Surveillance and Foucauldian Disciplinary Power in The Tempest

Surveillance and Foucauldian Disciplinary Power in The Tempest

&nbsp;&nbsp;When we see Shakespeare’s The Tempest from post-colonial perspectives, it is clear that the power relationship prevails throughout the play: Prospero as colonial master, Ariel and Caliban as slaves. This essay analyzes the power relationship using Michel Foucault’s panopticism along with Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Prospero’s power can be defined as a Foucauldian disciplinary power, which aims at making ‘docile bodies’ through the process of constant hierarchical surveillance, normalizing judgment, and the examination, which is the process of discipline. As a surveyor in the tower of Panopticon, Prospero makes others objects of full observation, subdues their mutinies, and finally makes them docile bodies for his colonial purposes with his omniscient knowledge and power. Prospero’s power does not confine just their bodies in prison, as Sycorax did to Ariel; rather, he makes Caliban internalize his gaze constantly and exploits him, which is more productive. <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Caliban is wise enough to counter-survey Prospero and manipulate Stephano and Trinculo for his purpose. He knows who he is, who Prospero is, what the nature of Prospero’s power is, and finally attempts to form a mutiny against him using his knowledge gained through counter-surveillance. But he fails to succeed and becomes a docile body by Prospero’s disciplinary power in the end.