Widening the Understanding of Foucaults Work by Infusing the Power-Knowledge Theory - Essay Example

? Michel Foucault’s Discipline & Punish Widening the Understanding of his Work by Infusing the Power-Knowledge Theory into the Discussion on the Emergence of Prison in Modern Societies Name Course – Section Date Submitted Introduction Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish provided a holistic understanding not only on the evolution of punishment that culminated in the establishment of the penal system, but also on the significant influences of such system that paved the way for the reinforcement of modern societal structures (such as the education and government sectors of society). In a sense, Foucault’s work summarized his essential ideas on philosophical anthropology and political theory by giving a rich and in-depth discussion on the concept of control as the main impetus for the formation of modern-day prison. Specifically, Foucault’s thesis that described the idea of control as the key influencer for the creation of the penal system had allowed him to reinforce the fact such system only favored one specific social group, that is, the elite. Thus, Discipline and Punish could be deemed as Foucault’s critique not only on the effectiveness of prison in attaining its key objective—the disciplining of the prisoner by subjecting him to conditions that are marked by extreme surveillance and control—but also on the true reason for the emergence of various social structures today such as the government, school, and other institutions (Mc Gaha, 2000). Precisely, it is Foucault’s belief that such systems had only been created to cater the elite group (which I shall explore in more detail in the next part of the paper) that bolstered his onslaught on the basic foundations of human civilization. Specifically, by recognizing the essence of prison and other social institutions as merely ‘instruments’ used by the elite to maintain and enhance their power in society, Foucault was able to question essentially the possibility of attaining human freedom in modern-day society. In a deeper regard, I could surmise that Foucault’s attacks on social structures could be attributed to his anarchistic mindset (though not explicitly revealed in any of the texts) as he clearly disregarded the need for such systems. Therefore, human freedom must be seen as the act of ‘letting one be’ and not ‘following what and how one must be’. His precise bastardization of naturals or ideals (as will be discussed later on) could clearly provide an ideological nexus between his anarchistic mindset and his post-modern orientation. If seen in this context, Foucault’s take on the human essence (for the lack of a better term) is slightly existentialist. In this paper, I like to delve further into Foucault’s Discipline and Punish by dividing the discussion into four parts. The first part shall emphasize on the short history of the penal system, which could be traced back to 17th century. Through this part, I aim to highlight on the fact that the development of the penal system had shifted the punishment from physical to mental. The second part will be dedicated to reinforcing the concepts of power and control as the main thrust for the creation of modern social institutions. This will infuse the significant role of the elite in the formation of such institutions. The third part shall zero in on Foucault’s conceptualization of human freedom as hardly attainable given the flaws in modern day systems today. By having this part, I am to provide a reasoning that encapsulates Foucault’s socio-political ideologies Evolution of Punishment and the Rise of the Penal System Following the flow of discussion in Discipline and Punish, Foucault opted to start (in a more detailed light) with a detailed discussion on public tortures and executions that transpired during the17th and 18th centuries. Presenting explicitly the execution of the Damiens, Foucault (1976) narrated, “after these tearings with the pincers, Damiens, who cried out profusely, though without swearing, raised his head and looked at himself; the same executioner dipped an iron spoon in the pot containing the boiling potion, which he poured liberally over each wound. Then the ropes that were to be harnessed to the horses were attached with cords to the patient's body; the horses were then harnessed and placed alongside the arms and legs, one at each limb” (p.2). Deemed in a more general light, such forms of torture, as Freeman (2007) put it, “tended to involve very public displays of the power of the monarch and the power of the state against the offending individual”. In this regard, those who were convicted of murder, counterfeiting, piracy, and other notable capital crimes were usually taken to a public place (like a market or a plaza) for hanging, decapitation and other forms of gruesome punishments (Freeman, 2007). In England, for instance, until 1790, the formal punishment for women who had been convicted for treason (like a servant who killed her master or a wife who killed her husband) was burning at the stake. Mass hangings of convicts were also employed with public processions, with viewing stands set up for spectators (Freeman, 2007). Therefore, it can be said that all forms of public punishments during the 17th and 18th centuries were directed at the prisoner’s body and made it almost like a ritual which needed an audience (Williamson, n.d.). It was, quite interestingly, a spectacle, with a strong message of warning to those who wish to go against the laws of the monarch or the ruling class. In this light, various forms of public punishments that were used during the 17th and the 18th centuries were clearly regarded as public affirmations of the King’s authority or rule. As Shapiro (2002) explained, “The king expressed his total power through spectacles of punishment and terror to display his overwhelming authority and ability to crush any popular resistance. If a prisoner was publicly tortured, the point to be made was that the king (as a surrogate for God) had complete and utter power over his subjects” (p. 2). Tracing further the root of this “terror system”, Shapiro (2002) discussed that this could be attributed to two main pressures that have been widely present during the 18th century. The first pressure focused on the plebeians or commoners who were beginning to see convicts (which were held in scaffolds) not as enemies but as comrades. Thus, the employment of public forms of torture became an effective opportunity to remind the commoners that they must despise those people, although such events were also proven to be risky as it might catalyze a riot that would threaten royal power, as evidenced by the French Revolution (Shapiro, 2002). The second pressure, on the other hand, came from the middle class who planned of replacing the nobility. As Shapiro (2002) clearly shared in his work, “the increasing challenges to early modern codes of crime by plebeians gave the rising bourgeoisie (the Third Estate) an opportunity to undermine the powers of the aristocracy (the First Estate)” (p.2). In this light, the middle class encouraged popular illegality by not prosecuting crimes so that actions by the lower classes would destabilize the nobles’ wealth and prestige. Aside from this, by employing the language of humanism (benevolence, charity), the middle class was able to criticize the brutality of the king, which in effect, helped in delegitimizing the old social order (Shapiro, 2002). By doing so, they were able to justify the need to have juridical or administrative offices (which had not been rewarded to them by the king) and, most importantly, the status or symbolic authority that were to be provided by these offices. Unfortunately, the continued imposition of these public forms of torture stirred the consciousness of the viewing public that culminated in the questioning of the system (Whisnant, 2012). Quite exactly, they began to see convicts as human beings. Those who were convicted were regarded as heroes, especially during the times that they were allowed to speak, prior to execution (Zakariya, 1995). As Mc Gaha (2002) pointed out, his last moment gave him not only an opportunity to repent for his crimes, but also to express his sentiments against the throne and the executioners. Due to the demand for a more humane punishment, the prison was created (Sheridan, 1977). At this point, it is vital to note that the destruction of the classical form of punishment and the development of prison as its replacement clearly underscores the shift of focus from torturing the body to torturing the soul (Garland, 1986). Analyzing this concept in a much deeper manner, Garland (1986) rightfully commented that “the objective of punishment undergoes a change so that the concern is now less to avenge the crime than to transform the criminal who stands behind it” (p. 851). This is a highly important ideological change for it sets forth the theme of control as the primary objective of modern penal system. Specifically, in modern prison system, “focus of judgment shifts away from the crime itself towards questions of character, of family background, and of the individual's history and environment”. Delinquents, therefore, became an object of study which was primarily intended toward determining their intentions for committing such crimes. In this light, unlike the classical form of torture that emphasized on taking revenge on the convict for the crime he has done, modern prison is geared toward: (1) knowing the reasons for the commitment of the crime; (2) changing such mindset in favor of societal norms (Gaventa, n.d.). This logic will serve as our take-off point for the next part of the paper, which is aimed at understanding how the theme of control is justified in modern prison system and on how this could be connected to a wider socio-political concept—it being an instrument used by the elites to maintain and enhance their position in society. Power and Control in Modern Social Institutions I like to begin this part by stating that the theme of power provides a pivotal role in exposing Foucault’s essential notions on the essence of modern penal system and how it appears to be a tool used by the elite to control society. Going back to the description of the structure of prison, Mc Gaha (2002) noted that it is a place where liberty is taken from the delinquent in order for him to repent for the crimes he has committed (Fisher, n.d.). In this regard, the prison served two important purposes, as highlighted by Mc Gaha (2002), first, it is a venue where liberty is deprived, and second, it is a place where discipline could be discovered and instilled. By taking every minute of their time being imprisoned, the system is supposed to provide the lesson of proper social conduct to the delinquent (King, 2002). As the Mc Gaha (2002) further commented, “It was an attempt to reform the criminal so upon his release, he would be less likely to re-offend and more likely to be a contributing member of society” While it may be argued that there was a radical change in the manner through which punishment was done in the modern penal system, as it was carried out in a more humane way, it must be pointed out that the message of warning to always abide by societal rules never faded. In fact, through the prison, the known concept of coercion and instilling fear during the classical period has been replaced and reinforced in a subtle but definitely more effective manner. Such concept can be regarded as one of the key highlights of Discipline and Punish as it underscored the evolution of a more intellectual form of control that is apt for a changing society (Valverde, n.d.). What the prison has created, as Gulish (2011) claimed, is a society of discipline—a society that must follow specific laws that are aimed at, as the government or the ruling class clearly asserts, attaining and maintaining societal peace and order. In a deeper regard, the formation of modern-day prison has provided immense power to the ruling class or government, just like the king in the 17th to 18th century. The stark difference, however, lies on how the concept of power is packaged and communicated to the public, which is within the context of societal discipline. Thus, the public is supposed to follow the laws to avoid being imprisoned (Tadros, 1998). Moreover, those who are convicted must be viewed as people who are getting their ‘second chance at life’. Through this reasoning, the public is able to see the system not as a clear impediment to their freedom, but more as a means to having a more pleasant life. It is, as Flyvbjerg & Richardson (2002) expressed, rationality penetrated by power. Taking into consideration the specific ways through which the prison can instill discipline unto the delinquent, Foucault brought out the concept of the Panopticon by Jeremy Bentham. As argued strongly by Mc Gaha (2002), it is the structure of the panopticon—which had cells built around a central tower that opened from the inside—that reinforced the concept of constant surveillance as a reminder to the delinquent that all his actions must be aligned with the imposed disciplinary rules. As Gordon (2002) further commented, Panopticon became highly effective in teaching discipline among the delinquents “due to the techniques of surveillance, the ‘physics’ of power, the hold over the body, operate according to the laws of optics and mechanics, according to a whole play of spaces, lines, screens, beams, degrees, and without recourse, in principle, at least, to excess, force or violence. It is a power that seems all the less corporeal in that it is subtly physical” (p. 129). As Gordon (2002) further added “There is no need for arms, physical violence, material constraints. Just a gaze. An inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual under its weight will end by interiorising to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over, and against himself” (p. 129). In this light, since the Panopticon had equipped the gazer with the capacity to see multiple delinquents at the same time, it offered him a chance to gain power over these convicts (Williamson, n.d.). At this point, it is worth noting that Foucault used the key characteristics of the Panopticon to infuse another essential concept into his discussion. Specifically, Foucault posited that the influence of prison in relevantly altering the delinquent’s mindset and general way of life could also be seen in other sectors of society, such as the government and education institutions. In a sense, the formation of concrete set of rules and regulations that must be followed to attain a certain objective (generally anchored on societal peace and order) is a deliberate use of power to control human behavior. With this in mind, Foucault was able to bolster another important thesis—that the arrival of knowledge in whatever type it may be (controlling general human behavior through the use of punishment in the context of modern penal system)—would always be a product of the creator’s personal motives. Thus, modern society has not really overcome the classical methods of coercion to subjugate the less capable ones, it has merely replaced it with less obvious means—one that entails more ‘mind control’ and ‘agenda-setting’ (Balan, 2003). And because of this, Foucault was able to underscore his position that the rise of the penal system was not really meant to discipline the delinquent, but to inculcate rules of conduct that would mold him into a follower of laws set by the elite. Therefore, while Discipline and Punish was able to clearly describe the emergence of modern penal system, Foucault’s main intent through this work is to expose the deeper reasons for such emergence—that it is a tool used commonly by the elite to control human behavior in the society (alongside other social institutions) in a manner that is less apparent (Haas & Okstad, 2003). Foucault’s Understanding of the Nature of Man Given the power-knowledge nexus that has prevailed and influenced the basic foundations of modern society, Foucault’s brought forth a deeper issue that must be confronted with a more critical eye. Precisely, Foucault advocated the need to destabilize such systems for they only cater to a specific group of people—the elite (Littell, 2011). In a manner that is anarchic, Foucault echoed Marxist philosophy since it is only though the destruction of social hierarchy that man could truly be free. Although leaders of all sorts have repeatedly claimed that the creation of social systems is mainly targeted toward attaining peace and order in society, Foucault thought otherwise. To him, the presence of such systems only benefits the elite since it builds a culture of fear and blind following. In this regard, it can be claimed that Foucault’s concept of freedom is devoid of any idealization. Human essence, therefore, is not ‘honed’ or ‘perfected’ by subjecting the self to certain moral principles for they are nothing but instruments used by the elite to establish their power in society. Thus, Foucault’s understanding of humanity is that which is free from any form on control or discipline. There is no good or evil human act for it is impossible for man to arrive at such judgment. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be stated that Foucault’s definition and exploration of the concept of prison must be considered alongside his socio-political and philosophical ideologies. In this regard, prison can never and has never been an effective tool in instilling discipline unto the prisoner for its very concept and structure is claimed to benefit the elite or the upper class in a society. While it is true that the positive psychological effects of being imprisoned (repenting on the evils acts committed to live a more decent life) must be considered, such can also be seen as mind-conditioning, just like in other social institutions like school and the government. Therefore, it is in the annihilation of these social structures that man can truly be free. Bibliography Balan, S., 2003. M. Foucault’s View on Power Relations. [online]. Institute of Philosophy and Psychology, C.R. Motru, Bucharest. Available at: . King, A. The Prisoner of Gender: Foucault and the Disciplining of the Female Body. [online]. Available at: Littell, J. Michel Foucault Discipline and Punish. [online]. Available at: . Mc Gaha, S. Michel Foucault. [online]. Available at: . Shapiro, S., 2002. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison Reader/Workbook. [online]. Available at: . Sheridan, A. 1977. From Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. [online]. Available at: . Tadros, V., 1998. Between Governance and Discipline: The Law and Michel Foucault. [online]. Available at: . Valverde, M. n.d. Beyond Discipline and Punish: Foucault’s Challenge to Criminology. [online]. Available at: . Whisnant, C. 2012. Foucault Discourse. [online]. Available at: . Williamson, B. Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish. [online]. Available at: Zakariya, N. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. [online]. Available at: Read More