Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fault punishment and discipline
The history of sexuality michel foucault analysis
Foucaults sexuality social construction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fault punishment and discipline
3. Foucault argues in the conclusion that discipline is not just about control—it also produces new kinds of knowledge. He cites the rise of psychiatry and clinical medicine as examples. Apply Foucault’s ideas to your everyday life. How has discipline and surveillance produced who you are today and your ability to take action?
Foucault is defiantly a post-structural theorist, but as for being post-modern he is and he isn’t. Let’s start with the basics between post-modern and modern. Power in the eyes of a post-modernist is a mess and there are a magnitude of intersections between each other in so many ways that constitutes the ways in which we can express power. However, this doesn’t say that we are all equal, but that some people are better at navigating the tangles better than others. Post-modernist believe that truth is always dynamic, that one person’s truth is no more “true” than the next guys. Post-Modernism is based more on
…show more content…
subjugated knowledge, in which Truth is relative and not anchored in reality because it lacks a lower case T truth. Dissimilar to Modernism, where there is only one truth and it still exists even if you don’t know that it is there. Similar to the idea of the cave, skewed perceptions of reality doesn’t mean that it is not true. Foucault believes that there is a reality that happens to the body that is real (i.e.
being watched), but he can’t understand the subjugated experiences they have. For Foucault, the idea of control shifts power unequally to the observer. In his work, Discipline and Punish, he focuses on punishment in social context and uses that to examine how power relations change which effects punishment outcomes. He brings up an interesting point between discipline and punishment. In his words, punishment is about shame/pain or locking people up (whipping people) and discipline is about regulating the body to ensure it continues to fulfill what society needs it to do. He also discusses the idea of surveillance like the panopticon. A panopticon is a type of prison which has a tall tower in the center and all of the prisoner’s cells surround it. It gives the impression that prisoners are always being watched so they must behave. In this instance the prison is one part in a discourse that defines and creates criminals and then punishes
them. As for not only me but society as a whole, surveillance and discipline are highly influential. The discipline and surveillance within the online world, I feel has created a greater awareness and knowledge on how to operate and understand the worldwide web more cohesively. It opened knowledge on ideas such as identity theft and cyberbullying which is monitored online through various means. So in a way, not only does control in these aspects create power but it influences and supports the growth of knowledge. Which is much needed in the world of online cyber-abuse. We are taught from an early age to follow the rules, or you will get in trouble and punished. We are socially constructed to view deviance as bad, but in reality we are just deviating way from the way that society attempts to regulate people’s thoughts and behaviors. Social deviance is the recognized violation of standards of conduct or expectations of a group or society which in short is legally defined as breaking the law or crime. It is not so much the act itself, but the reactions to the act that make something deviant. I feel that the threat of punishment is so high that you feel that you must comply and obey the rules or be segregated from society. Yet this is disproportionate between genders, it is a known fact that the criminality of females if far different from that of male criminality. I kept coming back to this idea that has been around in women’s history for decades, this concept of “good women, bad women”. It is within this framework that the idea of “double deviant” becomes relevant. “Double deviant” argues that female offenders are often punished for crime they committed but are also penalized for their deviance from gender expectations and norms.
Perhaps no other event in modern history has left us so perplexed and dumbfounded than the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, an entire population was simply robbed of their existence. In “Our Secret,” Susan Griffin tries to explain what could possibly lead an individual to execute such inhumane acts to a large group of people. She delves into Heinrich Himmler’s life and investigates all the events leading up to him joining the Nazi party. In“Panopticism,” Michel Foucault argues that modern society has been shaped by disciplinary mechanisms deriving from the plague as well as Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a structure with a tower in the middle meant for surveillance. Susan Griffin tries to explain what happened in Germany through Himmler’s childhood while Foucault better explains these events by describing how society as a whole operates.
The theory of Panopticon by Foucault can be applied in this poem. According to Foucault, there is a cultural shift from the old traditional discipline of inmates to a European disciplinary system (314). In this new disciplinary model, the prisoners always assume that they are under constant watch by the guards and they start policing themselves. Panopticon is the process of inducing inmates to a state of conscious and ...
In “Panopticism” Foucault states, “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” (Foucault, pg. 201). The function of the Panopticon is to keep the prisoners orderly by instilling fear inside of them, this fear forces them to stay in their cells, and to remain compliant. The Panopticon is a building designed for surveillance.
According to Foucault, the individual is created and removed from the society by subjecting him to certain norms. This ensures that the individual is created to fit into an already constructed power hierarchy as opposed to creating a society in which individuals a...
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
As each person feels alone and alienated under big brother’s watchful eye, they have no choice but to build the only relationship and bond they can, with that of their oppressor. The knowledge that the thought police watches the citizen’s every move influences the masses towards a “norm” of a constant state of fear and discipline resulting in utmost loyalty to Big Brother. Also, because people have no idea when they’re being watched, they learn to behave as if always under scrutiny. This transforms people into their own forms of a panoptic gaze, policing their own thoughts and actions from the fear of possible surveillance. Foucault refers to it as “ becoming the bearers of our own oppression”.
Originally derived from the measures to control “abnormal beings” against the spreading of a plague, the Panopticon is an architecture designed to induce power with a permanent sense of visibility. With a tower in the center, surrounded by cells, the prisoners can be monitored and watched at any given time from the central tower. The goal of this architectural plan was to strip away any privacy and therefore create fear induced self-regulation amongst the prisoners, with an unverifiable gaze - The prisoners can never identify when and by whom they are being observed from the tower.
Michel Foucault’s essay, “Panopticism”, links to the idea of “policing yourself” or many call it panopticon. The panopticon is a prison which is shaped like a circle with a watchtower in the middle. The main purpose of the panopticon was to monitor a large group of prisoners with only few guards in the key spot. From that key spot, whatever the prisoners do they can be monitored, and they would be constantly watched from the key spot inside the tower. The arrangement of panopticon is done in excellent manner that the tower’s wide windows, which opened to the outside and kept every cell in 360-degree view. The cells were designed so it makes impossible for the prisoners to glances towards the center. In short, none of the prisoners were able to see into the tower. The arrangement of cells guaranteed that the prisoner would be under constant surveillance. This is the beauty of the panopticon that anyone can glance at the cells from the tower but no prisoners can see the tower. The prisoners may feel like someone is watching, and know the he or she is powerless to escape its watch, but the same time, the guard in the tower may not be looking at the prisoners. Just because the prisoners think that someone is watching them, they will behave properly.
Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?
Michel Foucault may be regarded as the most influential twentieth-century philosopher on the history of systems of thought. His theories focus on the relationship between power and knowledge, and how such may be used as a form of social control through institutions in society. In “Truth and Juridical Forms,” Foucault addresses the development of the nineteenth-century penal regime, which completely transformed the operation of the traditional penal justice system. In doing so, Foucault famously compares contemporary society to a prison- “prison is not so unlike what happens every day.” Ultimately, Foucault attempts to exemplify the way in which disciplinary power has become exercised in everyday institutions according to normalization under the authority network of individuals such that all relationships may be considered power relations. Thus, all aspects of society follow the model of a prison based on domination. While all aspects of society take the shape of prison, most individuals may remainignorant of such- perhaps just as they are supposed to. As a result, members of society unconsciously participate in the disciplinary power that aims to “normalize,” thus contributing to and perpetuating the contemporary form of social control. Accordingly, the modern penal regime may be regarded as the most effective system of societal discipline. [OK – SOLID INTRO]
Panopticism, as defined by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish, is (as proposed by Jeremy Bentham) a circular building with an observation tower in the centre of an open space surrounded by an outer wall. The idea behind this social theory that subjects, being watched by an upper power, always have either complete freedom or none at all. How can they have both you might ask? The subjects cannot see if someone is or isn’t watching them, therefore they should always act at there best. It is almost as if they are on the bad side of a double sided mirror,
The theory was that the guards would be able to view all the cells, but the inmates wouldn't know if the guard was observing them. Foucault realized that there could be no guards and the inmates wouldn't be any wiser. Since inmates are incapable of knowing whether they are being watched, they must act as if they are being perpetually watched, which results in the inmate's self-monitoring their own behavior.
“Justice must always question itself, just as society can exist only by means of the work it does on itself and on its institutions.” The philosopher Michel Foucault explains the delicate balance of the justice systems with society. We have grown accustom to our way of crime and punishment in the United States. It handles the situations in a way of treating everyone as equals. Hammurabi’s code relies on more of a crime fits the punishment method. The common code, an eye for an eye, shows how seriously strict Hammurabi’s code can be. Should punishment be handled like we do in today’s society, in a humane way, or a brute force method? Without a doubt, history shows that human nature causes us to desire power, and usually ends in criminal actions. Punishment comes from the government and how it is handled. Is the United States implementing their job or do we need to go back to a stricter code?
2nd ed. of the book. 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14.4RN, Routledge. Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and Punishment. The Birth of the Prison [online].
There are many explanations for what punishment characterises. For Emile Durkheim, punishment was mainly an expression of social solidarity and not a form of crime control. Here, the offender attacks the social moral order by committing a crime and therefore, has to be punished, to show that this moral order still "works". Durkheim's theory suggests that punishment must be visible to everyone, and so expresses the outrage of all members of society against the challenge to their collective values. The form of punishment changes between mechanic (torture, execution) and organic (prison) solidarity because the values of society change but the idea behind punishing, the essence, stays the same - keeping the moral order intact not decreasing crime. Foucault has a different view of the role or function of punishment. For Foucault, punishment signifies political control. His theory compares the age of torture with the age of prison, concluding that the shift from the former to the latter is done due to changes in society and new strategies needed for the dominance of it by the rulers. Punishment for Foucault is a show of power first brutal and direct (torture), then organised and rational (prison). Punishment does not get more lenient because of humanitarian reasons but because the power relations in society change.