November 17

2009
On the Implications of
Foucault’s Theory of
Discipline and
Punishment in the
Educational Setting

In this paper I will attempt to reveal the role of

power and knowledge in the educational
setting and how its role has transformed over
the course of the past century. I will explain The Effect of
how the human sciences have played a large Power in the
role on how we view ourselves as well as our Educational
students. Finally, the reader will have the Setting
opportunity to ascertain and reflect on
Foucault’s concepts of normalization and
examination issues, profound as they may be.
 P a g e |2

This paper will attempt to show and in the process I hope achieve two fundamental

objectives:

1. A proper treatment and illumination of Foucault’s views on power, knowledge

and discipline in institutional settings.
2. Apply Foucault’s discourse on Discipline and Punishment to institutional
structures such as mine (traditional schools and institutions of higher learning).

In Foucault’s ground breaking study Discipline and Punishment, the birth of the prison,

Foucault points out key observations on relationships between power and knowledge,

power and discipline, power and truth. The central thread that runs through these

multifaceted relationships is his critique of “examination” which he noted was cloaked

under the veil of normalization techniques.

Foucault’s discourse on power and discipline offers the reader fundamental insights

into the dynamic nature of power. His discourse on this topic offers a translatable

ideology that upon further reflection lends itself to practical applications in the

classroom.

At the very core of this study is Foucault’s keen observation that knowledge and truth

are transmitted through a power scheme. This scheme is in turn composed of a bundle

of what I would like to call “sub-components.” These sub-components are: surveillance,

examination, normalization, discipline, observation and technology.

They are in a Foucauldian sense the essential substituent’s that course through “power”

and as a result allocate to “power” the distinction as being the great distributor and in

effect Foucault will implicate the human sciences as being the origin of this power

transmission by way of these sub-components: (surveillance, examination, etc…).

 P a g e |3

According to my interpretation of Foucault the human sciences can be viewed as the

sheath or coil that generates and transmits power in this multiphase state. In Discipline

and Punishment Foucault points out a few of these key tenants used to generate

hierarchal power used by 18th and 19th century carceral systems: surveillance,

normalization and examination.

The focus of my second objective deals with translatable issues as they regard to

Foucault’s main objective: The awareness that educational institutions such as ours can

be seen as structures cloaked under the veil of normalization conditions and an inherent

multi-phase power structure that has modernized itself from a setting of torture

(originated in 19th century prisons) to an Orwellian setting of control and examination.

In this treatment and analysis of institutions Foucault is trying to make us see that

educational settings such as ours are inherently controlled by multi-phase check and

balance structures that have for the past century institutionally normalized the mass of

students (individualization), thereby creating a controlled and structured environment

where the non-normative (deviant) student is more easily grouped and classified. So

how should the teacher of today perceive Foucault’s treatment of this subject? How

should one look at the curriculum of today in the context of Foucault?

As for curriculum and instruction, Foucault’s treatment of the individual self indirectly

leads us to try different methods of classroom methodologies.

 P a g e |4

Some differentiated methods might entail: Moving from formal distribution in space to

cooperative learning environments, from control of activity to differentiated learning,

from hierarchical observation to active learning and from normalizing judgment and

examination to authentic assessment strategies.

In “Discipline and Punishment,” Foucault makes note of relationships between power

and knowledge, power and discipline, power and truth and critical insights into

normalization discourse. Foucault’s discourse on power and discipline offers the reader

fundamental insights into the dynamic nature of power. His discourse on this topic

offers a translatable ideology that upon further reflection lends itself to practical

applications in the classroom.

In Discipline and Punishment Foucault makes reference to Bentham’s “Panoptican” as a

method of using then “state of the art” surveillance and demonstrates through his

discourse how these surveillance practices took shape over the course of time. Another

important point is the creation of the knowledge by the human sciences. According to

Foucault the human sciences are primarily comprised of: anthropology, psychology,

sociology and psychiatry.

Over the course of the century these disciplines known as the “human sciences” have

taken control of power by creating a form of knowledge through a process of discourse

that came to invent the word Norm.

Norms are typically defined by people in position of power as “the modeling of

authoritative standards.” The concept of Norm has had a way of categorizing and

bracketing individuals who don’t fit the stereotypical normal “type.”

 P a g e |5

As a result, words such as “abnormal” and “deviant,” which had never existed prior to

the human sciences now came into play. In his study, Foucault points out that norms

were used extensively in labeling delinquents and prisoners in the carceral system.

His point is that power and knowledge are interconnected and that instances involving

norms are used by the human sciences to exert power over the population in order to

control them. As a result, norms have come to play a pivotal role in controlling and

categorizing the masses.

Prisoners according to Foucault were also punished through the control of “time and

space.” If we make careful note, school systems are similar in many aspects. The

control through space and movement is integral in a typical school and is inherently

built into the architecture of the school.

The front offices (principal’s office, AP’s office) are typically centrally located for

surveillance purposes. In this sense Foucault (1976) claims that surveillance “was

integrated into the teaching relationship” (p. 175). As a result of such hierarchical

observation, Foucault (1976) states it is “a mechanism that is inherent to it and which

increases its efficacy” (p. 176).

Individualization occurred as the masses were filtered in the penitentiary to become the

subject of individualization. According to Foucault, individualization is not necessarily

a good thing because the subject is being controlled through time and space. Foucault

reasoned that ultimately power and truth were somehow interconnected. So, through

the use of knowledge, those in control of power will also lay claim to truth.
 P a g e |6

Foucault wants us to realize that ultimately that truth is not only manipulated through

power it is a direct derivative of power. How is this accomplished? To begin with if

knowledge is held sacred by a few and then distributed spatially through structural

mechanisms then power comes into play and conveys to the subject that the knowledge

in question is ultimately the truth.

He notes that power is not always necessarily in the form that we have come to

recognize it as. Foucault once said “Where freedom exists, power takes shape.” Power

is always present and needs freedom to exist in order for it to exist, essentially we all

come free and by doing so through necessity create a power grabbing constructed

reality by it’s own definition. A group or individual assigns himself or presumes

power while the other(s) relinquish their freedom in return. Foucault (1983)

emphasizes: “power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are

free” (p. 221).

Now, I believe that using the word freedom does not necessarily describe someone as

being stripped of all choices (e.g. Prisoners). However, I believe that Foucault may not

have necessarily implied it in that manner, instead I believe that as a result freedom is

somehow marginalized in a reciprocal manner.

In order to see this more clearly I will call into play a more relevant analogy that I will

call the “Sliding Scale of Power (SSP).” On the one hand, those that acquire power

have the opportunity to relinquish some power in exchange with the oppressed

through the SSP scenario.

 P a g e |7

Foucault uses the term “agonism” to express the reciprocal nature of this power

scenario. According to Foucault agonism implies “a relationship which is at the same

time reciprocal incitation and struggle” (p. 222).

In order for this to occur we must take a closer look at the concept called power and

how it relates to this scale (SSP). In order to understand the true nature of power one

must realize that power isn’t static or uni-directional in nature, instead it appears to be

polymorphic and somewhat analogous to the circulatory system in one’s body. In The

History of Sexuality Foucault (1976) is interested in “the polymorphous techniques of

power” (pg. 11). Power appears to somehow be exercised through various strategies

and tactics. Power is everywhere all the time and moving in a freely chosen state. The

point according to Foucault is that the practitioner of power becomes aware of its

systemic effect and how it is focused and used on the subject or body.

In Discipline and Punishment there appears to be three central tenants in Foucault’s

theory of knowledge and power: Observation, Normalization and Examination.

What is key here is how the teacher internalizes these key concepts in order to

investigate his/her philosophy of education. How can an educator best utilize the basic

points made by Foucault in order to run a more fair and equitable classroom.

In this paper I will approach Foucault’s philosophy with a two-pronged perspective.

First, I’d like to demonstrate the connection between Foucault’s philosophies

concerning Power, knowledge and truth and its un-seeming connection with the

teacher’s perspective in today’s world.

 P a g e |8

Secondly, I will demonstrate the possibilities available to the educator once he/she has

made the initial connection with Foucault. Once this connection is made he/she must

ask oneself: What are the best practices that an educator can achieve in context with

Foucault’s basic teachings.

First, the most relevant connection made between the educator and Foucault’s discourse

on discipline and punishment is his topic on “power.” Schools have an uncanny

resemblance to other power structures in place; chiefly prisons, hospitals and factories.

In Discipline and Punishment Foucault makes note of the Panoptical concept, it ‘s

connective relevancy is quite remarkable when one notes that a schools have the same

basic structure as any of the other entities noted above. In my experience many

teachers appear to be unconsciously aware of the power structure inherent in their

school layout. The power I’m referring to is inherently circulated throughout the school

with oversight and observation conducted at every individual point of the structure.

If power is dynamic and in a polymorphous state then it’s accurately described in a

setting such as mine where principals, counselors and teachers all share in the transfer

of power as it relates to the students and amongst themselves.

What’s of interest here is that once individuals set foot in the school institutions the

roles of power are immediately assigned to them in a true Foucauldian fashion.

According to Foucault freedom is inextricably linked to power, freedom exists until

roles are filled with respect to positions of power, one cannot exist without the other.
 P a g e |9

Teachers observe the students carefully, observation is immediately conducted upon

entry into the institution which brings me to Foucault’s first tenant: Hierarchical

Observation and surveillance.

Not only are students being watched, but so are the teachers. To make a point, when I

enter my principal’s office she has four small TV monitors behind her desk for continual

observation and surveillance. Each set carefully monitors activities at key points

around the school. Security officers also act as a portal of power by also scrutinizing

activities in the courtyard and in the hallways with security cameras.

Surveillance is a key aspect of Foucault’s observance and application of power.

As posited earlier, power therefore appears to be dynamic and systemic throughout an

institution such as my school. As a result of Foucault’s discourse related to Power and

Knowledge, I myself have become more aware of a phenomenon that I would like to

describe as either being latent or impulsive power suppression.

In the case of latent power, suppression of the educator occurs through scenarios such

as mandated teacher meetings, required pedagogical paperwork, and other such

activities that are subliminally felt through an all pervasive power of which I will call

latent power. Consequences can arise as a result of repeated attempts to get the subject

(in this case the teacher) to acquiesce to required constraints or demands imposed on

them. Repeated failure to acquiesce results in a “write-up” and trips to the principal’s

office. No one is immune to this phenomenon of latent power.

Teachers, counselors, assistant principals, officers, even the principal are all answerable

to latent forms of power, all manifested in different forms.

 P a g e | 10

The second form, impulsive suppressive power occurs instantaneously in situations

where it’s immediately needed to suppress the subject and turn him or her into a docile

body. Foucault speaks of this phenomenon through use of the term “docile bodies.”

Examples of this form of disciplinary power occur in departmental meetings and

faculty meetings. In these meetings I have witnessed teachers abruptly stopped in mid-

sentence and submit themselves as docile bodies if they are a.) late to meetings b.)

talking out of line at meetings or c.) coerced to sign documents at meetings.

This type of impulsive power is quick and immediate and a teacher must decide on the

spot if they are going to submit to this form of power or else be prepared to pay a

consequence as a result of not acquiescing.

As for the classroom, power is manifested through and around the students (due to its

polymorphous nature) and obviously more so then it is for teachers and administrators.

Like educators, students immediately assume roles upon entering the school ground.

They become subjected through the use of controlled power which implements itself in

three forms: 1.) Hierarchical Observation, 2.) Normalizing Judgments and 3.)

Examination. Students, whether in class or anywhere in the school system are

constantly under the guise of hierarchical observation and surveillance. Student ID’s

are a form of observation and control.

In an analogous manner students are traced by ID card and categorized from their

freshman year to their senior year as in Foucault’s example of the carceral system.

Counselors, AP’s and teachers track and categorize students by name, race, sex,

ethnicity and ability.

 P a g e | 11

Students many times (at this age at least) are totally unaware of this form of power and

control. This is a classic example of power running through and around the student

population, manifesting itself acutely and latently as mentioned in the previous

paragraphs.

Cameras and security are other forms of control that exert themselves discretely and

pervasively throughout the school institution. Just think of the number of cameras and

security officers who monitor school rooms, hallways, cafeterias, principal’s offices,

restrooms and outside perimeters. The technology used for this type of surveillance

and ultimately examination is evolving and integrating seamlessly with other

authorities like those of the police force and other jurisdictional officials.

It is also a known fact that discipline implemented through the mechanism of power

has become thoroughly modernized by way of technology and the school personnel

who use it. Teachers like counselors and principals use computer technology to track

and examine students.

Teacher’s use computers to input scores through examination and transmit attendance

to office officials. Truancy is as a result of the teachers actions, systematically punished.

This is only accomplished through the use of registrar and attendance officials who pass

along a form of polymorphous power through their use of data on students.

Secondly, normalizing judgments are far deeper and complex issues that were

investigated in extensive detail in Foucault’s work “Archaeology of Knowledge.”

 P a g e | 12

From this perspective students are systematically placed in categories based on

normalization techniques developed over the past few centuries by the discourses now

known to us as the human sciences.

As example, Special Ed and 504 students are labeled as such due to historical data

based on what “normal was considered to be.” As previously mentioned the objectified

use of the term “norm” was created by the fields of medicine, psychiatry, and

psychology. It’s not that these practices are unethical or incorrect, we must try to see

and penetrate through broken discourses from the past that ultimately norms have long

been established in the past have evolved in order to systematically subject the body to

a form of power derived thru knowledge. In Discipline and Punishment, Foucault

discusses these practices by way of radical discourse on the insurrection of subjugated

knowledge’s. Instead of writing a history of the past in terms of the present day,

Foucault (1976) aims at “writing the history of the present” (p. 31).

I would like to say that the proper perspective could take on these salient points is that

we are all victims of these forms of power. Norms rule our lives in a pervasive and

fluid like manner that we as teachers often fail to question even when they are part of

our day to day objectives. Instead, we should question the “history of knowledge” that

is so often associated with normalizing judgment. As Foucault (1983) puts it “…the

political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is not to try to liberate us

both from the state and from the type of individualization which is linked to the state.

We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of

individuality which has been imposed on us for several centuries” (p. 216).
 P a g e | 13

In the classroom students are quite often the most victimized when it comes to

judgmental normalization and counselors as well as teachers often contribute to such

questionable practices that often have far reaching implications for the subjected

student. Teachers who have become cognizant of such discursive practices can better

empathize with the plight of the subjugated or oppressed.

The teacher in classes such as mine should question the validity of such normalization

techniques. It’s through profound reflection and close examination of competing

theories that a teacher will be better prepared for a more rewarding and enriching

career in education.

Third, we as educator often fail to realize the extent examination plays in our

institutional setting. Students are subjected to many forms of examination and

academic testing albeit an important one is not what I believe Foucault was alluding to.

The docile body or individual is a participant in examination the minute he or she starts

at the elementary level and it continues until the pupil has left the school system of his

locality. Examination embodies the first and second tenants Foucault has made use of:

observation and normalization. But it also is part of the bigger umbrella in which the

student not only is part and parcel to these two disciplinary techniques but also the

scrutiny that the academic institutions impose on the individual by various

examination techniques.

There are many forms of examination that are polymorphous and yet also obvious at

times.
 P a g e | 14

Examination by observation and surveillance, examination of the individual that leads

at times to unnecessary categorization, examination by testing, examination of a

students background, examination of students placed in isolation are all techniques that

are Foucauldian by nature.

When a teacher reflects and perceives the meaning of Foucault’s quest through

examination of discursive practices without falling prey to inductively tainted

normalization stereotypes will he gain a much fuller and better understanding of his

educational surroundings and what it really is like to work in an institutional setting.

As for curriculum policy and the plight of the student in the classroom the teacher’s

best hope is to gain enough experience in order to bend the arc of discursive practices

back and to tie the past to the present in order to see how certain types of knowledge

shaped over the course of the past few centuries have left an indelible foot print on our

current state of education today.

The role of the teacher should be to free the student and curriculum from such

discursive practices of knowledge and normative subjugation.

These concepts may at first appear difficult or for all intensive purposes impossible to

implement. However, for the cognizant teacher….they will always be open to examination

and reflection.

It is up to the educator to decide…

 P a g e | 15

REFERENCES

Foucault, M. (1983). The Subject and Power. In H.L. Dreyfus & P. Rainbow, Michel
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (2nd ed.) (pp. 208 – 226). Chicago:
The University of Chicago.

Foucault, M. (1990/1976). The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Trans. R.

Hurley. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1991/1975). Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. Trans.
A. Sheridan. London: Penguin.