This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The body of the condemned This first section of Part One serves as an introduction to the entire book. Examples of eighteenth-century torture provide Foucault with many colorful episodes to relate in his account of how penality changed in modernity. Foucault relates an explicit account of Damien‟s torture to introduce his subject (3-5) and compares that account of penality to Faucher‟s timetable for prisoners published in approximately 1837 (6-7). The period separating these two accounts is a “new age for penal justice” in Europe and the United States that saw changes in the following areas: -- Economy of punishment -- Numerous projects for reform -- New theories of law and crime -- New moral and political justifications of the right to punish -- The disappearance of old laws and customs (7). In the span of only a few decades between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, torture as public spectacle disappeared (7) as did “the body as the major target of penal repression” (8). Two processes were at work in this transformation: (1) Disappearance of punishment as spectacle (8); and (2) Slackening of the hold on the body (10) Disappearance of punishment as spectacle (8) Punishment becomes a hidden part of the penal process with several consequences: (1) It leaves the domain of everyday perception and enters that of abstract consciousness; (2) Its effectiveness is seen as resulting from its inevitability, not from its visible intensity; (3) It is the certainty of being punished and not the horrifying spectacle of public punishment that must discourage crime; (4) The mechanics of punishment changes its mechanisms; thus, “justice no longer takes public responsibility for the violence that is bound up with its practice . . .[and] is difficult to account for” (9). Public spectacle turned the tables, enveloping the executioner, judge, and other associated parties in shame and often the subject of the public‟s violence. The change from punishment as public spectacle saw the offender unequivocally marked with the negative sign; the publicity shifted to the trial and justice dissociated itself from execution, trusting autonomous others to do the job (910). E.g., in France, prison administration duties were the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior, but responsibility for penal servitude in the convict ships and penal settlements lay with
the Ministry of the Navy or the Ministry of the Colonies. “Beyond this distribution of roles operates a theoretical disavowal: do not imagine that the sentences that we judges pass are activated by a desire to punish; they are intended to correct, reclaim, „cure‟; a technique of improvement represses, in the penalty, the strict expiation of evildoing, and relieves the magistrates of the demeaning task of punishing. In modern justice and on the part of those who dispense it there is a shame in punishing, which does not always preclude zeal” (10). Slackening of the hold on the body (10) -- “One no longer touched the body, or at least as little as possible, and then only to reach something other than the body itself” (11). -- “The body now serves as an instrument or intermediary: if one intervenes upon it to imprison it, or to make it work, it is in order to deprive the individual of a liberty that is regarded both as a right and as property” (11). -- “From being an art of unbearable sensations punishment has become an economy of suspended rights” (11). -- “The body and pain are not the ultimate objects of [the law‟s] punitive action,” thus warders, doctors, chaplains, psychiatrists, psychologists, and educationalists have taken over from the executioner (11). -- “Impose penalties free of all pain” (11). -- “The reduction of these „thousand deaths‟ to strict capital punishment defines a whole new morality concerning the act of punishing” (12). -- “At the beginning of the nineteenth century, then, the great spectacle of physical punishment disappeared; the tortured body was avoided; the theatrical representation of pain was excluded from punishment” (14). -- “By 1830-1848, public executions preceded by torture had almost entirely disappeared,” though this change was not continuous (14). -- “There remains a trace of „torture‟ in the modern mechanisms of criminal justice – a trace that has not been entirely overcome, but which is enveloped, increasingly, by the non-corporal nature of the penal system” (16). -- The body has not been completely removed because of the implications of removing freedom, e.g., food rationing, sexual deprivation, solitary confinement. “If the penality in its most severe forms no longer addresses itself to the body, on what does it lay hold?” (16). “There is a substitution of objects: the quality, the nature, and the substance of “crime” has changed in its sense as the substance of which the punishable element is made (as opposed to its formal definition). Judgment is passed on offenses as defined by law, but judgment is also passed on passions, instincts, anomalies, infirmities, maladjustments, effects of environment or
heredity, aggressivity, perversions, drives, and desires” (17). “By solemnly inscribing offences in the field of objects susceptible of scientific knowledge, they provide the mechanisms of legal punishment with a justifiable hold not only on offences, but on individuals; not only on what they do, but also on what they are, will be, may be” (18). “Within the very judicial modality of judgment, other types of assessment have slipped in, profoundly altering its rules of elaboration” (19). Old Question New Question Has the act been established and is it punishable? What is this act, what is this act of violence or this murder? To what level or to what field of reality does it belong? Is it a phantasy, a psychotic reaction, a delusional episode, a perverse action? Who committed it? How can we assign the causal process that produced it? Where did it originate in the author himself? instinct, unconscious, environment, heredity? What law punishes this offence? What would be the most appropriate measures to take? How do we see the future development of the offender? What would be the best way of rehabilitating him? “A whole set of assessing, diagnostic, prognostic, normative judgments concerning the criminal have become lodged in the framework of penal judgment” (19). “The reform of 1832, introducing attenuating circumstances, made it possible to modify the sentence according to the supposed degrees of an illness or the forms of a semi-insanity. And the practice of calling on psychiatric expertise . . .means that the sentence, even if it is always formulated in terms of legal punishment, implies . . .judgments of normality, attributions of causality, assessments of possible changes, anticipations as to the offender‟s future” (20). “The sentence that condemns or acquits is not simply a judgment of guilt, a legal decision that lays down punishment‟ it bears within it an assessment of normality and a technical prescription for a possible normalization” (21). “The whole machinery that has been developing for years around the implementation of sentences and their adjustment to individuals creates a proliferation of the authorities of judicial decision-making and extends its powers of decision well beyond the sentence” (21). “Let us examine the three questions to which [psychiatric experts] have to address themselves: (1) Does the convicted person represent a danger to society? (2) Is he susceptible to penal punishment? (3) Is he curable or readjustable?
Its fate is to be redefined by knowledge” (22). then. according to one‟s point of view. “Today. is the role of the psychiatrist in penal matters? He is not an expert in responsibility. “A corpus of knowledge. techniques. its possible effectiveness. „scientific‟ discourses is formed and becomes entangled with the practice of the power to punish” (23). whether it would be better to try to force him into submission or to treat him” (21-22). ever since the new penal system – that defined by the great codes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – has been in operation. make the technology of power the very principle both of the humanization of the penal system and of the knowledge of man. and the power of judging has been transferred in part. they make it possible to show.“These questions have nothing to do with article 64. (3) Instead of treating the history of penal law and the history of the human sciences as two separate series whose overlapping appears to have had on one or the other. a disturbing or useful effect. and with it the .‟ They concern nothing but the administration of the penalty. regard punishment as a complex social function. but an adviser on punishment‟ it is up to him to say whether the subject is „dangerous. whether this confinement should be short or long. (4) Try to discover whether this entry of the soul onto the scene of penal justice. see whether there is not some common matrix or whether they do not both derive from a single process of „epistemologicojuridical‟ formation‟ in short. they have been led in their sentences to do something other than judge. or perhaps on both. They do not concern „responsibility. Four guidelines of Foucault‟s study: (1) Do not concentrate the study of the punitive mechanisms on their „repressive‟ effect alone. how one should intervene to alter him. by this unceasing reinscription in non-juridical systems. As a consequence. to other authorities than the judges of the offence. criminal justice functions and justifies itself only by this perpetual reference to something other than itself. even if these seem marginal at first sight. a general process has led judges to judge something other than crimes. whether medical treatment of security measures are called for. on their „punishment‟ aspects alone. What. (2) Analyse punitive methods not simply as consequences of legislation or as indicators of social structures.‟ in what way one should be protected from him. “To sum up. Regard punishment as a political tactic. its necessity. whether the mental hospital would be a more suitable place of confinement than the prison. nor with the possible insanity of the convicted person at the moment of the act. in an almost transparent vocabulary. The whole penal operation has taken on extra-juridical elements and personnel” (22). its usefulness. but as techniques possessing their own specificity in the more general field of other ways of exercising power. but situate them in a whole series of their possible positive effects.
tend towards expiation of obtaining redress. force it to carry out tasks. . made up of bits and pieces.insertion in legal practice of a whole corpus of „scientific‟ knowledge. and a mastery of its forces that is more than the ability to conquer them: this knowledge and this mastery constitute what might be called the political technology of the body.We must analyse the concrete systems of punishment as social phenomena that cannot be accounted for by the juridical structure of society alone. their distribution and their submission” (25). to prevent. “There may be a „knowledge‟ of the body that is not exactly the science of its functioning. the systems of punishment are to be situated in a certain „political economy‟ of the body: . on the other hand.We must show that punitive measures are not simply „negative‟ mechanisms that make it possible to repress. This technology is diffuse.We must situate systems of punishment in their field of operation in which the punishment of crime is not the sole element. the body becomes a useful force only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body” (25-6). This political investment of the body is bound up . -. “The body is directly involved in a political field. rarely formulated in continuous. its constitution as labour power is possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection in which need is also a political instrument meticulously prepared.with its economic use. Foucault references Rusche and Kirchheimer‟s “great work”: Punishment and Social Structures. Introductory summaries of how the body is used in the penal system We must rid ourselves of the illusion that penality is a means of reducing crime and that it may be severe or lenient. “In short. systematic discourse. one might understand both how man. “In our societies. to emit signs. torture it. nor by its ethical choices. to exclude. . the soul. to eliminate.it is always the body that is at issue – the body and its forces. -. mark it. towards the pursuit of individuals or the attribution of collective responsibility (24). it is largely as a force of production that the body is invested with relations of power and domination. calculated and used. train it. but that they are linked to a whole series of positive and useful effects which it is their task to support. but. Thus. the normal or abnormal individual have come to duplicate crime as objects of penal intervention. . their utility and their docility. power relations have an immediate hold upon it. by an analysis of penal leniency as a technique of power. cannot be localized in a particular type of . to perform ceremonies. an din what way a specific mode of subjection was able to give birth to man as an object of knowledge for a discourse with a „scientific‟ status” (24). -. is not the effect of a transformation of the way in which the body itself is invested by power relations. try to study the metamorphosis of punitive methods on the basis of a political technology of the body in which might be read a common history of power relations and object relations. implements a disparate set of tools or methods. they invest it. .
This power is exercised rather than possessed. and the modalities of knowledge must be regarded as so many effects of these fundamental implications of power-knowledge and their historical transformations” (28). -. constantly in tension. there is neither analogy nor homology. at the level of individuals. they are not univocal. the general form of the law or government. . that they are not localized in the relations between the state and its citizens or on the frontier between classes and that they do not merely reproduce. of struggles. the processes and struggles that traverse it and of which it is made up. communication routes and supports for the power and knowledge relations that invest human bodies and subjugate them by turning them into objects of knowledge (28). -. and behavior. -. -. but a specificity of mechanism and modality. that determines the forms and possible domains of knowledge” (28). is transmitted by them and through them. relays. -. each of which has its own risks of conflict. . in activity. rather than a privilege that one might possess. tactics.Its effects of domination are attributed not to „appropriation. resist the grip it has on them. The body politic: a set of material elements and techniques that serve as weapons.‟ acquired or preserved. the objects to be known. “Power produces knowledge .Lastly. This means that these relations go right down into the depths of society. in their struggle against it. . of the dominant class. but the overall effect of its strategic positions – an effect that is manifested and sometimes extended by the position of those who are dominated.‟ but to dispositions. but as a strategy. .One should take as its model a perpetual battle rather than a contract. “It is not the activity of the subject of knowledge that produces a corpus of knowledge . it invests them. Power and the body -. that. .there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge.The power exercised on the body is conceived not as a property. and of an at least temporary inversion of the power relations” (26-7).It is not the „privilege. nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.power and knowledge directly imply one another . focuses of instability. -.This power is not exercised simply as an obligation or a prohibition on those who „do not have it‟. -. although there is continuity. just as they themselves. techniques. manoeuvres.but power-knowledge. it exerts pressure upon them. These „powerknowledge relations‟ are to be analysed [on the basis of] the subject who knows. they define innumerable points of confrontation. .institution or state apparatus” (26). gestures. functionings. bodies. .One should decipher in it a network of relations.
then.[and] public torture and execution must be spectacular” (33-4). and within the body by the functioning of a power that is exercised on those punished. (3) Torture forms part of a ritual [that] meets two demands. on those one supervises. it is not an extreme expression of lawless rage. the penal investigation was a machine that might produce the truth in the absence of the accused” (37). in order to construct its proofs. over madmen. Eighteenth-century judicial practices Aspects of judicial procedures: -. (2) The production of pain is regulated. It is “the element in which are articulated the effects of a certain type of power and the reference of a certain type of knowledge. to rigorous rules. is produced permanently around. -. children at home and at school.“Written. punishment must obey three principal criteria: (1) It must produce a certain degree of pain. trains and corrects. It must mark the victim . The spectacle of the scaffold “Torture is a technique. over those who are stuck at a machine and supervised for the rest of their lives. “The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy” (30). -.“The secret and written form of the [judicial] procedure reflects the principle that in criminal matters the establishment of truth was the absolute right and the exclusive power of the sovereign and his judges” (35). To be torture. subjected. the magistrate was forced to drop the charges. supervision and constraint.Judicial torture: the rule was that if the accused „held out‟ and did not confess. This soul is born of methods of punishment. Investigation and punishment had become mixed (40-1). . a penal arithmetic that is meticulous on many points.“We have. the machinery by which the power relations give rise to a possible corpus of knowledge and knowledge extends and reinforces the effects of this power” (29). but which still leaves a margin for a good deal of argument” (37). the colonized. Upon the pronouncement of guilt The guilty man openly bore his condemnation and the truth of the crime he had committed. has a reality. His body served as the public support of a procedure and had several aspects: (1) It made the guilty man the herald of his own condemnation (2) It took up again the scene of the confession (3) It established the relation between the crime and the torture (4) Demonstrated ultimate proof at the juncture of men‟s judgment and God‟s judgment .The power of the confession reduced the need for other evidence or argument with the criminal‟s acceptance of his own responsibility for his own crime (37-8) -. on.The “soul” exists. . 2. -. secret.
It made it possible to reproduce the crime on the visible body of the criminal. admits that the accused did indeed commit it. an opportunity of affirming the dissymmetry of forces. -. the secret on the public. Public execution: -.is a triumph of law. The solidarity of a whole section of the population with those we would call petty . witness. the anchoring point for a manifestation of power. In the history of public execution. the prosecution and secrecy” (47). “The people” and the popularization (romanticization?) of crime In a public execution. confesses that the crime took place. “the people” played roles of audience. shows that he bore it inscribed in himself and on himself. thus transgression of the law constitutes an attack on the sovereign. -. participant. the procedure of investigation on the operation of the confession. -.reactivates power.It assured the articulation of the written on the oral. -. Public execution as political ritual The law represents the will of the sovereign.restores the total power of the sovereign. supports the operation of punishment and manifests its effects in the most striking way. had judicial and political purposes: -. several times tortured. through a whole set of rituals and trials. in which it must serve as the partner of a procedure ordered around the formidable rights of the sovereign. -. It is an essential element.is an exercise of terror to make all aware of the unrestrained presence of the sovereign. riots were an increasing possibility as the people disagreed with the conviction. The precise function of torture. “the great spectacle of punishment ran the risk of being rejected by the very people to whom it was addressed” (63) “Never did the people feel more threatened than by legal violence exercised without moderation or restraint. The body. the body has produced and reproduced the truth of the crime – or rather it constitutes the element which.“From the judicial torture to the execution. then. toward the end of this practice. of the crime and the punishment. -. Thus.It revealed truth and showed the operation of power. -.It made the body of the condemned man the place where the vengeance of the sovereign was applied. in a penal liturgy.The crime had to be manifested and annulled. and possible and indirect victim (68). therefore. provides the synthesis of the reality of the deeds and the truth of the investigation. of the documents of the case and the statements of the criminal.
“The reform of criminal law must be read as a strategy for the rearrangement of the power to punish. the increase of wealth. which increase its effects while diminishing its economic cost (that is to say. a higher juridical and moral value placed on property relations. “The criticism of the reformers was directed not so much at the weakness or cruelty of those in authority. At the same time. more effective. as at a bad economy of power” (79). “During this period. “The shift from a criminality of blood to a criminality of fraud from part of a whole complex mechanism embracing the development of production. criminal justice should simply punish” (74). more “crime literature” was being written that served to heroicize criminals and their deeds (67). “What was emerging no doubt was not so much a new respect for the humanity of the condemned – torture was still frequent in the execution of even minor criminals – as a tendency towards a more finely tuned justice. but of what constituted crime and the (class of) people considered criminal. Part Two: Punishment Generalized punishment In this section.was constantly expressed .it was the breaking up of this solidarity that was becoming the aim of penal and police repression” (63). of . controls become more thorough. . a tighter partitioning of the population. but “an excess that was bound up with an irregularity even more than with an abuse of the power to punish” (78). intolerance to economic offences increases. but at the cost of greater intervention” (75). Changes in punishment marked the end of the sovereign‟s vengeance (74). Regulating punishment and punishing “better” The reformers were attacking the excessive nature of punishments. The call of eighteenth-century reformers: “Instead of taking revenge.offenders . by dissociating it from the system of property. crimes seemed to lose their violence while punishments lost some of their intensity. more efficient techniques of locating and obtaining information: the shift in illegal practices is correlative with an extension and a refinement of punitive practices” (77). Following a circular process. stricter methods of surveillance. in short. of buying and selling. . more constant and more detailed in its effects. Foucault describes the changing approach toward not only punishment. the threshold of the passage to violent crimes rises. . . penal interventions at once more premature and more numerous” (78). towards a closer penal mapping of the social body. according to modalities that render it more regular.
the bourgeoisie was to reserve to itself the illegality of rights: the possibility of getting round its own regulations and its own laws. And at the same time as this split was taking place. but on the continuously distributed effects of public power” (81). etc. between this super-power and this infra-power. The bourgeoisie reserved to itself the fruitful domain of the illegality of rights. tax evasion. reduced fines. with its primary objectives: to make of the punishment and repression of illegalities a regular function. on the other. on the one hand. a whole network of relations was being formed” (87-8). the illegality that was to be most accessible to the lower classes was that of property – the violent transfer of ownership – and because. It became necessary to define a strategy and techniques of punishment in which an economy of continuity and permanence would replace that of expenditure and excess. it was because. but to punish better‟ to punish with an attenuated severity perhaps. “The illegality of property was separated from the illegality of rights. And if penal reform was anything more than the temporary result of a purely circumstantial encounter. the distribution and concentration of the power correlative with actual inertia and inevitable tolerance. but the decisions themselves) and its political cost (by dissociating it from the arbitrariness of monarchical power)” (80-1). . irregular commercial operations – special legal institutions applied with transactions. not to punish less. was the political or philosophical resumption of this strategy. “And this great redistribution of illegalities was even to be expressed through a specialization of the legal circuits: for illegalities of property – for theft – there were the ordinary courts and punishments. “ „Reform. accommodations. of ensuring for itself an immense sector of economic circulation by a skillful manipulation of gaps in the law – gaps that were foreseen by its silences. as it was formulated in the theories of law or as it was outlined in the various projects. In short. sometimes contradictory privileges of sovereignty. penal reform was born at the point of junction between the struggle against the superpower of the sovereign and that against the infra[power of acquired and tolerated illegalities. discontinuous. based on the principles of the confused and inadequate multiplicity of authorities. “The power to judge should no longer depend on the innumerable. This distinction represents a class opposition because.‟ in the strict sense.corruption in obtaining not only offices. there emerged the need for a constant policing concerned essentially with this illegality of property. for the illegalities of rights – fraud. but in order to punish with more universality and necessity‟ to insert the power to punish more deeply into the social body” (82). or opened up by de facto tolerance” (87). coextensive with society. punishments that were spectacular in their manifestations and haphazard in their application. It became necessary to get rid of the old economy of the power to punish.
-. to show the crime and at the same time to show the sovereign power that mastered it.Homogenize its application. by a sort of twin manifestation.Shift the object and change the scale. it is sustained in reality by an upheaval in the traditional economy of illegalities and a rigorous application of force to maintain their new adjustment.“Although the new criminal legislation appears to be characterized by less severe penalties. -. in a penality calculated according to its own effects. A penal system must be conceived as a mechanism intended to administer illegalities differentially. too.Find new techniques for adjusting punishment to it and for adapting its effects. -. universalizing the art of punishing. a marked diminution of the arbitrary.The rule of minimum quantity (to create more interest in avoiding the penalty than committing the crime) -. not to eliminate them all” (89).Reduce its economic and political cost by increasing its effectiveness and by multiplying its circuits. it should prevent any subsequent reappearance of either” (93-4) Five or six major rules of punishment: -. The major function of punishment is to prevent future crime.The rule of lateral effects (punishment that has minimal effects for the criminal and maximum effects on other members of society) -.In short. -.Define new tactics in order to reach a target that is now more subtle but also more widely spread in the social body. refining. “One must punish exactly enough to prevent repetition” (93). -. a clearer codification. -. example was the answer to the crime. but in the most discreet way possible and with the greatest possible economy indicate the intervention of power‟ ideally. “The right to punish has been shifted from the vengeance of the sovereign to the defence of society” (90). “In a penality employing public torture and execution. constitute a new economy and a new technology of the power to punish (89) Punishment took on a social contract model (89-90) where violations of the law violated the contract of the society.The rule of perfect certainty (clearly define and publish offenses and their punishments) . example must refer back to the crime.The rule of sufficient ideality (the idea of pain needs to be a sufficient deterrent) -. a more generally accepted consensus concerning the power to punish (in the absence of a more real division in its exercise). it had. The new theory of punishment The essential raisons d‟etre of penal reform in the eighteenth century: -.Lay down new principles for regularizing.
The rule of common truth (reason will be applied to determine the truth of any criminal matter) -. The gentle way in punishment “The art of punishing must rest on a whole technology of representation” (104). and power must act while concealing itself beneath the gentle force of nature (2) Reduce the desire that makes the crime attractive. “Each element of its ritual must speak. the law must appear to be the necessity of things. Punishment as imprisonment “In under twenty years. Characteristics of obstacle-signs: (1) Must be as unarbitrary as possible. the discourse. There must be no more secret. each punishment should be a fable (113). “The convict pays twice: by the labour he provides and by the signs that he produces. but at the same time. it must open up a book to be read” (111). it must take into account the profound nature of the criminal himself and individualize the penalty) The new political anatomy emerging in the eighteenth century has two intersecting lines of objectification: that which rejects the criminal from the side of a nature against nature. “Punishment must be regarded as a retribution that the guilty man makes to each of his fellow citizens for the crime that has wronged them all” (109). he lets slip into the minds of all the crime-punishment sign: a secondary. show the need for punishment and justify its degree. the convict is a focus of profit and signification. constituting.The publicity of punishment must not have the physical effect of terror. on the public squares or highways. the punishment must proceed from the crime. natural. the principle so clearly formulated in the Constituent Assembly of specific. the decipherable sign. in each case. (5) “The example is now based on the lesson. Visibly. . he is serving everyone. or useless penalties. became the law of detention for every offence of any importance. effective penalties. but much more real utility” (109). reverse the relation of intensities so that the representation of the penalty and its disadvantages is more lively than that of the crime and its pleasures (3) Punishment must be temporary and its duration must be integrated into the economy of the penalty (4) Punishment must be seen as being in the individual‟s best interest.The rule of optimal specification (since punishment must prevent a repetition of the offense. recall the law. . and that which seeks to control delinquency by a calculated economy of punishments that results in the supersession of the punitive semio-technique by a new political of the body (103). increase the interest that makes the penalty be feared. Each punishment should teach a lesson. the representation of public morality” (110). the crime must be seen as a misfortune (112). purely moral. appropriate. spectacular. except those requiring the death penalty” . repeat the crime.-. At the heart of socieyt. (6) The criminal must not be glorified. a lesson for all.
On the other hand. sign. (4) Imprisonment relies on secrecy. a compact functioning of the power to punish: a meticulous assumption of responsibility for the body and the time of the convict. (2) Imprisonment relies not on representations. A power to punish that ran the whole length of the social network would act at each of its points. “Punitive city or coercive institution? On the one hand. “The most important thing [in a prison] was that this control and transformation of behaviour were accompanied – both as a condition and as a consequence – by the development of a knowledge of the individuals” (125).‟ as Servan put it. distributed throughout the social space. a concerted orthopaedy applied to convicts in order to reclaim them individually. discourse. a regulation of his movements and behaviour by a system of authority and knowledge. and in the end would no longer be perceived as a power of certain individuals over others. (2) One punishes to transform a criminal. operating by a permanent recodification of the mind of the citizens. The prison became a sort of permanent observatory that made it possible to distribute the varieties of vice or weakness” (126). but as an immediate reaction of all in relation to the individual. though an administrative apparatus. a functioning of penal power. Disparities between common views of eighteenth-century prison reform and the idea of imprisonment as punishment: (1) Techniques of individualizing correction. (3) The system must be open to individual variables. (3) Relation between individual being punished and the individual doing the punishing. acting invisibly and uselessly on the „soft fibres of the brain.(116). present everywhere as scene. but on a studied manipulation of the individual. spectacle. legible like an open book. Points of convergence between common views of eighteenth-century prison reform and the idea of imprisonment as punishment: (1) There is a difference in the temporal direction of punishment. How did models of imprisonment come to be popular given all the reasons against imprisonment? Walnut Street prison as an example prison: “Work on the prisoner‟s soul must be carried out as often as possible. The prison. eliminating crime by those obstacles placed before the idea of crime. an autonomous administration of this . will at the same time be a machine for altering minds” (125). “This ever-growing knowledge of the individuals made it possible to divide them up in the prison not so much according to their crimes as according to the dispositions that they revealed.
attitudes: an infinitesimal power over the active body -.Uninterrupted. “Small acts of cunning endowed with a great power of diffusion. The art of distributions . Part Three: Discipline Docile bodies “In the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the disciplines became general formulas of domination” (137): -. plans. emerge through the classical age bearing with them a whole set of techniques. on the other hand. and turns it into a relation of strict subjection. it turns it into an „aptitude. „docile‟ bodies.‟ a „capacity. The emergence of the prison marks the institutionalization of the power to punish.Working the body at the level of movements. to be more precise: will the power to punish be better served by concealing itself beneath a general social function. “Discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies. their internal organization -. In short. subtle arrangements. but not so much for the meaning that it conceals within it as for the hold it provides for the power that wishes to seize it” (140).power that is isolated both from the social body and from the judicial power in the strict sense. exercised according to a codification that partitions time. movement as closely as possible. apparently innocent. space. and at the same time a political awareness of these small things. in the „punitive city. descriptions. but profoundly suspicious. the power that might result from it. or.Object was the efficiency of movements. “A meticulous observation of detail.‟ or by investing itself in a coercive institution. or pursued petty forms of coercion – it was nevertheless they that brought about the mutation of the punitive system” (139). a whole corpus of methods and knowledge. the man of modern humanism was born” (141). it dissociates power from the body.‟ which it seeks to increase. mechanisms that obeyed economies too shameful to be acknowledged. and data. it reverses the course of the energy. no doubt. for the control and use of men. on the one hand. in the enclosed space of the „reformatory‟?” (129-30). “No detail is unimportant. If economic exploitation separates the force and the product of labour. Discipline increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility) and diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience). gestures. constant coercion. supervising the processes of the activity rather than its result. And from such trifles. let us say that disciplinary coercion establishes in the body the constricting link between an increased aptitude and an increased domination” (138).
which analyse space. which will have the triple function of showing whether the subject has reached the level . decide on how long each will last and conclude it with an exam. limbs. increasing partitioning of time.“Discipline proceeds from the distribution of individuals in space. which is its condition of efficiency and speech) (4) Body-object articulation (defines each of the relations that the body must have with the object that it manipulates) (5) Exhaustive use (the question of extracting from time more available moments and more useful forces) The organization of geneses How can one organize profitable durations? The disciplines. it distributes multiplicity and derives as many effects from it as possible. articulations is defined. the monastery..” which employs the following techniques: (1) Enclosure – a place heterogeneous to all others and closed in upon itself. combining according to increasing complexity (3) Finalize these temporal segments. e. must also be understood as machinery for adding up and capitalizing time: (1) Divide duration into successive or parallel segments. assures the elaboration of the act itself. army barracks. factories (2) Partitioning – each individual has his own place and each place its individual.g. each of which must end at a specific time (2) Organize threads according to an analytical plan – successions of elements as simple as possible. break up and rearrange activities.. and was useful (4) Rank – the place one occupies in a classification. how to constitute a totally useful time?) (2) Temporal elaboration of the act (a collective and obligatory rhythm. their order of succession is prescribed” ) (3) Correlation of the body and the gesture (imposes the best relation between a gesture and the overall position of the body.g. controls its development and its stages from the inside. It allows the characterization of the individual as individual and the ordering of a given multiplicity (149). The table: in the form of disciplinary distribution. to each movement are assigned a direction. e. the position of the body. attempt to insure the quality of time [eliminate distractions and disturbances]. One‟s distribution and circulation in relation to others. The control of activity (1) The time-table (a general framework for activity. Disciplinary tactics are situated on the axis that links the singular and the multiple. a duration. the monastic cell (3) Functional sites – space that allowed supervision. “The act is broken down into its elements. an aptitude. disabled communication between individuals.
but tends towards a subjection that has never reached its limit” (162). This is an exercise: the technique by which one imposes on the body tasks that are both repetitive and different. it separates.required.. of guaranteeing that each subject undergoes the same apprenticeship and of differentiating the abilities of each individual.” “Instead of bending all its subjects into a single uniform mass. exercise makes possible a perpetual characterization of the individual either in relation to this term. according to his rank. it operates four great techniques: it draws up tables: it prescribes movements. . etc. “Discipline creates out of the bodies it controls . it imposes exercises. in the form of continuity and constraint. It thus assures. The composition of forces How to compose a force greater than the sum of its parts? This demand is expressed in the following ways: (1) The body is constituted as a part of a multisegmentary machine.an individuality endowed with four characteristics: it is cellular (by the play of spatial distribution). does not culminate in a beyond. differentiates. Forces must react to signals as triggers. lay down for each individual. in order to obtain the combination of forces. it arranges „tactics‟” (167). (2) The chronological series that discipline must combine to form a composite time are also pieces of machinery. or in relation to a type of itinerary. genetic (by the accumulation of time). but always graduated. having become an element in the political technology of the body and of duration. (3) The combination of forces requires a precise system of command. (4) Draw up series of series. it is the specific technique of a power that regards individuals both as objects and as instruments of its exercise. combinatory (by the composition of forces). By bending behaviour towards a terminal state. the exercises that are suited to him. And in doing so. analyzes. organic (by the coding of activities). an observation. lastly. a growth. Part III. carries its procedures of decomposition to the point of necessary and sufficient single units…Discipline „makes‟ individuals.” This is the beginning of the invasion of the “great forms” and mechanisms of the sovereign or state by disciplinary power in the form of “humble modalities” Foucault considers three “simple instruments” of disciplinary power: . a qualification. in relation to other individuals. ch 2 Foucault begins his discussion of the “coercion of bodies” (169) by informing us that “[T]he chief function of the disciplinary power is to „train. “Exercise. .
schools: the spatial „nesting‟ of hierarchized surveillance (171-72). prisons. 177-184) “the examination” (pp. Foucault gives a description of a military camp as both an example of “a power that acts by means of general visibility” and as a model of principles “found in urban development. Foucault continues on to elementary teaching where “the details of surveillance were specified and it was integrated into the teaching relationship (175) through careful monitoring. asylums. As is the case in the industrial factory. and in the latrine. for instance. hospitals. The Ecole Militaire. substitutes the uninterrupted play of calculated gazes…the hold over the body…is a power that seems all the less „corporal‟ in that it is more subtly „physical‟” (177). later. for the spectacle of public events.” 2: “be discreet enough” to keep from preventing the operations of the structure (174). A more “continuous power” is achieved through the establishment of “a perfect eye that nothing would escape and a centre towards which all gazes would be turned. and.” “Surveillance thus becomes a decisive economic operator both as an internal part of the production machinery and as a specific mechanism in the disciplinary power” (175). 184-192) Hierarchical Observation “The exercise of discipline presupposes a mechanism that coerces by means of observation” (170). Foucault comments here on the ability of power to operate as “an „integrated‟ system (176) which allows for both hierarchical and lateral practices of power that systemic and individual: “Discipline makes possible the operation of a relational power that sustains itself by its own mechanism and which. Normalizing Judgement (sic) .“hierarchical observation” (pp.” and improvements on technology increased the potential for observation (171). Thus the guild-style system of management by masters was replaced by management by company “agents. the use of teaching assistants. Demia‟s model is presented as “an institution of the „mutual type‟” in which Teaching proper. in the case of Demia. in the construction of working-class housing estates. including hospitals. 170-177) “normalizing judgement and” (pp.” and “observation” (176). “[T]he means of coercion make those on whom they are applied clearly visible. where. any “dishonesty” is apt to be multiplied and could “prove fatal” (175). Structures of this sort. according to the reasoning of the powerful. during meals. was designed to allow for observation of students in their quarters. Pyramid structures were found to be even more effective for their ability to allow for “relays” and to 1: “form an uninterrupted network” with “the possibility of multiplying its levels. were designed with at least as great a concern for controlling the people and spaces it contained as for external considerations (172).” as was attempted in the Arc-et-Senans (173) with its circular structure. the acquisition of knowledge.
” based on “‟the moral qualities of the pupils‟ and on „their universally recognized behavior. to “the bench of the „ignorant. is aimed neither at expiation. student or soldier. Punishment here is seen as “only one element of a double system (of) gratificationpunishment” which “operates in the process of training and correction” through the careful definition and bestowal of rewards (180). teachers. This “knowledge of individuals” judged/ranked the potential and value of the child. nor even precisely at repression. Here Foucault argues that “Disciplinary punishment. isomorphic with obligation itself. a space of differentiation and the principle of a rule to be followed” . “Disciplinary punishment is. you could get out of catechism exercises by building up points) allowed for the continuous ranking of students between poles of good and bad. Here Foucault exposes ranking and grading as means of punishment and reward through the example of the “Ecole Militaire‟s four (and sometimes five) levels of achievement assessed by “officers. 3. at which point he observes: “At the heart of all disciplinary systems functions a small penal mechanism” (177). to work their way up the epauletteal hierarchy. Here Foucault presents us with the role of judgment in juvenile settings.. apparently. in the main. “It refers individual actions to a whole that is at once a field of comparison. “To punish is to exercise” (180). according to Foucault.” ostensibly. The reasoning was. Judgment was passed on those. most shamed.of activity…of behavior…of speech…of the body…of sexuality” (ellipses mark parenthetical examples by Foucault) resulting in a state in which one was always punishing and punishable.” where students held morning tribunals to mete out punishments to their peers.1. in the regime of disciplinary power. “has the function of reducing gaps. where a “transposition of the system of indulgences” (basically. 4..‟ In a disciplinary regime punishment involves a double juridico-natural reference” (179). work and rework a lesson. “The workshop. 2. This served the purpose of both classifying and encouraging conformity.” as. who did not achieve or perform to the dictated level.” and visually registered through the use of various colors of epaulettes (and maybe sackcloth) (181-182). ranks “existed only to disappear” (182). that the lowest. the failing student. that is.” but at the following: 1.” It must therefore be essentially corrective” (179): The demoted corporal must regain his rank. These observable deficiencies resulted in both punishment and public relegation. Here judgment was passed on more than an act. As he puts it: “the art of punishing. the school. in the case of the student. and their assistants. the army were subject to a whole micro-penality of time. Foucault uses a typically illustrative example of students living in a “micro-economy of privileges and impositions in the Christian Schools. Foucault warns us here that the punishment of discipline was not just that of a “small-scale model of the court” (178). such as “the orphanage of the Chevalier Paulet. 5.
with its transformation into the pedagogical science of evaluating and ranking. surrounded by all its documentary techniques. “It differentiates individuals from one another‟ 3. the author offers the examples of the hospital (pp. “the norm introduces…all the shading of individual differences” in a homogenized setting (184). It defines the “abnormal” (182-183) “In short. 3. by arranging objects. 189-191) “The examination leaves behind it a whole meticulous archive. Here Foucault contrasts the disciplinary to the “judicial penality. “The Normal” is perpetuated through institutions and manages to both homogenize (through conformity)and individualize (through ranks and assessments). “It introduces…the constraint of a conformity that must be achieved.2. “The examination transformed the economy of visibility into the exercise of power” (pp.” 5. Through measurement . not advent of human sciences.” through the act of “power writing.” according to Foucault. through the example of Louis XIV‟s “first military review. 191-192). 187189) Here. “The examination.” Foucault reminds us of the shift in visibility from the punisher to the punished and explains that the examination is the “mechanism of objectification” in which “disciplinary power manifests its potency. etc (183). “The examination also introduces individuality into the field of documentation” (pp.” 2. 185-186). and the school (pp. essentially. Foucault then presents three linkages that examinations created between “a certain type of the formation of knowledge” and “a certain from of the exercise of power” (187): 1. It is the “penality of the norm” that brought about modern penality. the „nature‟ of individuals” 4. 186-187).” which referenced laws and binaries of moralities not observed individuals and rankings.” The transcription and fixing of norms allowed also for the continuous analysis of the individual and the application of a “comparative system” in which to place said individual. with its secularization and transformation into a place for observation. After briefly lamenting the lack of pre-Foucault scholarship on this concept. Disciplinary power “lowered the threshold of describable individuality and made of this . “combines the techniques of an observing hierarchy and those of a normalizing judgment” (184). it normalizes” (183). the level. The Examination “The examination. “It measures in quantitative terms and hierarchizes in terms of value the abilities. makes each individual a „case‟” (pp.
” Foucault contrasts the system of order established by the plague to the exclusionary. Foucault contrasts this to the dungeon.” Bentham‟s Panopticon is the physical manifestation of these forms. Plague control at the end of the 17th century prescribed the creation inspectors and the transformation of the home into an “enclosed. ch 3: Panopticism Foucault‟s discussion of the Panopticon proper is preceded by the legacies of the plague and the leper (195-200). is visible to the guards. then. and invisible to the other prisoners. and the practice of surveillance always a possibility (see p. he asks. those acts and individuals that fell outside of this discipline were “contagions. those on whom it is exercised tend to be more strongly individualized” (193). 201 for more description and discussion). In all settings. Here Foucault makes the productive power of discipline explicit: “We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms…[P]ower produces. segmented space. never a subject in communication” as one might be in a dungeon (200). and power. How. symbol of “all forms of confusion and disorder. it produces reality. and their “collective effect[s]” with “collection[s] of separated individualities” (201). could “such power (be derived) from the petty machinations of discipline” (194)? The answer: Part III. observation. panopticism replaces crowds. the plague. . which served “to enclose. “Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” so that the effects are continuous and internalized. increasing the likelihood of. Disciplines. “All the mechanisms of power” that the modern individual is subjected to “are composed of those two forms from which they distantly derive.description a means of control and method of domination” whereby the case is no longer “a set of circumstances” but a documented individual. then. the prisoner. the “individual” (194).” in which individuals were the objects of writing. it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. observed at every point. to deprive of light and to hide” (200). Thus. In it (visuals are widely available on the Web). “mark the moment when the reversal of the political axis of individualization…takes place” (192). in the “disciplinary regime…individualization is „descending:‟ as power becomes more anonymous and more functional. who occupies the periphery of the circular structure. binary principals that defined the leper and the “clean” (my term). The exposed inmate is “is the object of information. This “machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad” can be operated by anyone.” in short. Whereas in the “feudal regime” the practice and display of power made the powerful individual visible.” was “met by order” and analytic power.
” of which this spread is an aspect: 1. a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men” applicable to “hospitals.” (pp. workshops. “The functional inversion of the disciplines. Foucault warns us that the exercise of power takes place within the machine. This interior/exterior distinction gets a bit fuzzy when he goes on to discuss the Panopticon as open to the outsiders who would take part in observation: “it has become a transparent building in which the exercise of power may be supervised by society as a whole” (207). “The state control of the disciplinary mechanisms. observation (202). hospitals. “disciplines function increasingly as techniques for making useful individuals. 210-211) Whereas the roles of institutions were once defined in negative terms (neutralize. and of making a function through these power relations (206-207). 2. schools. 3.” This utility led to their being associated with the “most important. The Panopticon was “also a laboratory” (203). and other institutions came to be applied by these institutions on the communities and individuals around them. avoid). “The swarming of disciplinary mechanisms. training. “a privileged place from experiments on men. and for analyzing with complete certainty the transformations that may be obtained from them” (204). power the Panopticon “is a way of making power relations function in a function. Where the “plague-stricken town” was simple model of mechanical control or exclusion. The spread of “disciplinary institutions” is likened to other “more profound processes.” (pp.” (pp. and prisons” (205). most central and most productive sectors of society (education.and anxiety regarding. the Panopticon “must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning. 213-217) Here we are warned that the secularization of power and its shift from monarchic control. 211-212) The methodologies of schools. It is numerically efficient. war-making). These institutions also became “centers of observations” for the societies around them. subverting the traditional power of the church. This seeming democratization of power is key to its being applied in the name of “progress” (208). The “houses of security” were to be replaced by this “house of certainty” (202). continuously able to intervene yet never needing to. as with . fix. This transformation from the “discipline-blockade” to the “discipline mechanism” was born in the rise of disciplinary thought in the 17th-18th centuries and concrete applications became models for entire disciplines. Lest we get too caught up in his machine metaphor. and “acts directly on individuals” (206) regardless of scale.
the panopticisms of every day” works it subtle magic against the more obvious mechanisms of the juridico-political (223). 216-217. Scientific processes (224-228) By the 18th century. or independent of “juridico-political” power (221222). The prison‟s power to punish has become the power to observe. maximized social power. “Juridico-political” processes (pp.the police in Foucault‟s example. even as the rise of the middle class attempted to create a codified legal framework (222). 2. it is a type of power. Foucault refers to this as a “double process…an epistemological thaw” (224).221-224) Panopticism is neither an “extension” of. through the “minute disciplines. selectively prosecute. 218-221) Disciplines “try to define in relation to the (human) multiplicities a tactics of power that fulfills three criteria:” lowest cost. 3. these techniques achieved “a level at which the formation of knowledge and the increase of power regularly reinforce one another in a circular process.” as “‟Discipline‟ may be identified neither with an institution nor with an apparatus.” Within institutions. in short to increase both the docility and the utility of all the elements of the system” (218).” Not surprisingly. Economic processes (pp. a modality for its exercise” (215): “one can speak of the formation of a disciplinary society…[n]ot because the disciplinary modality of power has replaced all the others. not through the “universal consciousness of the law in each juridical subject” but through “the infinitely minute web of panoptic techniques” (224). Foucault goes on to draw a . In the 18th century. Foucault locates “[t]he formulation of disciplinary society” in the context of a “a number of broad historical processes” (roughly three): 1.” On pages 218-228. This why the “smallest techniques of discipline” (those most associated with the body?) are experienced or perceived as most “foundational” (223). where we are reminded that this has been a shift from persons being “repressed” to individuals “fabricated” into a “social order. Discipline acts as a “counter-law” and. Foucault ties the rise of “a capitalist economy” to the proliferation of panoptic (?) power (221). but because it has infiltrated the others” (216). Panopticism works it coercive force on the formal systems. Foucault sums-up the shift from the spectacle to the surveilled that is made concrete in Bentham‟s Panopticon in a lyrical discussion on pp. This brings us to something of a definition: “discipline is the unitary technique by which the body is reduced as a „political‟ force at the least cost and maximized as a useful force. the growth of power could give rise to new knowledge or methodologies for control. this shift was concurrent with mobile populations and increased production capacities. discipline attempted to “adjust” people and apparatuses in order to “counter the advantages of number” through regimentation (219-220). is not a complete shift of disciplinary functions to the “state apparatus. and train. and linkage to “the output of the apparatuses … within which it is exercised. While the old “economy of power” was wont to use violence to achieve control.
It even seems to be an egalitarian punishment in that time is assessed as opposed to fine in reparation for an offense against society. “complete and austere institutions. He then contrasts the Auburn and Pennsylvania models . Complete and austere institutions The turn of the 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of detention as “the penalty par excellence” (231). (the prison) weighted the old juridico-political question of the right to punish with all the problems. uninterrupted. and that “in becoming a legal punishment. an interrogation without end…a procedure that would be…the permanent measure of a gap in relation to an inaccessible norm and the asymptotic movement that strives to meet in infinity (227). all the agitations that have surrounded the corrective technologies of the individual” (235). Baltard” (pub. hospitals. from its beginnings in the 19th century. and to create a situation in which the words and power of the imprisoning and reforming power will take on even greater authority due to the relative silence of all others‟ (236-237). the “birth of the prison” was marked by conjunction of a “justice that is supposed to be „equal‟” and “a legal machinery that is supposed to be „autonomous.” the examination has not ( 227). Where the justice of the (spectacular) Ancien Regime was at its “extreme” in the “infinite segmentation of the body of the regicide…The ideal point of penality today would be an indefinite discipline. see “Bibliography”) in order to portray the exhaustive. He also argues that prison “reform” has been around for as long as prisons have. He lays out the principles of the disciplinary prison as follows: 1. a means of both “deprivation of liberty and the technical transformation of individuals” (233).parallel between disciplinary examination and judicial inquisition or investigation. and he cites numerous sources to support the importance of the latter. Foucault laments that the concept of the prison has since become so naturalized that alternatives seem unthinkable. which was to be applied to the re-education and “recoding of existence” of the prisoner.” from an “L. Foucault draws the chapter title. Isolation: He finds three primary reasons or functions for isolation: to prevent collaboration and recidivism. ch 1. and that said reforms are a part of the penal process. 1829. Penal justice today is both inquisitorial and disciplinary. While investigation in the empirical sciences have managed to “become detached from its politicojuridical model. and he cautions us to remember that the prison has been.‟ but which contains all the asymmetries of disciplinary subjection” (231-232). This is contrasted with simple detainment and “the simple mechanism of exempla imagined by the reformers at the time of the idealogues” (236). Foucault intends to further investigate the “transformative role” of the prison. not an interruption of it (234-235). schools. barracks. The final sentence of Part III (p228) reads: “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories. to promote reformatory practice. However. and “despotic” disciplinary power of the prison (235-236). which all resemble prisons?” Part IV. noting the relationship between inquisition and the rise of empirical methods (225-226).
the “penitentiary operation… must become the sum total existence of the delinquent. seems to have the right. which posited limited interaction with other prisoners while working (reproducing exterior labor conditions) and utter solitude. 239-243). to the extent that they exceed the state of detention. Part IV. in part at least. Work: Through numerous citations. or delinquent. and apparatus which. As the “offender becomes an individual to know.” This psycho-social concept of the “dangerous individual” is. Illegalities and delinquency . is an amalgamation of 18th century prison objects: the extra-societal “monster” and the “juridical subject rehabilitated by punishment” (255).” a new character is created: that of the “delinquent. For the re-education of the prisoner to be complete. ultimately a “biographical unity.for prisons. but is also a part of punitive sovereignty” (247). The dangerous individual. “The Declaration of Carceral Independence” (247): Prison “[became] increasingly an instrument for the modulation of the penalty. still with us today (252). and came to be categorized and documented. the prison claims “the right to be a power that not only possesses administrative autonomy. Foucault pursues the question of the role of work in the prisons. to assume its principle” (244). The above techniques. This “biographical” approach to understanding the delinquent “establishes the „criminal‟ as existing before the crime and even outside it. but also to create a body of knowledge regarding the individual and his response to reformation in order “to exact unceasingly form the inmate a body of knowledge that will make it possible to transform the penal measure into penitentiary operations” (251). became a trap not only for prisoners. 3. according to Foucault. through the execution of the sentence with which it is entrusted. representing a type of anomaly” (254). 2. but for “penal justice” and judges. making of the prison a sort of artificial and coercive theatre in which his life will be examined from top to bottom” (251-252). respectively (237-239). Long-running debates in France pitted those who considered prison labor to be a magnet for the indigent and competition for the “free” laborer against a penal system that argued that prison labor offered little to no competition and that prisoners work and wages were their incentive for reform. The prisons observed not just for immediate control. In assuming the responsibility for the means and extent of punishment and reform. The penitentiary. Foucault takes a third position: that prison labor was about “the constitution of a power relation” (pp. ch 2. Foucault argues. a kernel of danger. then.” who is characterized less by his act” (offense) than by his life (251). “because it was able to introduce criminal justice into relations of knowledge that have since become its infinite labyrinth (249). are to be know as the “penitentiary” (248).
observable by a center corridor by hidden from the view of the public. “Detention causes recidivism” (pp. were able to apply meanings to the sentence and presence of the condemned that were not those intended or sanctioned by the judges (259-263). and the crowd. we are told. The chain-gang of early 19th century France.” 2. like the scaffold. The chain gang of the turn of the century was a manifestation of both detention and public torture (255). The years 1820-1845 also saw a critique of the prison. and prevented from interaction with one another. are “today repeated almost unchanged” (265. was as dangerous as it was public however. The above critiques. 265-266): Foucault cites numerous arguments and figures regarding recidivism rates in support of his observation that prisons were producing delinquents. and restricted to self-corrective thoughts and readings (263-264). public applications of the chains and processions in which crowds participated in the spectacle as if in a festival or carnival.” a cart in which detainees of all varieties were sequestered into cells. under constant surveillance and punishment by warders. “[T]he prison indirectly produces delinquents by throwing the inmate‟s family into destitution” (268). Foucault paints a vivid picture of the dangerous. as well as the prisoner. in that the prisoner was the subject of speculation as much as spectacle. 5.” and various abuses of power are cited.” 4. according to Foucault.Here Foucault begins with a discussion of the change from “chain-gang” to “police carriage” as “a symptom and a symbol” of the transition (or “mutation”) from the public display of power to the penality of prison (257). He discusses five major critiques. as with previous discussions. taunting and/or studying the condemned in what Foucault describes as part game. not “corrected individuals. part “ethnology of crime” (259). Foucault cites 19th century sources throughout): 1. who cautions us against seeking to “pat” a timeline. in 1837. Prisons produce delinquents “by the very conditions (they) impose upon (their) inmates” (266267): “Useless work. which. with “a mobile equivalent of the panopticon. 3. Prisons bring together delinquents who then collaborate with one another (267): Among his more memorable citations are references to prisons as settings for “anti-social clubs” and “barracks of crime. Ex-convict status and the markings and surveillance that come with it promotes recidivism 267-268). were/are always rectified by the . addressed by claiming either a “rudimentary” state of corrective measures or that corrective measures detract from the ability to punish. This means of transportation was replaced.” “violent constraints.
see 268-269. the results that have been obtained. “It must be possible to alter the penalties according to the individuality of the convicts. the effects of . Having established “the failure(s) of the prison” (272). be supervised and administered by a specialized staff possessing the moral qualities and technical abilities required of educators. This “supposed failure” is.…they tend to assimilate the transgression of the laws in a general tactics of subjection. In an explicit reference to current (early nineteenseventies) conditions.” serve uphold Foucault‟s assertion that there is not a three-stage history of the prison. but rather to distinguish them. the technique of correction to be used. but a “simultaneous system. “inverted efficiency.” creating an “economy” of “illegalities” (272).” 3. the struggles against the political regimes. for items 1-7. 269-270): 1. 4. and no doubt punishment in general. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries. the resistance to the movement of industrialization.” “auxiliary knowledge” (or reproduction) of criminality. one of the “effects of power…which may be grouped together under the name of „carceral system‟” (271). and the effects (particularly of marking or establishing the delinquent) have not been abandoned because “the prison. reform as “isomorphic…with the disciplinary functioning of the prison – the element of utopian duplication” (271).” a “fourfold system” made up of: the “super-power (of)…penitentiary „rationality. “The education of the prisoner is for the authorities both an indispensable precaution in the interests of society and an obligation to the prisoner. “Penal detention must have as its essential function the transformation of the individual‟s behavior. to use them. pp.” 7. at least in part.” These continuously resurfacing “propositions. and reform.” 2. he argues that there has been a continuous appeal to the “seven universal maxims of the good „penitential condition‟” (for above.continued application of “penitentiary technique: “For a century and a half the prison had always been offered as its own remedy” (268). the stages of their transformation. “The Prison regime must. to distribute them. “Convicts must be isolated or at least distributed according to the penal gravity of their act. but above all according to age. is not intended to eliminate offences. its failure. “popular illegalities began to develop according to new dimensions…introduced by movements which…linked together social conflicts. “Imprisonment must be followed by measures of supervision and assistance until the rehabilitation of the former prisoner is complete. progress or relapses. mental attitude. “Work must be one of the essential elements in the transformation and progressive socialization of convicts. then.” 5. Foucault moves on to argue that they.” 6.
he asks. It is. This was supplemented by a “patient attempt” to portray the criminal as ever-present and “everywhere to be feared” in the newspapers and novels of the time.. for instance as a mechanism for reaping the profits of prostitution and other illegalities (279-280). and also superimposed upon juridical practice a whole horizon of possible knowledge” all of which “enables them to reinforce one another perpetually. All of which is described as “a whole tactic of confusion aimed at maintaining a permanent state of conflict” (285-286). fallen bourgeois criminal and cause celèbre. a more supervisable. manipulable group diffuses the possibility for more disruptive (political) illegalities (278-279). to objectify the delinquency behind the offence. Foucault argues that even these observations fell short of recognizing “delinquency from above. but blamed societal conditions for forcing the criminal into desperate measures.. the “rejection of the law or other regulation” as struggle against those who enacted them (274). to solidify delinquency in the movement of illegalities” (277). cop and criminal who ended the “Shakespearian age when sovereignty confronted abomination in a single character” (283) and Francois Lacenaire. His third.” even domestically. again becomes a means by which to categorize. as a form of illegality. apparently. On pages 282-285 explores the biographies of Vidocq. This position is modified a bit to recognize that workers newspapers didn‟t solely vilify the criminal. By the end of the nineteenth century. Why and how. Delinquency. all of which is made possible by surveillance and documentation in collaboration with the prison and judges (280-282).economic rises. the worker‟s newspapers were actively campaigning “against penal labor” (286-287).” in which the delinquents are separated from and made to be demonized by the rest of the lower class populations. Foucault describes the “production of delinquency” as a continuously shifting process. then. particularly in relation to labor struggles. on behalf of the “carceral system” (277). and the increases in regulatory functions of those wielding political or economic authority leading to an increase in “the occasions of offences” by those who would otherwise have been within the law (273-275). This increased politicization is tied by Foucault t to the changing role of the „working-class” in 19th century France and he cites numerous sources in support of the “class dissymmetry” affecting the application of “law and justice” (276). the increase in workers as political prisoners that leads the “reappraisal of penal . etc. The “development of the political dimension of the popular illegalities” were based in local actions (273-274). His second is that it is used as form of “colonialism. Foucault sums up: “We have seen how the carceral system substituted the „delinquent‟ for the offender. as opposed to a “result. does penality invest certain practices “in a mechanism of „punishment-reproduction?” His first assertion is that by defining and controlling a criminal element. the political use of delinquents as “thugs” or a “clandestine police force” in labor struggles in particular.the source of misery and the principle of revolt for the poor” (287).
upheld by psychiatry and the “judicial apparatus. This.. Foucault explicitly argues that Mettray produced inmates who would then become the technicians of control in “the first training college pure discipline” (295). the army. culminates in the cell. he explains. The carceral Foucault chooses January 22. is the moment when. tended to disappear and to constitute a great carceral . the workshop. Part IV. which Foucault notes may not be representative of the discourse of the workers newspapers. the discourse of an illegality that remained resistant to these coercions and which revealed indiscipline in a systematically ambiguous manner as the disordered order of society and as the affirmation of inalienable rights” (290).. “the entire parapenal institution. judicial punishment and institutions of discipline. He moves then to a third figure.. where were already blurred in the classical age. This time.” which portrayed the decadent bourgeoisie as the ever-present criminal (288).were in a sense technicians of behavior: engineers of conduct. then.” as the “date of completion of the carceral system” (293). orthopaedists of individuality” who produced controllable bodies through their training (294-295). which is created in order not to be a prison. a thirteen year old featured by La Phalange who “opposed to the discourse of the law that made him delinquent. “the date of the official opening of Mettray.justice” and the tactic of the “counter-fait divers. on the walls of which are written in black letters: „God sees you” (294). according to the class to which individuals belong.. and Foucault. a prison for the underage. according to Foucault. It was “the most famous of a whole series of institutions which. discussed the “violent split between the accused and society. “is the disciplinary form at its most extreme. At this time power-knowledge.. ch 3. Here.” “(normalized) the power of normalization. 1840.places a positive value on crime. Through the boy‟s dialogue with his sentencing judge the paper.” between the society and system that renders “the worker a slave. well beyond the frontiers of criminal law. the school. will lead them to power or to prison (289). Foucault cites the Fourierists as “the first to elaborate a political theory which. as the precursor of the recognition of “the political problem of delinquency” and “the most militant rejection of the law” and the awareness of the bourgeois system of “legality and illegality” (292). Mettray.” This discourse.” and made warders out of prisoners (296). and the judicial model” (293-294). constituted what one might call the carceral archipelago” (297). but a play of forces which. penality escapes transcends the boundaries of the prison proper: “The frontiers between confinement. The “chiefs and their deputies at Mettray. minors were ostensibly being protected from the prison.. the model in which are concentrated all the coercive technologies of behavior:” the family.” He argues that they recognized “not a criminal nature. then was a recognition of penality as political tool and of the “play of opposing forces” in which the prol‟s were caught (289-290).
.” and “conduct” were no longer judged by “separate criteria” and in relation to “separate criteria. “The carceral archipelago assures. and societal discipline (and the self policing it entails) is accepted as proper. He then argues that there have been six key results: 1. it was the departure from the norm. 300-301). multiple series of the punitive and the abnormal” (pp.the formation of delinquency on the basis of subtle illegalities. Society and the prison now differ only in degree. the carceral archipelago transported this technique from the penal institution to the entire social body” (298). there are no “outlaws. 304-305)..‟disciplinary careers. Foucault names two processes “capable of exercising considerable restraint” and transformation on the prison: 1) processes which “(reduce) the . 4. the prison is neither indispensable or unalterable..” “sins. “The carceral network linked.. The carceral system “succeeds in making the power to punish natural and legitimate. domination-observation. in lowering at least the threshold of tolerance to penality. 301-303).the two long. The “real capture of the body and its perpetual observation” have created the “knowable man. in penal justice.” However.” Foucault implies a relationship between the rise of the human sciences and the penal process of power-knowledge (pp. Individuals “crimes.” whose deviance was deemed infectious. 3.. The “carceral network” has a great normative function. The carceral “allows the recruitment of major „delinquents” and “organizes.” Irregular behavior “was no longer the offence. 6.. The prison is deeply rooted in “mechanisms and strategies of power.. even when applied to the mildest transgressions (pp. Foucault summarizes: “We have seen that. the prison transformed the punitive procedure into a penitentiary technique.against one another. the attack on the common interest. the anomaly.” masking the true violence of penality.” only those held and controlled by the law and its mechanisms.continuum that diffused penitentiary techniques into the most innocent disciplines” (297).. eventually.the social enemy was transformed into a deviant.” Penality and discipline in the 19th century produced both docility and delinquency... The carceral system came to include a wide variety of institutions that were ostensibly charitable or intended for the shelter and protection of the poor and the young. 298-300) 2. In panoptic society.” It plays “the legal register of justice and the extra-legal register of discipline.” “the object-effect of . the overlapping of the latter by the former and the establishment of a specified criminality” (pp. and “the judges of normality are present everywhere” (p... 304) 5. reaching “all the disciplinary mechanisms that function throughout society” (297-298).
that it is “linked to a whole series of „carceral‟ mechanisms” 5... as when the “levy on sexual pleasure is carried out more efficiently” through the market than through “the archaic hierarchy of prostitution. which. 305-306) Foucault closes with another passage from La Phalange. will soon make “the specificity of the prison” unnecessary. Foucault argues.. “That ultimately what presides over all these mechanisms is not the unitary functioning of an apparatus or an institution. 2) The spread of and growth of “mechanisms of normalization” beyond the prison. “that at the center of this city.” 2. “that it is the court that is external and subordinate to the prison” (and not vice versa) 4.is a multiple network of diverse elements. in relation to which he makes the book‟s final points about the carceral city: 1.. but the necessity of combat and the rules of strategy..utility. “that the model of the carceral city is.of a delinquency accommodated as a specific illegality. a strategic distribution of elements of different natures and levels” 3. 307-308) Foucault asks that we “hear the distant roar of battle” and begin our own “studies of the power of normalization and the formation of knowledge in modern society” for which he has provided a background (308).” (pp. (pp. .. that the above mechanisms are applied to transgression of production not of a “‟central‟ law” 6.