves for the advantage of those who have put limitations on women.

In the entertainment sector, where models are the individuals who communicate the femininity Bartky describes, the way women are presented and their orientation is apparent. The author did not address the fact that males are often marketed in such a way that the majority of them are unable to fulfill the standards. Male models, for example, are organized in the shape of these well-built figures to seem desirable. However, we recognize that achieving a body that is acceptable in everyone's eyes is a challenging undertaking. Is this to indicate that the individual portrayed and the pressure subjected to achieve that physique is due to women, or is it because they want to appear desirable to women?

In my perspective, the pressure is forced on them by the industry they engage in and their egocentric need to be desirable for themselves. The interesting questions: what sets these expectations apart from women? Is it possible for women to feel empowered about themselves by wearing make-up and eating well? The author also emphasizes the need of obedience to the requirements of femininity. Is it impossible for a woman to preserve her health by engaging in physical activity? Rather than the single approach she portrays as seeking to match the standard  image, one aspect that may impact one's decision to join in the requirements is one's lively circumstances.

To some level, I agree with Bartky’s since several women desire to appear much like supermodels in magazines, although others are indifferent about their appearance. Everyone has an aspect of themselves that they are uncomfortable with. Furthermore, a woman is capable of having her own thoughts and following or not conforming to them.

I felt a range of emotions while reading Krissha Thompson's article in The Washington Post, "Michelle Obama's posterior again the subject of a public rant." As I read that the media and many ordinary Americans had/have a negative perception of first lady Michelle Obama's body image, I felt disgusted. It's disheartening that women are judged so harshly based on how they look and act, especially when their appearance doesn’t represent who they are. Although heartbreaking, it was unsurprising that Michelle Obama faced such criticism during her husband's presidency.

In a previous class I took, Theories of Intersectionality, I studied Hottentot Venus and her body image being a show attraction to ignorant white culture.  According to Thompson of The Washington Post, Venus' naked body type was devalued as a black woman because she was compelled to exhibit her "pronounced posterior... in shows throughout 19th-century Europe." I can only imagine Venus's humiliation and dehumanization as a result of that encounter. Unfortunately, many Black women in America continue to be undervalued and judged harshly because of their beauty and demeanor.

According to Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University, the first lady's critics "are reacting to the culture in which they've grown up, or they are using it as a code to racialize Michelle Obama and remind people that she's black." This comment is meaningful because it derives from the racist judgments that people are taught as they grow up. Racism, I believe, is taught through harsh and hateful predecessors. Gillespie's statement also discusses how attacking Michelle Obama's body image is used as a signal for racializing her as a Black woman. They are concerned about her appearance, but not as much as they are about her race.

Michelle Obama tells women to do what makes them feel good because there will always be someone who believes they should do it differently during an interview when asked if the emphasis on her has affected her body image. While reading this, I think the remark is profound because people are often afraid of being judged or criticized. What Michelle is saying is essential since not everyone will have the same viewpoint, so everyone should do what they enjoy and make them happy (as long as they don't hurt themselves or others) because it will benefit their lives.