Summary The Carceral Summary Foucault dates the completion of the carceral system to February 22, the date of the opening of Mettray prison colony. This colony is the disciplinary form at its most extreme. The chiefs and deputies at Mettray were technicians of behavior. Their task was to produce bodies that were docile and capable.
|Published (Last):||19 November 2016|
|PDF File Size:||11.89 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Summary The Carceral Summary Foucault dates the completion of the carceral system to February 22, the date of the opening of Mettray prison colony. This colony is the disciplinary form at its most extreme.
The chiefs and deputies at Mettray were technicians of behavior. Their task was to produce bodies that were docile and capable. Historians of the human sciences also date the birth of scientific psychology to this time. Mettray represented the birth of a new kind of supervision. Why choose this moment as the beginning of the modern art of punishment?
Mettray was the most famous of a series of carceral institutions. If the great classical form of confinement was dismantled, it still existed albeit in a different way. A carceral continuum was constructed that included confinement, judicial punishment and institutions of discipline. The breadth and precocity of this phenomenon was striking. Prison turned the punitive procedure into a penitentiary technique, with several important results: One a slow continuous gradation was established that made it possible to move from order to offense and back to the "norm".
Two the carceral network allows the recruitment of major delinquents—the nineteenth century created channels within the system that created docility and delinquency together. Three most importantly, the carceral succeeds in making the power to punish legitimate and accepted. The theory of the contract only partly explains the rise of a new power to punish; another answer comes from the idea of a carceral continuum that was the technical counterpart to granting a right to punish.
Four the carceral allowed the emergence of a new form of law: the norm. Now, the judges of normality were everywhere; a reign of the normative exists, to which everyone subjects his body. Five the carceral texture of society allows the body to be captured and observed.
Six because the prison was rooted in the mechanisms and strategies of power, it could resist attempts to abolish it. This does not mean that it cannot be altered: processes that affect its utility, and the growth of other supervisory networks, such as medicine, psychiatry and social work, will alter the prison.
The overall political issue of prisons is whether we should have them, or something else. Now the problem lies in the increasing use of mechanisms of normalization and the powers attached to them. The carceral city is very different to the theater of punishment.
Laws and courts do not control the prison, but vice versa. The prison is linked to a carceral network that normalizes. Ultimately only the rules of strategy control these mechanisms. Foucault sees this book as a historical background to various studies of power, normalization and the formation of knowledge in society. The prison, the penitentiary and the carceral system are all put in their place. A new way of seeing the carceral system is also suggested. The idea of a continuum, in which different levels of severity are arranged on a scale, resembles the kind of classification or ranking that is established in the process of observation.
A society like ours where the carceral system operates is one in which the human sciences judge all and exclude some on the basis of norms. This is an unchangeable fact, but it should not prevent resistance against the rule of the norm. The carceral system is powerful and in many ways harmful, but Foucault holds out some hope of change. However, the chief agent of change is likely to be the growth of the human sciences themselves, which may one day take over some of the supervisory and observational work of the prison.
Whether this will represent a degree of progress is left uncertain.
The Carceral Foucault’s Discipline and Punish Essay
Foucault opens his book with a graphic description of the public torture and execution of Damiens, accused and found guilty of regicide even although the King was not harmed at all , in Paris, France and immediately contrasts this with an account of the rules drawn up by Leon Faucher, for a day in the House of young prisoners in Paris; he uses these examples not to compare similar punishments for similar crimes but to establish the shift in penal style or punishment that has occurred in less than one hundred years Foucault, The grandiose public spectacle of the scaffold has been replaced by the private, hidden, house of correction or prison and the object of punishment shifted from the body to the soul Barker, ; it is this essentially that Foucault builds his thesis of discipline and punishment on. The shift from corporal to carceral that Foucault asserts took place between the late 18th century and the mid 19th century can be challenged in two regards; firstly, the time frame and secondly, the actuality of the change. A commentator named Moore suggests that transportation was the main punishment at this time, alongside imprisonment, which involved hard labour and flogging, and importantly, hanging was still routinely used in the UK — however not as a public spectacle — until the s.
Foucault seeks to analyze punishment in its social context, and to examine how changing power relations affected punishment. He begins by analyzing the situation before the eighteenth century, when public execution and corporal punishment were key punishments, and torture was part of most criminal investigations. It was a ritual in which the audience was important. Public execution reestablished the authority and power of the King. Popular literature reported the details of executions, and the public was heavily involved in them. The eighteenth century saw various calls for reform of punishment. The reformers, according to Foucault, were not motivated by a concern for the welfare of prisoners.
Discipline and Punish
Power goes to teachers students and discipline Essay Words 3 Pages For at least two decades discipline has been at or near the top of the list of public concerns about our schools. As long as schools are places where part of a childs education takes place, helping children develop discipline will be one of the "problems" that is, legitimate tasks that schools face. However, when used in school-talk, "discipline" often is translated into terms of control and power, not development or education. Like Nietzsche, Foucault sees power not as a fixed quantity of physical force, but instead as a stream of energy flowing through all aspects of society, its power harnesses itself in regulating the behavior of individuals, the systems
Summary[ edit ] The main ideas of Discipline and Punish can be grouped according to its four parts: torture, punishment, discipline, and prison. These examples provide a picture of just how profound the changes in western penal systems were after less than a century. Foucault wants the reader to consider what led to these changes and how Western attitudes shifted so radically. Foucault wants to tie scientific knowledge and technological development to the development of the prison to prove this point.