The complexity of intertwining of these four modes of power could be best exemplified in an institution of social discipline usually called “civility.” Civility is codes of good behavior accepted and shared (though not necessarily always practiced) by many people. It is usually considered that civility is the result of voluntary acceptance of the social rules. In reality, however, a civilized code of behavior could be initiated in many ways. The code of civilized behavior could be first enforced by the coercive power of law. In Singapore nowadays, the Westernized regime enforces a fine on spitting in public. People may accept this code for fear of punishment However, after a few generations, the spitting that is a common practice of the Chinese population would be considered simply uncivilized conduct, and its prohibition would be culturally encoded and turned into the habit of daily practice. In this case, apparently, the coercive power of social discipline can change the content of civility.

On the other hand, consider the case of an immigrant in America who is eager to be assimilated by the society. He goes out from the congenial ethnic enclave to seek better opportunities, and may voluntarily start imitating the etiquette of middle-class Americans. In this case, there is a will for integration preceding acceptance of the code. However, behind the voluntary appearance, there is a coercive mechanism which disciplines an immigrant for integration. Every day in the workplace, he feels alienation and subtle rejection because of his difference, and this experience forces him to conform to the rules. In this case, the implementation of social discipline seems to be conducted through a spontaneous emulation, but the process contains the shadow of class domination. The emulation o f higher-class manners and lifestyle by members o f a lower class usually follows a similar process.

Ikegami, E. (1989). Disciplining the Japanese: The reconstruction of social control in tokugawa, japan (thesis) WEB 2021