Analyzing the shifting dynamics between sovereign and disciplinary power in Michel Foucault’s social theory is a fundamental task for anthropology students seeking to understand modern governance, surveillance, and state authority.

Anthropology Response Paper: Sovereign vs. Disciplinary Power

Course Assignment Instructions

The instructor will provide discussion questions for the readings, films, and lectures 4 times during the quarter. These prompts allow you to connect course themes with contemporary anthropological debates effectively. Students are required to write response papers to these questions and turn them in by the assigned date. Meeting deadlines is crucial for maintaining a steady pace in our analysis of complex cultural theories. The response papers should seek to answer the discussion questions by providing a concise overview and critical appraisal of the relevant readings, films, and lectures.

Each comment should be at least 600 words in length (maximum 1,000 words). Aim for depth rather than breadth within this word count to demonstrate your grasp of the material. The response papers should not be a summary of the readings or lecture materials but a thoughtful engagement with issues raised in the lecture and the readings through critical analyses and integration. A grading rubric is at the end of this syllabus. Reviewing the criteria beforehand helps clarify exactly how your analytical arguments will be evaluated.

Please note that there will typically be a choice of two to three questions provided for each assignment. You should pick ONE of these questions to address in your response paper. Selecting the topic that resonates most with your interests often leads to stronger and more compelling writing. Please note that if attendance in lecture is high and students are writing their response papers WITHOUT relying on AI technologies, then your lowest score on the response papers will be dropped. If instructor has the sense that students are using AI technologies to write these response papers, then the instructor will switch them from take-home to in-class essays. We value your authentic voice and unique perspective over automated text generation which lacks true critical insight. In this eventuality, the instructor will announce the dates and times of the in-class essays.

Response Question

Imagine that our society is shifting from largely disciplinary power to more sovereign forms of power. consider how Michel Foucault conceptualized these power dynamics when framing your hypothetical scenario. Please describe what this shift would look like by discussing AT MINIMUM THREE of the following domains:

1. bureaucracies,

2. norms, standards, and ideals,

3. visibility of the sovereign or state,

4. visibility of the average civilian,

5. forms of punishment instituted by the state,

6. people’s sense of personal choice,

7. surveillance,

8. one’s “soul” (as Foucault referenced it),

9. the ambivalence of state violence and suffering bodies, and

10. rituals of “truth.”

Transitioning from disciplinary mechanisms back to sovereign power implies a dramatic visual shift in how authority asserts control over bodies. Public spectacles of punishment would likely replace the subtle surveillance of the Panopticon because the sovereign requires visibility to instill fear and obedience. We might see bureaucracies dismantle their rigorous documentation systems in favor of arbitrary decrees issued directly by a centralized leader. Foucault argues that disciplinary power renders the social body visible while the sovereign remains unseen, but a return to sovereignty inverts this relationship so the ruler becomes the hyper-visible focal point of society. Recent scholarship suggests that while disciplinary societies relied on institutionalized norms, modern governance may be evolving into new forms of algorithmic control that complicate these classic definitions (Siapera and Lampropoulos 2024). Such a transformation changes our relationship to norms since obedience becomes a matter of survival rather than internalized correction or soul training.

Recommended Learning Resources

• Siapera, E. and Lampropoulos, A. (2024) ‘From Disciplinary Societies to Algorithmic Control: Rethinking Foucault’s Human Subject in the Digital Age’, Philosophies, 9(4), p. 73. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040073

• Lilja, M. and Vinthagen, S. (2025) ‘Sovereign power, disciplinary power and biopower: resisting what power with what resistance?’, Journal of Political Power, 7(1), pp. 107–126. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271936096

• Tazzioli, M. (2023) Border Abolitionism: Migrants’ Struggle and the Politics of Non-Arrival. Manchester: Manchester University Press. [Online]. Available at: https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526162035/

• Koopman, C. (2019) How We Became Our Data: A Genealogy of the Informational Person. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.