The Spirit of Capitalism in the dorms

According to Max Weber, the Spirit of Capitalism consists of two elements: making money for the sake of making money and economic activity as involving a work ethic. Making money for the sake of making money means pursuing profit as an end to itself. The work ethic means that work becomes a calling, people are drawn through destiny. The spirit of capitalism also conveys a frenzied activity that people engage in when they are anxious about their predestination. I will argue that the students living in the dormitory serve a perfect example of the spirit of capitalism.
First, students in the dorms demonstrate that they make money for the sake of making money. The dormitory is less comfortable than apartments because they have much less space. Students in the dorms deny their physical comfort of living in the apartments so that they can be in a more educated environment. The dorm is an environment that fosters education because it has study lounges for people to study in groups and tutors to help students with their homework. By being in an educated environment, students are encouraged to work hard. Thus, students sacrifice their physical comfort for diligence in school. They work hard in order to make money. They do not spend money or live lavishly, but rather, they are frugal. They pursue a university degree so that they will have a good high-paying career.
Second, students in the dorms have a moral system that leads to their work ethic. The students’ calling is their work ethic. For example, most students value education and believe that they should study. Students are responsible and focused on working hard in order to make money.
Just like the Calvinists who did not know their predestination, students in the dorms did not know whether they are allowed to stay in the dorms or not. The Calvinists were predestined to be damned or saved but did not know if they were elected (which is saved to go to heaven) or damned (which means they go to hell). As a result, they wanted to look for positive signs that they were saved to alleviate their anxiety. This frenzied activity represents the spirit of capitalism. God is invisible and unverifiable, and as a consequence, people police each other. People observe others to figure out whether others are saved or damned. Likewise, in the dorms, students do not know if their Residential Assistants (RAs) are watching them. If they are caught in trouble, they might be kicked out of the dorms (which is a metaphor for being damned) and if they are seen doing good, they will allowed to stay in the dorms (which is like being saved). Thus, students are so afraid of being kicked out that they always maintain their best behavior. They also observe others to see if others are behaving.
Thus, students live in the dorms so that they can work hard, get a degree, and make money. Students have a calling to live in the dorms – they feel that it is their moral obligation to live in the dorms, because it is an environment that fosters education. Students engage in a frenzy when they want to know if they are allowed to stay in the dorms. All these show parallels between the dorms and Weber’s spirit of capitalism.

The Panopticon

In Discipline and Punishment, Foucault discusses and analyzes the panopticon. The panopticon is architecturally designed in order to observe, normalize, and examine its subjects. Foucault argues that prisons, hospitals, and schools all represent panopticons. I will argue that dormitories also represent a panopticon.

In one of the key points that Foucault makes, he says, “Power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at any moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so” (Foucault 201).

The panopticon is a building where the tower, which is placed in the middle, can observe each cell’s subject. With its structure, the panopticon represents the exercise of power because it makes power both “visible and unverifiable.” While the prisoners can always see, they never know whether they are being seen. By gazing at the prisoners, the observer has power over them. The panopticon allows power to run effectively because examination is made simple – only one person is required to be the observer and this person has power over multiple individuals.

Foucault does not theorize the origin or causes of the panopticon, but he does explicate the functions and social consequences. The function of the panopticon is to maintain power by confining the person and preventing him from communicating with others. Ultimately, the function of the panopticon is invisibility, “and this invisibility is a guarantee of order” (Foucault 200). Thus, the panopticon maintains power over the individuals. The social consequence is that the crowd is “abolished” (Foucault 201). The panopticon replaces the public spectacle with a “collection of separated individualities” (Foucault 201). The most important social consequence is that the panopticon turns individuals into always behaving in a docile manner. People are acting under pressure to conform. The panopticon forms the essence of Foucault’s theory of power. It demonstrates how through its architecture it can exercise power over people without ever using force.

While Durkheim believes punishment in organic solidarity restores relations, Foucault thinks punishment acts on the individual. For Foucault, the purpose of punishment is to reinforce power rather than solidarity.

The dormitory resembles the panopticon. In terms of entering or searching students’ rooms, the policy is that Residential Assistants (RAs) can “enter students’ rooms periodically for health and safety inspections to insure compliance with University and Residential policy and procedures” (Understanding the Residential Conduct System). This means that the RAs can use their master keys to enter a student’s room without previous notice and see whether the student is behaving or not. For example, one of my floormates was privately drinking alcohol in his room, but the RA keyed into his room and caught him, thereby giving him a sanction. Therefore, students in the dorms never know whether they are being observed, and because they don’t know, they must always behave appropriately in case they are really under surveillance. Because the RAs can come to check on the students anytime, students would take extra precaution that they are following the rules. For example, my floormate who was caught drinking has not drank in the dorms since. This shows that students behave better when the RA has the power to key in anytime.


However, power in the dorms sometimes contradicts Foucault’s analysis. Unlike Foucualt’s description, students in the dorms are neither confined to their rooms nor prevented from communicating with one another. Rather, students in the dorms can communicate with one another and socialize. This communication lessens the power of the panopticon because people can unite and rebel. This communication makes them less completely subjected to power. When people socialize, they know that they are under less surveillance. Thus, power does not work perfectly in the dorms, but rather, has gaps.

Crime and Punishment

In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim analyzes the concepts crime and punishment in great detail. Crime and punishment are not separate entities, but rather, are inextricably connected to each other. Durkheim defines crime as “any act which provokes against the perpetrator the characteristic reaction known as punishment” (31). Put another way, “what characterizes a crime is that it determines the punishment” (44). The college dormitory at Berkeley is an excellent example of Durkheim’s crime and punishment. Ultimately, the relationship between crime and punishment is that punishment is meant to deter crime.
There is nothing inherent in a crime. Because crimes are “those criminal acts that seem harmful to the society that represses them” (33), it is society that defines what constitutes a crime. Moreover, it is the collective consciousness that defines what is a crime.
Durkheim demonstrates that “the only feature common to all crimes is that … they comprise acts universally condemned by the members of each society” (33-34). Durkheim claims that “an act is criminal if it offends the strong, well-defined states of the collective consciousness” (39).
Punishment has two functions: “to prescribe certain obligations, and to define the sanctions attached to them” (35). However, the real function of punishment is “to maintain inviolate the cohesion of society by sustaining the common consciousness in all its vigor” (63). Punishment originates from society. Punishment exists because “an act can be disastrous for society without suffering the slightest repression” (33). Therefore, punishment is meant to suppress crimes.
Many of Durkeim’s theories ring true in the dormitory. For example, the dorms’ reasoning to punish students parallels Durkheim’ interpretation of punishment: the function of punishment is to restore the collective consciousness. An important social rule that students living in the dorms must follow is quiet hours, which designates that during a time of the day (for example, 11pm to 8am), students should not be making excessive noise that can hinder someone’s sleep or study. There is punishment for those who break the rules. The consequences students face vary according to the student’ record (ie. how many times has the student broken the rules in the past) and to the degree of the offense. Examples of punishment include making a poster that informs other students in the dorms of the rules, writing an essay explaining an action plan in the future, and doing community service. More severe punishments include being put on probation. The main goal of punishment is so that students will not break the rules again.
Durkheim’s theory does not account for conflict. However, conflict between roommates does occur in the dorms. Not all roommates get along harmoniously or live in solidarity. Therefore, Durkheim assumes that people coexist in solidarity, but conflict in the dorms deviates from this theory.
As Durkheim noted, “Society punishes, not because the punishment of itself affords some satisfaction, but in order that the fear of punishment may give pause to the evilly inclined” (44). Therefore, crime and punishment exist as a form of defense for society. Furthermore, society as a whole benefits from punishment because people, knowing that they will face consequences, will less likely commit an immoral act.

The College Dormitory

The institution I will study is the UC Berkeley dormitory. My relationship to the schools’ dorms is that I am a resident there. As a facility for the school’s students to live, the dorm fits into the category of civil society. This year is the third year that I have been living in the dorms. Not only have I resided in the dorms, but I have also worked in the dorms’ judicial board. As a result of my experience, I understand the system and the workings of the dorms. An important social rule that students must follow is quiet hours, which designates that during a time of the day (for example, 11pm to 8am), students should not be making excessive noise that can hinder someone’s sleep or study.

Marx would describe the division of labor in the dorms as one that involves hierarchy among the Residential Assistants and residents. The Residential Assistant (RA) holds a higher position above all the residents. RAs are leaders who have about 60 residents under their care. The job of the RA is to uphold the rules of the dorms while simultaneously building a cohesive social community. Marx would see that some of the RAs approach their job with little understanding of the residents, and through such action, RAs could be seen as generating class division between themselves and the residents. By misusing their power, RAs could be exploiting their residents. However, RAs can give fair treatment to their residents and this would avoid antagonism between the RAs and the residents.