Normalizing Judgment

In Foucault’s “The Means of Correct Training,” he describes a successful disciplinary power, which he says comes from training, using three distinct concepts, including hierarchal observation, normalizing judgment, and the examination. In essence, Foucault says that training is only successful if large groups are broken down into small, separate segments because “discipline makes individuals; it is the specific technique of power that regards individuals both as objects and as instruments of its exercise” (188).

Foucault’s idea of normalizing judgment is a form of disciplinary power but instead of the discipline coming from a person, it comes from a standard that is considered normal or average on a society, specifically in education. In the beginning of this section, he uses the military as an example for this normalizing effect because the individuals were punished if they did not follow the normal standard that was set by the higher power. This military-like atmosphere can be compared to today’s school system, which Foucault even points out. What is more punishable to him than this is nonconforming, or when the individual does not reach the required level. He says, “It differentiates individuals from one another, in terms of the following overall rule: that the rule be made to function as a minimal threshold, as an average to be respected, or as an optimum toward which one must move” (195). Foucault was way ahead of this time when bringing up this idea. In today’s society this is especially seen in standardized testing in the school systems. Teachers base their curriculum on what is going to be on the standardized test, and as a result students should be able to reciprocate the information so that they can reach the next level. If this level is not reached then the student is required to repeat the course and retake the test, which is considered the punishment, until they have reached this level.

“Normalizing judgment” ends up creating a homogeneous society because everyone is compared to the same standard, but at the same time, it does not take away from the individual because “it is possible to measure gaps, determine levels, to fix specialties…” (197). This concept of the individual is what is most important in a society/culture today.

Research Paper Topic

My topic for this research paper has to do with democracy and the media (television, newspaper, internet, etc.). My overall question is going to be… how does the media have an influence on a democratic society? Is this influence a positive or negative one? I am going to research both sides of this argument and give supporting evidence for both of them. Democracy has a lot to do with society and communication, and the media definitely covers the communication aspect of it. Of course, without the media it would be hard for communication to occur among the citizens of different parts of the country, but does an individual’s availability to the media have an influence what part he/she plays in a democratic society? The media can be good for all of these reasons, but it can also take away from the whole idea of individualism and democracy, which is what our country is based on. It can encourage conformity to specific cause, especially if they only display the negative aspects of something. For example, this can be seen in politics, especially with the recent election. Hopefully, as I research this topic further, I will be able to give specific examples for both sides of the argument.

Political Ethos

When I think of my political ethos I immediately think about my political views and where I stand in society today, but there is way more to it than just that. Of course, where I grew up and how I was raised has had a huge influence on all of my beliefs, not just the political ones. I am just now getting to an age where I am starting to establish my own views, some of which may not have been the same as the ones I was brought up with. Life factors such as geography, religion, family, and class all have an influence on my beliefs, and they are all intertwined to make me the person and citizen that I am today.




Living in the south and growing up in a conservative family has been the backbone for my beliefs. My dad grew up in a very conservative, catholic family, and he attended a private school most of his life. My mom, on the other hand, grew up in a family that was neither very conservative, nor religious. The differences in their social and political orientations have, of course, had an influence on me and my two brothers and how we were raised, but at the same time, it has almost forced me to have my own views. I could definitely say that I have lived a pretty comfortable life being in the upper-middle class of society. Both of my parents work, but that does not mean I have had everything handed to me on a silver platter. Because they both have worked very hard to be able to provide my family with things they did not necessarily have as children, they have also taught me to do the same.

My specific religion has not played as big as a role in my life as just being a religious person in general has. I grew up going to church almost every Sunday as a child, but as I got older, my parents pretty much left it up to me on deciding whether or not I wanted to go. Just because I went to church does not mean that I have to have the same morals and beliefs that everyone else there does. Having the freedom to make my own decisions has had a big role in making me the person that I am today. Religion may not play a huge role in the government, but it does play a part when it comes to my own ideas and views about politics. Abortion, for example, is a major topic in politics, and one could probably say that most religious people are pro-life, but that does not necessarily mean that I automatically feel the same way as my parents do about it.

It is probably easy today for people my age to just go along with what their parents’ believe, but then how would anyone establish their own identity? Living on my own has definitely forced me to move in the direction of establishing my own in society. America is very different today than it was twenty-five years ago when my parents were in this same situation that I am in. I am at a point in my life where I want to learn the effects that certain decisions that the government makes will have on my life, especially since they will be directly affecting me. This past election was very important to me, not only because it was the first election I got to vote in, but also because I actually got involved in learning about both candidates before I made a decision. I would like to think that I am well on my way in establishing my own political ethos, and there are certain life factors that have played a big role in establishing the type person and citizen that I am today.

Hirsch writing assignment

Hirsch made a very bold claim in saying that there should be a common core curriculum for every school in the nation. In theory, there are many positive aspects that come out of a decision like this, having everyone teaching the same thing, at the same time, and in the same way, but there are also negative effects to it as well. In this text Hirsch refers to William Bagley summary of the problem of American nomadism. He says, “…American people simply will not “stay put,” and they are the most mobile people in the world” (71-72). Of course,  having a common core curriculum would make it easier for students that move around a lot  because he/she would already be on the same level as everyone else .

A common core curriculum could also have a negative effect on American citizens as well.  Everyone is raised a different way, with different beliefs and morals, and having everyone learn the same thing could potentially hurt the nation that was built on the idea of diversity and individualism. This could have a direct effect on our democracy. If everyone was taught to learn the same thing, then what would Americans have to look forward to?