Scholarly discipline functions as a technology of power that makes hidden material visible

Evidence

For like all his learned contemporaries Sacy considered a learned work a positive addition to an edifice that all scholars erected together. Knowledge was essentially the making visible of material, and the aim of a tableau was the construction of a sort of Benthamite Panopticon. Scholarly discipline was therefore a specific technology of power: it gained for its user (and his students) tools and knowledge which (if he was a historian) had hitherto been lost. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 341

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Explicitly links knowledge-as-making-visible to the Panopticon and defines scholarly discipline as power technology.
  • XREF: Directly scaffolds toward Foucault’s power/knowledge and the panoptic surveillance model the reader’s Islamophobia module builds on. — connects to: Disciplinary power stays invisible while making its subjects compulsorily visible — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 288; Disciplinary power inverts the visibility of ruler onto subjects, making them the observed — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 290; Scholarly fields are constrained by society, institutions, and cultural tradition (+4 more)
  • corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 341

Broader Connections