Taking as its point of departure the validity of Michel Foucault’s ideas concerning disciplinary power, bio-power, and the privileged position of sexuality as a focal point of their combination, this article furnishes a genealogical contextualisation of the behaviour of, and the conflicts between, certain of the characters in Field’s "Little Children" (2006). Such an analysis is undertaken, firstly, in the interest of demonstrating the value of Field’s film as a critical cinematic text that reflects upon disciplinary/ bio-power as problematic – through the use of parody and tragedy – and secondly, in the interest of considering the consequent relationship between the social sciences and such forms of visual art. That is, firstly, most mainstream Hollywood films include within their narratives only conflicts between characters that can easily be resolved, in a normative fashion, within the ambit of the disciplinary/biopower discourses that constitute their context. However, in contrast, Field’s "Little Children" implicitly thematises as problematic the ways in which such disciplinary/bio-power discourses both inform subjectivity and dictate the normative parameters of social interaction. Consequently, unlike most other Hollywood films, it refrains from complicity with the discursive regimes of the contemporary era. Secondly, because Field’s film emerged from within the domain of Hollywood, its failure to comply in this regard provides strong evidence of a growth in popular critical awareness, which stands to challenge the validity of social science theories that continue to construe the disciplinary/bio-power subject as discursively myopic. This is because, as part of mainstream culture, Field’s "Little Children" indicates a dissolution of naivety and a concomitant growth in critical awareness on the part of disciplinary/ bio-power subjects – in relation to both their discursive environment and the way in which this environment informs their subjectivity. Moreover, as will be discussed, Field’s film is also not entirely a product of fiction, but rather echoes and reflects both extant social problems and forms of discursive transformation currently underway in relation to them. As such, the social sciences, to avoid falling into the trap of redundancy, can scarcely afford to ignore its implications, and the implications of similar films.
’n Uitdaging aan die sosiale wetenskappe vanuit die visuele kunste: ’n heroorweging van Foucault in die lig van Field se "Little Children" (2006). Hierdie artikel neem die geldigheid van Michel Foucault se opvattinge oor dissiplinêre mag, bio-mag en die gepriviligeerde posisie van seksualiteit as ’n snypunt van albei, as uitgangspunt. Op daardie basis bied dit ’n genealogiese kontekstualisering van die gedrag van, en die konflik tussen, sekere karakters in Field se "Little Children" (2006). Hierdie analise word onderneem, eerstens ten einde die waarde van Field se film as ’n kinematiese teks wat – met gebruikmaking van parodie en tragedie – oor dissiplinêre/ bio-mag as problematies reflekteer, te demonstreer; en, tweedens, ten einde die daaruit voortvloeiende verhouding tussen die sosiale wetenskappe en sodanige vorms van visuele kuns te oorweeg. Eerstens, die narratiewe van die meeste hoofstroom Hollywood films sluit slegs konflikte in tussen karakters wat maklik op ’n normatiewe wyse binne die raamwerk van die dissiplinêre/bio-mag wat hul konteks konstitueer, opgelos kan word. Field se "Little Children" daarenteen tematiseer implisiet sowel die wyses waarop sulke dissiplinêre/bio-mag diskoerse subjektiwiteit informeer, asook die normatiewe parameters van sosiale interaksie, as problematies. Anders as die meeste ander Hollywood films, weerhou hierdie film sig gevolglik van medepligtigheid aan die diskursiewe regimes van die kontemporêre tydvak. Tweedens, aangesien Field se film uit die Hollywood-domein voortgekom het, lewer die onwilligheid van hierdie film om by die norm in te val, sterk bewys van ’n sekere ontwikkeling in die populêre kritiese bewussyn; dit rig ’n uitdaging aan die geldigheid van sosiaal-wetenskaplike teorieë wat steeds die dissiplinêre/bio-mag subjek as onkrities voorstel. Die rede daarvoor is dat Field se "Little Children", ofskoon deel van die hoofstroom kultuur, nogtans ’n breuk in naïwiteit asook ’n gepaardgaande ontwikkeling van ’n kritiese besef betreffende die subjekte van die dissiplinê/bio-mag, aandui – in verhouding tot hul diskursiewe omgewing, asook die wyse waarop daardie omgewing hul subjektiwiteit informeer. Bowendien is (soos ons sal aandui) Field se film nie geheel en al die produk van fiksie nie; inteendeel, dit eggo en weerspieël sowel bestaande sosiale probleme as vorme van diskursiewe tranformasie wat huidiglik met betrekking tot albei aan die ontwikkel is. Ten einde nie in die strik van oortolligheid te beland nie, kan die sosiale wetenskappe dit beswaarlik bekostig om die implikasies van hierdie en soortgelyke films te ignoreer.
