Hard to disagree with this

In a disturbing twist on the Orwellian nightmare, the American people have become their own thought police, purging the news of unwanted and unwelcome features with an efficiency that government censors and military flacks can only envy.

One might even say this is exactly what governmentality and biopower would have predicted.

From Salon.

Review of Security, Territory, Population

Security, Territory, Population which was published in English earlier this year has been reviewed in Ephemera by Nick Butler.

Where law is understood as a negative power (it prevents, it forbids, it prohibits, etc.), and where discipline is understood as a positive power (it obliges, it prescribes, it incites, etc.), security is understood as neither a negative nor a positive power. Instead, Foucault argues, security ‘let’s things happen’ and then reacts to this reality in a certain way in order to limit or even neutralize its more random, aleatory effects (p. 46-47). By way of example, Foucault discusses the kinds of techniques which are used to deal with various diseases in different periods. The juridical-legal response to leprosy in the fourteenth and fifteenth century and the disciplinary response to the plague in the sixteenth and seventeenth century are covered by Foucault in more detail in History of Madness and Discipline and Punish.

Gender identity to be voted on

Congress will vote on gender identity later this week. What is that? Well it’s:

The amendment would expand ENDA’s protections to persons discriminated against based on gender identity, defined as the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth. The amendment includes language concerning shared facilities, dress, and grooming standards, as well as a paragraph stating that the construction of additional facilities are not required.

ENDA was first proposed in 1974 and is expected to pass without the additional clause above, which will be voted on separately. In other words there’s a tension between LBG ENDA and a LBGT ENDA covering transgender issues.

So the law will read that you can’t fire butch women or fey men, straight or gay. I’m sure employers can always find other reasons to fire people and I’m also sure that firing someone or just discriminating against them (eg., not promoting them) because of who they are rather than performance is wrong.

But isn’t this the first time we’ve had a debate about identity? This is presumably not a sexuality issue. It’s not sexual orientation–that’s covered already. Does it include straight transvestites (eg., the British comedian Eddie Izzard)? I’d guess the courts, as usual, would decide these issues. Which is perhaps where most of the opposition comes from–tying up the court’s with people claiming they’ve been passed over for promotion because they’ve got a high voice or have close cropped hair etc.
I think this goes beyond the issues of discrimination we’ve typically become accustomed to: sexual orientation, religion, race, gender. (‘m not saying it shouldn’t be passed, I assume one day it will be passed, although I don’t think it will be passed this week as a matter of actual politics.)
Calling all anthropologists!