Author Archives: cassiealicia

The State of Exception and Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal”

Select an example or case study that fits the definition of a state of exception. This can be from any historical period, and any location. Your post should:

  1. Provide an introduction to the case study / example
  2. Explain how this case study / example demonstrates the exercise of sovereign power and the creation of a state of exception (drawing on concepts from Pavlich’s chapter)
  3. Explain how this exercise of sovereign power was justified rhetorically through an appeal to necessity

State of Exception:

Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher, is widely known for his critique of sovereign power. State of Exception, Agamben’s third volume in a series also comprising of his 1998 Homo Sacer and 1995 Remnants of Auschwitz,  investigated the increase of power structures governments employ in supposed times of crisis.  Within these times of crisis, Agamben refers to increased extension of power as states of exception, where questions of citizenship and individual rights can be diminished, superseded and rejected in the process of claiming this extension of power by a government  (Lentin, n,d.). Agamben states that through the state of exception, “the sovereign ‘creates and guarantees the situation’ that the law needs for its validity-and this circularity characterizes not only extreme regimes, but also the voluntary creation of a permanent state of emergency which has become one of the essential practices of contemporary states… This involves, on the one hand, the extension of the military authority’s wartime powers into the civil sphere, and on the other, the suspension of constitutional norms that protect individual liberties” (Lentin, n.d.).

As stated by Agamben, the state of exception or state of emergency has “become a paradigm of government today” (Raulff, 2004). He stated that the concept was “originally understood as something extraordinary, an exception, which should have validity only for a limited period of time, but a historical transformation has made it the normal form of governance…The state of exception establishes a hidden but fundamental relationship between law and the absence of law” (Raulff, 2004).

The New Deal:

“The Wall Street Boom of the 1920’s produced a season of euphoria”, one where people firmly believed a New Era was emerging and that poverty would soon be vanished forever from society (Schlesinger, 2003). However, according to Arthur Schlesinger, the stock market crash in October 1929 had instead, “exposed the New Era as a mirage” (2003). Schlesinger explains that although Americans had experienced many depressions before, they had never experienced anything like the great depression that followed the Wall Street Crash. He explains that by 1932, “a quarter of the labour force was looking desperately  for work; the gross domestic product was cut in half; the banking system was on the brink of collapse; private charity and local relief were overcome by the rising flood of the unemployed” (2003). In his book, The Coming of the New Deal 1933-1935, Arthur Schlesinger quotes President Franklin Roosevelt during his speech on March 4, 1933 when he stated: “This nation asks for action, and action now…We must act, and act quickly…In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come” (2003).

Roosevelt’s speech set up his platform for gaining public support regarding a “state of exception.” As discussed during class, political leaders often try to gain political support, although it is not needed, before obtaining extreme sovereign power and creating a state of exception during a declared state of emergency. Roosevelt did not need permission from the public to declare a state of emergency, for as the President of the United States he already held the power to do so on his own. However, by gaining public support he not only was able to declare an emergency without revolt from society, but was in fact deeply praised for his actions.  It was stated that several days after his infamous speech, people wrote in to the White House saying “It was the finest thing this side of heaven”; and “Your human feeling for all of us in your address is just wonderful,” with many praising Roosevelt like they would to God himself (Schlesinger, 2003).

However, conversely it was also noted that Eleanor Roosevelt called the inauguration “very very solemn and a little terrifying… because when Franklin got to that part of his speech when he said it might become necessary for him to assume powers ordinarily granted to a President in war time, he received his biggest demonstration” (2003).

The New Deal was shorthand for a host of government programs introduced by Roosevelt between 1933 and 1938. The phrase itself originates in Roosevelt’s acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Chicago, in which he promised “a new deal for the American people” (Cornwell, 2008). Carl Schmitt, a German legal theorist, once stated : “Sovereign is he who controls the exception” (Horton, 2007). Under the New Deal, the federal government proved its sovereign power by greatly extending its power over the economy. Many of the reforms of the 1930s remain embedded in policy today: acreage allotments, price supports and marketing controls in agriculture, extensive regulation of private securities, federal intrusion into union-management relations, government lending and insurance activities, the minimum wage, national unemployment insurance, Social Security and welfare payments, production and sale of electrical power by the federal government, fiat money, and so on.  Industry was virtually nationalized under Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (Higgs, 1995). Although the New Deal helped many Americans get through the depression, it was a crucial turning point in the history of the U.S. government for politics had never before been so involved in, or exerted more control over, the daily lives of regular Americans (Cornwell, 2008).

Franklin Roosevelt’s exercise of sovereign power was justified rhetorically through an appeal to necessity during his famous inauguration speech as previously mentioned above. The public support he acquired most definitely assisted with many parts of the New Deal to be passed without much scrutiny. According to Stephen Humphrey’s, “Roosevelt’s words in this context are illustrative: ‘I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis – broad Executive power to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe’(2006).



Cornwell, R. (2008, September 17). The Big Question: What was Roosevelt’s New Deal, and is something like it needed today?. The Independent. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

Higgs, R. (1995). How FDR Made the Depression Worse. Mises Institute, 13(2). Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

Horton, S. (2007, July 1). State of exception: Bush’s war on the rule of law.(George W. Bush). Harper’s Magazine, p 81.

Humphreys, S. (2006). Legalizing Lawlessness: On Giorgio Agamben’s State of Exception. European Journal of International Law, 17(3), 677-687. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

Lentin, R. (n.d.). Racial State, State of Exception. State of Nature. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

Raulff, U. (2004). Interview with Giorgio Agamben. hein online. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

Schlesinger, A.M. (2003). The coming of the New Deal, 1933-1935. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Modern Experiences of Michel Foucault’s Disciplinary Power

Identify and explain an example of a technique of disciplinary power that applies (or likely applies) to you. Your post should ‘unpack’ this technique and explain how and why it reflects disciplinary power. Employ Foucault’s concepts where appropriate.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Michel Foucault was “a French historian and philosopher” with a “strong influence not only (or even primarily) in philosophy but also in a wide range of humanistic and social scientific disciplines” (Gutting, 2013). One of his major works, Discipline and Punishment, focuses on the concept of disciplinary power and how it has evolved over time (1977). Michel Foucault argued that “the rise of parliamentary institutions and of new conceptions of political liberty was accompanied by a darker counter-movement, by the emergence of a new and unprecedented discipline directed against the body” (Bartky, 1988). Foucault’s book explores how army soldiers were once seen as someone who bore “the natural signs of strength and courage” with his body being “the blazon of his strength and valour” (1977). Foucault artistically explains how soldiers were born through experience, learning his profession little by little, generally in actual fighting, marching with poise, strength and honor. However, he contrasts this ideal soldier with one in the late 18th century, where the ‘soldier’ became “something that can be made; out of a formless clay”.  He explains how “one has ‘got rid of the peasant’ and given him ‘the air of a soldier.” He argued that men have become accustomed to holding their heads high, standing upright and always keeping perfect posture. They were taught to “never fix their eyes on the ground” and to “remain motionless until the order is given.” Foucault describes this evolution of a solider as the “classical age [which] discovered the body as object and target of power. It was with this example, that Foucault explained that the body can be manipulated, shaped, and trained to obey, respond, and become skilful in order to increase its forces. In his book, Foucault explains how methods such as coercion and supervision have the ability to meticulously control the operations of one’s body, imposing upon them “a relation of docility-utility” or disciplines. Foucault explains how disciplinary methods have become “general formulas for domination.” By viewing the human body as a “machinery of power”, Foucault explored this new power and how one may “have a hold over other’s bodies, not only so that they may do what one wishes, but so that they may operate as one wishes, with the techniques, the speed and efficiency that one determines.” It was noted that “at the core of Foucault’s picture of modern “disciplinary” society are three primary techniques of control: hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and the examination” (Gutting, 2003). According to Sandra Lee Bartky, Foucault pointed to a new kind of ‘disciplinary power’ tied to “modern forms of the army, the school, the hospital, the prison, and the manufactory” with the aims of these disciplines to increase the utility of the body (1988). Systems of surveillance and assessment no longer required force or violence, as people learned to discipline themselves and behave in expected ways.

In regards to today’s modern society, a disciplinary practice I personally am exposed to on a regular basis is at Kwantlen University. As a student, I am constantly enclosed within a classroom to which all the desks are facing the same direction, towards the teacher. My motions, my behavior, and my work ethic are all being watched and monitored not only by my professors, but my peers as well. It is not expected that I remove my body from my desk during lecture, so I sit their patiently until granted to authority to leave for break or the dismissal of class. I do not act out in “irregular conduct”, but remain silent until asked to speak. Like Foucault described, unconsciously my body is left under the control of others. The power my professors and the University has over me is undeniable. I am under constant surveillance whether through the glances of my peers, or by the cameras in the hallways.

Another example where I personally conform to disciplinary powers is at my work. There are rules and procedures that must be followed on a regular basis, with daily tasks needing to be completed before a days end. However, Foucault would argue that these rules are not simply imposed on me, but I make sure that I follow them, while also enforcing them on others. (If I notice a task needs to be completed during shift change, I make sure to tell my co-workers what needs to be done). This is expected behavior, something everyone considers to be normal, especially if one wants to keep an income. However, we also do what we are told because we are fearful of breaking the rules and facing the consequences. At one of my jobs, only one employee is at the workplace at a time. At this job, we are not allowed to have our cell phones out in order to ensure that we give the best customer service possible. However, when days are extremely slow and there are no customers, every single employee will have their phone out, hidden from security cameras under the desk. Why do we keep it hidden? Because we know there is a chance that we are being watched, scrutinized, and later will be punished. However, this is the same reason why we make sure that our daily tasks are finished, for if we don’t, all it takes is a quick look at the security tape to find out if we actually did it or not. Other examples of disciplinary practices at my work include the use of company email (where it is monitored if I use the email for personal uses), the use of computerized “clock in” and “clock out” procedures which monitor exactly when I arrive and leave work, and the use of daily commission reports which shows whether I am doing well for the company, or need to sell more product. (By having permanent residence for this type of data on the screen, it motivates us to do better for fear of punishment or for hope of a reward). Through all these examples, I do what is expected; what Foucault would consider to be my new normal. Through Foucault’s disciplinary power concept, it is not important that I may not actually be under surveillance, it’s the fact that I think I am, therefor in turn, I have learned to monitor and discipline myself. Touché.


Bartky, S. (1988). “Foucault, Femininity and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power,” in Feminism and Foucault: Paths of Resistance. Ed. lee Quinby and Irene Diamond. (Northeastern Univ. Press, 1988), pp. 61-86.

Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Gutting, G. (2003, April 2). Michel Foucault. Stanford University. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from


Filed under Uncategorized