Foucauldian Discourse on Punishment

Foucauldian colloquy on PunishmentFoucauldian Discourse on PunishmentIt is noneworthy that the indi tint and techniques of punishment depend on knowledge that creates and classifies individuals, and that knowledge derives its permit from legitimate relationships of motive and command (Sparknotes, 2006).However, it is in the works of French philosopher Michel Foucault on punishable institutionsthat the idea of punishment as part of a discourse of post is made explicit. In this paper, I will critic every(prenominal)y assess Foucaults discourse c erstpt on punishment as well as Benthams panopticon theory demonstrating the extent of Foucaults concept towards punishment.Disciplinary institutions are, by and large, places where occasion is purposed and coursed through with(predicate) various implements. Without doubt, it is in theatre of operations and Punish (1977) that Foucaults concern with discipline and surveillance becomes withal more pronounced than his several(pred icate) genealogical works. In this work he examines the progressive sophistication of corrective utensils such(prenominal) as punishments employed in prisons that are in event, upon appressed scrutiny, representative of the same progression of corrective utensils in society. He undertook an interrogation of military group relations using the penal institution as a take-off header, for the primary reason that it is here where the different disciplinary techniques customd in the exercise of power are more evident.At the outset, he shows how overrefinement and execution was made a state-supported spectacle with the condemned man being paraded in a manner deemed suited to the crime he committed. Interestingly however, public tortures and executions soon became a hidden affair, with the condemned man being transferred secretly from champion(a) place to an new(prenominal) in a manner as inconspicuous as possible, using plain carriages with no particular distinguishing mark i ndicating that the payload was a convicted felon. Nevertheless, Foucault points out the concern that the institution has with the dead body, a absorption that the prison has in common with the asylum and the hospital and, upon close test, with other institutions as well(Foucault, 1977, p.25).The shifting of torture and execution from the public to the private solid ground (resulting in more economical disciplinary techniques) subtly demonstrates how mechanisms of discipline bourgeon and take other forms. In an interview, Foucault statesWhat I wanted to show is the fact that, starting from a certain conception of the basis of the right to punish, one can find in the work of penal experts and philosophers of the 18th ampere-second that different means of punishment were perfectly conceivable. Indeed in the cryst in anyise movement one finds a whole spectrum of means to punish that are suggested, and finally it happens that the prison was in some way, the privileged one (Foucau lt, in Lotringer, 1989, p.286).Using the prison as an example, Foucault demonstrates how such disciplinary institutions utilize different techniques to form docile bodies a direct coercion of the body to maintain both ample subjects and instruments with which to channel power (Foucault, 1977, p.136). This is a supreme panorama of power, because through subjection and subjugation, the individual at once becomes a productive body through direct bodily training. There is a project to an institutions exercise of power, depending upon the nature of that institution at most, what can be said insofar as purpose is concerned is that institutions all aim at producing docile bodies in whatever form the latter(prenominal) may take. Again, this depends on what type of individual an institution intends to fashion. Docile body plainly refers to the type of individual that is deft and disciplined in the setting of a power relation in an institution.In discussing productivity, it can be und erstood to refer to the capacity of institutions to produce individuals of a specific type, utilizing punishments as mechanisms. In their book, Michel Foucault (1984), Cousins and Hussains write that imprisonment is also enveloped in a mechanism of power (p. 173). Foucault sees discipline, at that placefore, as combinative it portions to combine elements, in this case, individuals, into a constant mass not through the individual variables found in individually element, but through the characteristics imposed upon it because of the space it occupies. Hence, the space defines the capabilities of each individual, which in turn contribute to the collective function of the mass. As it were, the individual is trained through its designation or position, the series that is relevant to his codified space, and through the issuance of a systematic order or command from the authority (Foucault, 1977, p.166).In the following part, it will be made evident that for Foucault, the institutional role of the prison- example of society paves the way for control and observation. At the end of the chapter authorise Panopticism, Foucault explicitly statedThe practice of placing individuals under observation is a internal extension of a justice imbued with disciplinary methods and examination procedures. Is it surprising that the cellular prison, with its regular chronologies, forced labour, its authorities of surveillance and registration, and its experts in normality, who continue and work out the functions of the judge, should have become the modern instrument of penality? Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons? (p. 228).In this particular passage, Foucault outlines the mechanisms that the prison uses in controlling criminality. On closer examination, what he in fact outlines are the mechanisms that operate at bottom different social institutions. This is a noteworthy point, since the institutions that he mentioned, i.e. factories, schools, barracks, and hospitals, all function in essentially the same way as the modern prison. These all use specific procedures and techniques to discipline subjects.Jeremy Benthams concept of the Panopticon became an influential model for modern day architectural efficiency. In short, the prison that he ideate in the late 18th century was to be constructed in such a way as to have the individual cells arranged in a circular manner, with an observation tower at the centre of the formation, well-defined coming from the outside of the cells illumines the inmate for whoever is staying at the observation tower, while the percipient in the tower itself remains hidden from the cells occupants (See. Figure 1). This arrangement reverses, still makes even more powerful, the traditional notion of incarceration that is, the putting outside of criminality. Thus, to assume that someone is in the observation tower even if there is no one there is the full effect of the Panopticon. Foucault (1977) further excellentHence 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 to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. (p. 201)It can be seen that central to the effective use of the panoptic principle is the efficiency of surveillance mechanisms. The latter should function in such a way as to force the recipient of disciplinary power to keep watch over his/her own actions, because of the fact that s/he is being observed by the authority figure. The concept of the paying attention is what makes discipline work. In the panoptic model, visibility becomes the central principle that set ups incarceration. In other words, For Foucault, the Panopticon represents the way in which discipline and punishment work in modern society. It is a diagram of power in action because by looking at a plan of the Panopticon, one realizes how the processes of observation and examination operate (Sparknotes, 2006).To my way of thinking, by and large the foucauldian concept of discourse towards punishment is an explicit, objective and realistic extensive concept with an array of persuasive arguments and insights on power and techniques of punishment that reflect the modern penal system and at the same time the various mechanisms of observation and examination.On the whole, what is made evident at this point is that punishment in Foucault should be understood as something much broader than childly retribution. Instead, punishment is an act that is subsumed under the notion of discipline, or training. As such, the prison institution is designed to re-form a criminal into an individual who can be reintegrated into mainstream society, in order to be made useful and productive once more. As already mentioned, the mechanisms used by society are by and large the same mechanisms of discipline used in institutions such as the prison. Within this larger framework, it is implied that the notion of punishment, in all its forms, operate as a part of a purposeful social design indoors which all other theories become possible. What is positive about such a societal setup is the fact that techniques such as punishments are not entirely negative or prohibitive. Relations of power are in-chief(postnominal) for Foucault because of the positive effects borne out of it. As a final positive note, consider what he says that is summed up better(p) in an interviewIt seems to me that power is always already there, that one is never outside it however this does not entail the necessity of accepting an inescapable form of domination To say that one can never be outside power does not mean that one is trapped and condemned to defeat no return what (Foucault, 1980, p.141).While Foucault did not agree with the prison per se as the best form of punishment, he saw in the prison a mechanism that, as used by the society, functions as a state mechanism for internalizing discipline. That means the individual would be responsible for governing or disciplining himself from within. either time the person feels the gaze (i.e. domination), he would be forced to govern himself. In other words, the effects of discipline are felt even though the disciplinary power is absent. The prison is therefore not simply a place for punishment, but a model of an effective mechanism.BibliographyCousins, M. Hussain, A. (1984)Michel Foucault. parvenu York St. Martins Press.Macey, D. (1994) The Lives of Michel Foucault. London Vintage.Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. Alan Sheridan Trans. New YorkVintage Books.Foucault, M. (1989.) What calls for Punishment? In Lotringer, S. ed. Foucau lt Live.New York Columbia University, pp. 279-292.Foucault, M. (1980). Power and Strategies. In Gordon, C. ed. Power/Knowledge. New York Pantheon, pp. 134-145.Sparknotes. (2006). Michael Foucault Discipline and Punish. Available Last accessed 1 March 2007.Panopticon (Prisons Plan)Figure 1From Discipline and Punish, 1977