Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison

The historical exegeses are largely superfluous and distract from the points of argumentation.

There are many elaborate dilations of the main propositions which do little more than meander towards the next one(s), as opposed to elucidating their logical-historical connection.

Foucault gives political manifesto content-length propositions that are reasonably insightful, in a basically historical-novelistic theory fiction format. "We are less Greek than we think." --Foucault is more anti-Enlightenment than he realizes and less "Nietzschean" so much as a paraphrastic derivative thinker than he would like to be.

The description of power relations does not necessarily reveal the ideology governing it. In fact, it does much to mythologize an omnipresent non-entity of whom we see and experience only its effects. One suspects there are only effects of power, of ideology; consequences which cannotn be telekeniticized by any localizable 'gaze' but follow materially from human actions.

15. He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a MEANING into them; that is, he believes there is a will in them already (principle of 'belief').
(Twilight of the Idols, "Maxims and Arrows" epigram 15)

As Foucault ought to have known, there is no meaning to power except in the feeling of its increase. The only gaze that is belongs to "the Other". In this sense, Foucault has articulated the narcissistic element of power. On the whole however, he identifies with it since he cannot dissociate power from its celebration: the carnival event of discipline and punish, the panoptical voyeurism of the carceral gaze. Naval gazing social theory par excellence (Knowledge is Power and Power is Ideology, therefore Ideology is Knowledge.) The gaze is a fiction unless the alleged 'observed' sees that he is being watched, there is no subject without the choice presented by the Other; the neurosis of the subject hypersensitive to the Other withstands the hermeneutical uncertainty with horror, inevitably directed at himself, --that there is nothing to see. Foucault's text makes ideology power's Echo, when it is really ideology that echoes Power. Ideology is the ignorance and absence of Power that would be the knowledge required to suspend ideology for authentic choices.

The Birth of the Prison is the death of the social, the death of the Other, the fettering of the individual himself to ideology. One must ask, "Where is ideology?" Foucault offers merely the dazed "everywhere and nowhere," as the gaze without eye, the predicate without subject, Donald Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" which are nothing at all. Discipline and Punish does not address the lexical of 'known knowns' because the language of oppression, of ideology requires a counter affirmation of Power. One assumes power or renounces it, and one must be doubly strong for the latter. Given the current state of events, its disavowal is a gesture into a void: one has no power to renounce if one is not the State itself. "Je suis le etat." Since it has been more difficult to define the "Je", the sovereign, one speaks of exploitation as a structural and institutional function. This impotent anthropomorphism of theory merely compounds the problem of ideology. Exploitation is an action committed man against man, and these actions must be identified with what systems enable these impingements on the sovereignty of other men.

"l'ecrasez l'infamie!"

Foucault does not crush the infamy. He does reveal its ankles slightly however this will not titillate, unless one does not already see the pudeurs of the clearly unclothed emperors of the various reigning ideologies. Ideology abhors clarity. Read Foucault, then forget Foucault.

Other reviews have done a nice job of explaining the textual benefits of the book, so let me explain its practical benefit. I'll keep this short and sweet. This is an excellent text to trot out during a sociology or other social science class when you want to egomanically dominate the conversation for a bit. It provides such food for thought that you can really wax poetic on the power of punishment over the body and soul of the individual. I say this with all seriousness. So few people read philosophical texts that, if you enjoy doing so, it almost feels like an obligation to introduce these discussions in the classroom. This is not a light summer read by any stretch of the imagination, but if you enjoy the challenge of unpacking complex concepts, you'll enjoy this read.

By examining the rise of prison systems in Western culture, Foucault demonstrates the ways modern nation-states exert their power to dominate their citizens. This is a great book for anyone interested in power formations as well as continental theory.

This is one of Michel Foucault's most accessible books (though still pretty heavy going). If in Madness and Civilization, Foucault analyzed the birth of insane asylums and in The Birth of the Clinic the birth of the hospital, in Discipline and Punish, it's the turn of the prisons. The book starts with a gruesome description of the public drawing and quartering of failed regicide Damiens in 1757. Then he goes on to quote a benign prison system of the 1830s. What changed between the two dates? While other authors would consider the birth of modern imprisonment as a triumph of progressive ideals (in comparison with what went on before), Foucault saw this instead as one aspect of increasing social and political control. While greatly researched, one immediately asks itself what Foucault wanted? Did he care about any improvement in the social conditions of prisoners? Or did he believed we should do with prisons altogether? And in which case, what about dangerous criminals? I think Foucault never wanted to answer these questions. I think it's telling that towards the end of his life (after this book was written) Foucault was a fan of the repressive and theocratic regime of Khomeini in Iran. In this, he was similar to those communist intellectuals in the West who criticized failings in their own countries but overlook much worse abuses (and crimes) in the Soviet Union. Another quibble is that the book is so French-centric (with some analysis of developments in England): he takes the evolution of imprisonment in France as an indication of the whole world.

What is whispered in secret may be shouted from the rooftops, but what is done in secret will be watched.

In Discipline and Punish Michel Foucault develops the idea of the transition of God's omniscience into the state's omniscience, and points to interesting nodes along the way: the invention of the table and the Panopticon being the most compelling and far-reaching.

Foucault's thesis of The Panopticon being a physical result of the Protestant conception of the community replacing the All-Seeing-Eye of God is itself the child of the thinking of Max Weber, Jeremy Bentham, Cardinal Richelieu and Jean Calvin. The results of the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, searching for signs of grace in this life as signs of salvation in the next, brought focus to human efforts as primarily economic. The result of such an ethos was that everyone was watching everybody all the time, and this creates anxiety, and the ultimate result of anxiety is release and rebellion. Enter the Panopticon to isolate the rebellious and a method thought to encourage good behaviour: constant watching.

Combine this with Terry Guillam's film "Brazil" and you'll be permanently fearful. Smile like you mean it.