Imagine how the world would be if people are divided into the ones tagged with microchips and the ones without. Imagine how your life would be if you happen to be the one whose body is tagged with the microchips. Everywhere you go, whatever you do will be all monitored. Doesn’t it sound like a tale from a dusty, old book or movie? Unfortunately, it might well turn into a reality, here in Indonesia, in the land of Papua. The parliamentarians in Papua are considering a controversial bylaw that would enforce this using of microchips.
The purpose of the bylaw is to monitor the sexual behavior and activities of people living with AIDS. One of the lawmakers there calls it a “major breakthrough” to fight against HIV/AIDS. What was running through their minds to even consider such things? This is a power/state intervention to the human body. It reminds me of Michel Foucoult that explains this relation between power and knowledge in an attempt to control the behaviour of society. What’s left to a person if s/he cannot have power over her/her own body?
Let’s continue our imagination. Imagine how devastating your life will be when people around you look at you as “the other” who should be avoided. Wherever you go, you bring with you the tag of the outcast, the pariah. This is the most brutal form of modern discrimination. Having the microchips tagged you may cost you your job, your family, your friends. You may even have to live in a secluded, designated area. You stop becoming a person. In short, you lose your life.
Phew … I think I should stop the imagination here because it starts to freak me out to think of the possibility of tagging the microchips not only to people living with HIV but also to anyone that those in power would like to get rid of. That would be the most horrifying thing one could ever imagine.
I hope this is only a dream … Wake me up, please!!!
7 comments:
The case you mentioned here is more a matter of policing behavior. Discrimination against those who are ‘condemned’ with (yet) un-curable illness have happened throughout history. I guess this is one of those instances.
I think the line between private and public gets even more blurred nowadays when technology, specifically biotechnology, makes us human tinker with choices we didn’t have to make before. It’s a tough moral and ethical call. When individuals have access to choices of what sex they want their unborn children to be, what traits they will have, whether or not they want a child at all, etc. – where would the law stop intervening what was previously a private matter? It’s a tough society alright.
Sounds like that movie, Gatacca, has come to life.
By definition human beings are control freaks. They tamed mother nature and they think they can control everything.
But even before the chips, aren't people and their behavior already being controlled by all sorts of dogmas,the biggest of which are religions? These are even worse
'cos they're not just skin-deep but fully ingrained in our psyche. And the dogmas are dividing people into two groups -- hell-goers and heaven-goers. What could be worse than this, I wonder.
Dear Dewi,
Yes indeed. The line between what private and public does get blurred or get moved over time. What used to be private now becomes public and vice versa.
It is hard to ontologically decide what should fall into the private domain or the public domain. That's why people like Habermas reckon that it is basically a "social" decision/reconstruction decided democratically by the people in their own time.
Foucoult who doesn't believe in "subject" and democracy argues that the line is determined by power/knowledge relationship. In fact, whether we like it or not, all areas of life is subject to intervention by power. How far and how do they do it? Power gets the help from knowledge.
Where is my stance here? I believe that our historicity allows us to learn and decide what's private and what's public. Not a fixed, definitive definition. Still, I like to think that I have a control over what I'm doing (giving me some sense of dignity as a subject) regardless how illusive it might be ;-).
The problem is this: not all communities have equal access to information and therefore knowledge. Within Foucoult’s definition given by you, doesn’t it mean that those with more knowledge (as in the case of parliamentarians in Papua) have more power to decide and make ‘social’ decision decided ‘democratically’ by the ‘people’ (parliamentarians are supposed to be people’s representatives after all)?
What I’m scared of is the abuse of power to decide what’s right or wrong. I don’t have a strong believe in the power of society, even within democratic system, as those in power tend to become ‘untouchables’ by the very system.
I saw a documentary on development of security system. The US government has scanners that could go through walls – which mean yes, if they want to, they could conduct surveillance of every single activities you do – projected visually on screen for policemen to see.
Yes, as far as I know that's what Foucoult meant. Knowledge is never neutral. It is developed and used by those in power to serve their interests. He tried to prove the existence of this phenomenon over the course of human history. Is it a power abuse? Well, that's an ethical question but Foucoult was dealing with descriptive explanation. He wished to be a historian ;-). Is that what really happens? We should decide ;-).
Wow the US government could do such thing now? Well, that's what technology could do. But how far should we use it, it is again a public/private question which should be answered by the people. No matter how little our trust on the democracy system, I guess we are stuck with it for a while.
Lian, the correct name is not Foucoult, but Foucault
Thanks Wan. It wasn't a typo. I really didn't notice it. All this time I always thought it was Foucoult, I dont know why. Hm, weird.
Post a Comment