Comparing Foucault's Discipline And Punish

Change over time; that is a common theme with everything in the world. The concept of punishment is no different in that regard. In the 16th and 17th century the common view for punishing people was retaliation from the king and to be done in the town square. In what seemed to be all of a sudden, there was a change in human thinking, the concept of punishment changed to a more psychological approach compared to a public embarrassment/torture approach. The following paragraphs will discuss the development of prisons and what in fact gives people gives people the right to punish; as well as the overall meaning and function of prisons. The work by Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison will help with the arguments

Crime is inevitable in society, whether it be in traditional societies or in modern society. However, with an action, there are always has to be a consequence, however when breaking the law, the consequences are rather bad, and sometimes harsh. This is called punishment. Discipline is enforcing acceptable patterns of behaviour and teaching obedience. In an excerpt called Discipline and Punish, contemporary theorist Michael Foucault explains these two concepts. This paper will summarize the author’s main points; provide a comparison with a theorist previously lectured on in class, as well as a personal interpretation of Foucault’s arguments.

It is used all around the world in many institutions in the hope that perfect order can be achieved within its population. In the 1800’s, an English philosopher by the name of Jeremy Bentham, developed the theory of the “Panopticon”. The theory was initially developed in a hope to resolve an issue brought in by the industrial age where institutions were becoming so large and systematic, that they were no longer able to monitor, and therefore control each one of their individual members. The theory was originally developed to be implemented in penitentiaries due to the rampant behaviour of the inmates. The underlying attribute of the theory left a large tower being built in the centre of the institution that allowed the guards to monitor any one of the inmates at any given time. The crucial philosophy of Bentham’s theory was that the inmates were unable to see back through the tower so essentially they never knew when or if they were being watched. Due to human nature, the prisoners would then have to constantly be under the assumption that they were being watched so therefore their behaviour would reflect on this and would produce both obedient and compliant inmates. It was then further realised by the French philosopher, Michel Foucault, that this theory could be used in any form of institution seeking to regulate human behaviour such as schools and

As the Panopticon is established, a system of normalizing judgements is also at play. With this system, power does not need to actively enslave its people anymore. Instead, social norms are all subjected upon society passively. This is achievable through “micro-penalties” that Panoptic institutions -military, schools, and hospitals- construct (Foucault 178). All of these disciplines affect the “politeness...behavior...and speech” of society (Foucault 178). It is a system of punishment that makes everyone accountable, while rewarding and punishing individuals as a whole. This equality creates a minimum of how people should actively behave. Through the creation of this behavior minimum people become normalized and those who are

Foucault once stated, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests” (301). By this, he means that our society is full of constant supervision that is not easily seen nor displayed. In his essay, Panopticism, Foucault goes into detail about the different disciplinary societies and how surveillance has become a big part of our lives today. He explains how the disciplinary mechanisms have dramatically changed in comparison to the middle ages. Foucault analyzes in particular the Panopticon, which was a blueprint of a disciplinary institution. The idea of this institution was for inmates to be seen but not to see. As Foucault put it, “he is the object of information, never a subject in

In his essay “Panopticism,” Michel Foucault introduces the Panopticon structure as proof of modern society tending toward efficient disciplinary mechanisms. Starting with his example of the strict, intensely organized measures that are taken in a typical 17th-century plague-stricken town, Foucault describes how the town employed constant surveillance techniques, centralized a hierarchy of authorities to survey households, partitioned individual structures to impose certain behavior, and record current information about each individual.

The final sentence reveals the Panopticon’s true purpose: a political tool. The previous sentences break down the previously configured definition of the Panopticon and with this final piece, Foucault finishes redefining the term. Understanding that limiting the definition of the Panopticon would eliminate its functionality, Foucault chooses to interpret it loosely without assigning a set meaning to it. Thus, allowing the concept of the Panopticon to be used in other subject areas and not just as a tool for prisons. John Berger also addresses a similar issue through the example of artwork in his text, “Ways of Seeing”. Berger’s description of present day reproductions of images from the past explains how past processes can find use in the present through interpreting the essence of its meaning. More specifically, Berger believes that we can assign several different uses to objects of the past because the information that they provide remains the same even if the actual, physical object does not. “It is not a question of reproduction failing to reproduce certain aspects of an image faithfully; it is a question of reproduction making it possible, even inevitable, that an image will be used for many different purposes and that the reproduced image,

According to Foucault, power does not belong to the individual, but to the system, to the institution. In his essay on Discipline and Punish, Foucault presents his idea of the panopticon mechanism, a mechanism in which visibility is a trap. With little importance over the actual individual in the role of the observer or of the observed, the object of the system is total power over the observed. Due to the unique shape of the panopticon, there are no corners and thus no blind spots for the observed to hide in. The private space is replaced by the public one. Furthermore, as final evidence of total control, the observed never knows for sure if they are being watched or not, as they can’t see the observer (Foucault 200-205). Foucault further argues that this system is followed by any government institution, placing the society under permanent observation. Individuals might try to evade the system, but achieving liberation and freedom is not something that anyone could do. Dostoevsky’s famous novel, Crime and

Foucault address the changing definition of crime and how power is exerted through the enforcement of punishment. During the monarchy, kings and queens showed their power and authority of the people by determining what punishment someone would receive for their actions. In the current political system, judges and juries are in the position to make these decisions. Judgement is the current system is based on motives and intent rather than on the severity of the crime alone. We care more about the psychological state of the individual and want to be able to change the person's soul to better respect society. The quote below addresses how punishment uses a variety of specializations and how the individual's mental state is molded to fit into standards we have created today.

Panopticism is a social theory named after the “panopticon”, which was originally developed by the French philosopher, Michel Foucault. Panopticon was first mentioned in his book, Discipline and Punish. In his book, he refers "panopticon" to “an experimental laboratory of power in which behaviour could be modified.” Foucault considered panopticon as a symbol of the “disciplinary society of surveillance” (Panopticism). In the two novels, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Frankenstein, panopticism is an element shown greatly. Though these two novels have many differences, this similarity shared between the two is equally important.

     The Panopticon, a prison described by Foucault, “is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing” (321, Foucault). This literally means that in the formation of the panopticon those who are being seen can not see one another and the one who sees everything can never be seen. That is the most important tool of the panopticon. Foucault makes this assumption about today’s society by saying that we are always being watched whether we know it or not. One always keeps an eye over their shoulder as a

The beginning of this essay will reference the judge’s traditional duty. Next it will explore the similarities between Michel Foucault’s Punish and Discipline and Nellie Bly’s Ten Days in a Madhouse. More specifically, it will address the increased authority of the judge, and the judge as a normalizing figure in society. After, it will compare Foucault’s definition of disciplinary institutions to Nellie Bly’s experience in Blackwell Insane Asylum.

Michel Foucault states in Discipline and Punishment that “the Panopticon is a marvelous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power” (Foucault 188). Examining the evolution, physical characteristics, and psychological effects of the Panopticon allows one to understand the mechanism by which the Panopticon produces power.

In “Panopticism”, Foucalt describes the architecture of a Panopticon, and how it makes it so unique and efficient. A person in the middle is watching at all times, yet the people can never know if they are being watched or not. Also, the prisoners cannot communicate with one another, which prevents the threat

The main ideas of Discipline and Punish can be grouped according to its four parts: torture, punishment, discipline and