The Foucault 's Idea Of Organizing Students

From the concrete walls, the schematics of Architecture and even the way that we are taught, school can remind us of a type of prison. We are taught by repetition and to regurgitate information rather than actually go in depth to understand the topic. We are ready to absorb information and not question said info. We are like fishes swimming in a bowl, unable to comprehend what exists outside of our own sphere of learning. In an essay written by Foucault, he talks about the idea of the Panopticon. When reading his essay, it becomes clear there are striking similarities between the Panopticon and the schooling system. It is my intent to show how both the schooling system and the Panopticon strip Individuality away because of mechanical teaching. This will be conveyed by showing the comparisons of the Panopticon and the schooling system through the topics of how describing the similarity of the two locations and lead into the course of Surveillance on both subjects. I will then lead into the topic of Discipline shaping behavior and will finalize with discussing how the general architecture of schools and the Panopticon are similar.

Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman’s work was centralised around there two different concepts of how your identity is formed through the process of power and expert knowledge. This Essay will discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault who was a French Social Theorist. His theories addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and how both of these are used as a form of social control through society. The essay will look at Foucault’s work in The Body and Sexuality, Madness and Civilisation and Discipline and Punish which displays how he conceptualised Power and identity on a Marxist and macro basis of study. The Essay will also address the Ideas of Erving Goffman who was A Canadian Born Sociologist who’s key study was what

This part of the paper will provide a comparison with a theorist previously discussed in a lecture. The theorist with whom Michael Foucault’s arguments will be compared to is Emile Durkheim. Durkheim sees crime as functional. He says that if there was no crime, all our values would be dispersed--these values are laws. These laws are observed by sanctions and punishments attached to it. However, in order for these laws to exist, there must be a punishment, thus, for there to be a punishment, there has to be crime. Repressive law, according to this classical theorist was based on punishing for the evil doing of the criminal through revenge. Durkheim believes that a crime is not collective and when one goes against the core values of society, one threatens the entire order of society. Therefore, this theorist would agree with Foucault that when disciplining a criminal, he or she should be stripped of their freedom and when

Michel Foucault believes that surveillance is used to categorize, differentiate, hierarchize, and exclude. In part three chapter two of Discipline and Punish Foucault starts to talk about how a school was designed to be able to use surveillance. Foucault says: “The very building of the Ecole was to be an apparatus for observation; the rooms were distributed along a corridor like a series of small cells; at regular intervals, an officer’s quarters were situated, so that ‘every ten pupils had an officer on each side’”(pp. 172-173). Because the building is broken up into rooms, it makes it easier to categorize the students; whether by age, intelligence, or any other way wanted. The officers can simply put one group into one room and another group into the other room. Later in that chapter Foucault says, “an assistant teacher taught the holding of the pen, guided the pupils hand, corrected mistakes and at the same time ‘marked down’ those who did not know them” (p 176). This one task that the assistant teacher completed can be used to categorize, differentiate, hierarchize, and exclude. The teachers can put the students into different groups based on what they know or don’t know. They can then be able to differentiate between the students and know what they do know. They will keep records of how each student did, and they can take the less proficient students and give them a different curriculum so that they can continue to progress.

Foucault’s primary example of a disciplinary institution was the Panopticon planned by J. Bentham. It was what seemed to be precise in the aspects of control, power, discipline, and isolation. It was for all types of people such as a schoolboy, worker, sickly patient or a madman. It was created to stop all foolishness. Inmates needed to be watched constantly to make sure that everything and everyone were in order; therefore there was special architecture produced in order to accomplish that task.

Through the discussion of punishment and its purpose Foucault brings up the idea of normalization. Government and other higher levels of authority have established what they consider to be proper conduct within society. Those who deter from those guidelines are punished.

When reading this piece, I noticed that book is all about how important and integrated prison is a main part of our society around the world. It shows how it is impossible to get rid of them, mostly because of the fact that there is no alternative to prisons really out there, and just like the title suggests prisons are the main form of “Discipline and Punishment”. Foucault's main argument is that modern society, mostly referencing France, are based on the idea of individual liberty. As prison deprives people of their liberty choices and leaving them in confinement leads to it being the most ethical punishment. Most importantly, the systems of discipline, and observation that go around inside a prison extend outside its walls.

Michel Foucault is a very famous French intellectual who practiced the knowledge of sociology. Foucault analyzed how knowledge related to social structures, in particular the concept of punishment within the penal system. His theory through, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, is a detailed outline of the disciplinary society; in which organizes populations, their relations to power formations, and the corresponding conceptions of the subjects themselves. Previously, this type of punishment focused on torture and dismemberment, in which was applied directly to bodies. Foucault mentions through his literary piece, “the soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy: the soul is the prison of the body (p.30). However, today, the notion of punishment involves public appearances in a court and much more humane sentences. However, it is important to note and to understand the idea of power and knowledge; it is fundamental to understand the social system as a whole.

In her article, “Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power”, Bartkey begins by summarizing philosopher Michel Foucault’s literary analysis of the Panopticon and how the prison system works tying it to modern society. Foucault begins by using the example of a student who is forced to sit in assigned seating based of class ranking. The scrutiny the student faces forces him to sit upright; he must keep feet his feet on the floor; his head must stay erect; and he may not slouch or fidget. With

Throughout history, many men and women have made important contributions to the world of education. Amongst these is the Brazilian scholar Paulo Freire, whose influences on the world have been both broad and deep. A true believer in Marxist theory, his central ideas regarding education revolve around the concept that the experience and learning process of education are more important than the "facts" or concepts that are being taught. Consequently, traditional teaching methods (known as "Banking") train students to be passive, unthinking, and subservient to their superiors; instead, teachers should "free" their students by employing "problem-posing" techniques, where teachers not only present concepts for students to analyse, but

It was by doing this that the disciplinary self was created - “discipline ‘makes’ individuals”, a phenomenon of the disciplinary era (1977, p.170). Our movement through the institutions defined our individualisation; normalising, examining and hierarchically observing each member of society (Foucault, 1977) - our sense of self emerged from their intersections. In Postcript on the Societies of Control (1992), Deleuze states the S.O.D have made way for the S.O.C. He mainly attributes this shift to the environments of “enclosure” (1992, p.4) – the institutions – beginning to crumble, and the factory – a typical workplace on the S.O.D – being replaced by the corporation (1992). In the S.O.D Foucault claimed that the soldier can be moulded like “a formless clay” (1977, p.135) – these rigid institutions formed us. Now without these institutions we lose this mould, and therefore our concept of the ‘self’. Imagine if instead of pushing clay into a mould we placed it on a desk; it would be shapeless and adaptable. This according to Deleuze is a defining characteristic of the S.O.C; flexibility in our structures moving us from moulds to “modulations” (1992, p.4). These modulations are “a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other” (1992, p.4). Instead of experiencing these rigid disciplines, we are left in this soft, malleable environment, which constantly

For Foucault you cannot understand imprisonment without looking at torture first and how they both correlate to one another. Throughout this essay I will assess Foucault’s theories about torture and his views of how it has come about. I will look at how torture is a technique and the forms of disciplinary techniques that accompany torture. I will assess the power structures and how it manifests into other institutions in today’s society. Lastly how torture is needed to understand imprisonment. Torture was used as a scare tactic in the past to keep individuals under control. Society was aware of what may occur to them if they disobeyed the law. This initiated power and discipline over citizens which helps us to understand power relations today in terms of imprisonment.

As I was reading the Foucault’s work and his definition of disciplinary power and ‘docile bodies’, I couldn’t help myself but think of it as a society and the people living in it. In other words, disciplinary is the type of power that shapes and monitors people’s behavior in the society, which then creates ‘docile bodies’. Foucault then drew examples like school, military, and prison to illustrate how discipline forms docile bodies. I personally believe that structure of this system itself demands its people inside to follow the rules, otherwise they will be punished. A student in the library is expected to study quietly because this is a social norm; if the student makes a lot of noise then he or she will be asked to leave the library, which is a form of punishment. Therefore, in a few words, docile bodies are the people and their behaviors shaped by the society and social norms.

When understanding education there are many different ways which the purpose of education may be applied and defined. My personal philosophy of education is, 'educators must nurture/guide students within the academic field, to that the aims, goals and results during this task of educating or being educated are achieved '. This philosophy is used to understand that both teachers and students play an integral role in education. Academic performance, classroom methods/practices and also meeting the requirements of both the senior secondary Australian Curriculum Framework and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers Framework are examples of these roles. This essay will discuss in detail how my personal philosophy of education, reflects on the role of teachers and learners, the aim of education and the methods and practices used in the classroom. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Paulo Freire, Locke, and Plato/Socrates are the four theorists that shall be used within this essay, to support claims and justify statements regarding this philosophy. John Dewey and A.S Neil are two non-supporting theorists that shall be used in contrast to justify this philosophy.

Both Goffman and Foucault want to understand how social order is made, and they both look at bigger ways in which to understand it. However, Goffman focuses on society at a micro level, to help him understand the bigger picture of how social order is created. His work is very much centred on the individual. Goffman believes that social order is created by everyone’s individual actions. He likens people’s everyday interactions to a stage, where the front of stage is where people put on ‘performances’ to meet the demands of maintaining social order, and backstage as a place where an individual could let go of that (Silva, 2009, p.317). Foucault looks at the micro level, but also sees the big picture, the macro level of social order. He claims that social institutions (schools, workplaces, families), have a certain knowledge and power over an individual, and it is by using that power that social order is created, through the discourse of creating rules and regulations. (Silva, 2009, p.319). By concerning himself with people who have