On Foucault's Discipline and Punish
I've just finished reading Foucault's Discipline and Punish in its original French (Surveiller et Punir), mostly because smart writers I like kept quoting and citing it and I had to see what it was about.
I wasn't disappointed, although the structure makes it take a while before getting to the good stuff. Most of the material I've seen referenced is about disciplinary societies, which sandwiched between two book parts on pre-prison justice generally applied via corporal punishment and public torture, and on prison and how it is applied.
There’s a point being made that modern society’s discipline, as derived from military roots, aims to create a normalizing set of pressures: abilities, performances, and acts are to be comparable to each other. Individuals are then ranked by that scale, which represents a model, a lowest acceptable boundary or an optimum to attain. Quantitatively measure people on the scale and assign them a rank, which values or de-values them.
Discipline requires very little actual punishment because the penalization is structurally built into the hierarchy and constantly part of everyday life, turning justice’s punishments from power asserting itself into power making most effective use of the bodies it rules in its economic and social system.
The organization of education and training is tightly regulated as well; instead of being the apprentice to a master and gaining your own master title by showing a work of art after having helped them in their craft for years, school (and life as a whole) is structured and cut up in more manageable, comparable, predictable, structured parts that are more productive, and more amenable to the normalizing forces that aim to make everyone comparable to each other.
Other interesting bit, he compares how power is traditionally displayed: shows of force, parades, creations. It’s an act by which those who hold the power make themselves visible and present to others. Power is projected, asserted.
In discipline, the relationship is turned upside-down: power is invisible, and it is the ruled (instead of the ruler) who makes themselves visible, observable, measurable: exams, examinations, tests, and so on. Power is applied by a mechanism of objectivation, and discipline demonstrates it works by having the targets of power showing themselves as meeting its desires, ready to be fitted within a wider mechanism.
He states that this inversion is the precise mechanism by which power is uniformly transmitted from top to bottom. I think he compares the practice to a sort of social panopticon where the source of authority can’t be evaluated but constantly evaluates you.
I think he’s also making the point that criminal justice is sort of just a side-show to the actual normalizing power of the modern state (school is a bigger one). And so any claims of reform or more humane punishment isn’t necessarily rooted in the purported reasons (being more humane), and instead emerges as a structured reinforcement of discipline (via prison and labour) of the most irreducible elements until they are either removed from or shaped back into following the structure.
But by having the prison as the endcap of society, you define the final frontier of which behaviors are acceptable or not and turn the people who don't fit the norm into delinquents; it isn't the acts you punish but the individuals for who they are. Some crimes are defined as worth punishing by prison time (often those committed by lower classes or workers who threaten the structure itself) and some aren't (they align with the structure; white collar crimes).
By shifting the boundary of acceptability, you both keep discipline working, and define an ordered world people live in, but which constantly reminds them of what is outside its limits as unacceptable and as a possible threat. The construction of delinquents who keep returning to prison to leave again on probation also provides surveillance and disciplining mechanisms in parts of society that are usually impenetrable, and is mentioned as a potential useful side-effect to people applying power.
This, Foucault supposes, would explain why prison never managed to attain the objectives it had, and why every reform tries to meet the same objectives and always fails. The role it incidentally plays in maintaining a disciplined society that largely self-polices itself into higher productivity is simply a bigger benefit than asserting power directly.
----------------------------------------
Anyway, this is serious food for thought. I get why he's cited so much, and the inversion of power into the continuous self-reinforcement of a figurative structural panopticon to keep us all productive and well-behaved (as opposed to a society that is more contractualist or based on reciprocity) is wild in the context of the modern tech industry.