According to Foucault, embodied in it was a “carceral continuum” a diverse range of institutions given over to the surveillance for the training and the normalization of individuals. He explained Penitentiary rationality as the central part of the carceral system. Nevertheless, the point that Foucault emphasises throughout is that discipline works under surveillance upon one’s actions and engages one’s will to perform. He described this process of constant supervision benefited in the production of obedient and capable bodies. He believes it is this which not only helps in reforming criminals but also to the education of students, management of workers and training of modern army. In his eyes, Mettray represented the birth of a new kind of supervision. He described Mettray as the punitive model (Foucault, 1977: 296).
Foucault believed that the discipline of individuals will be achieved through microphysics of regulation. Foucault argues that surveillance attempts to transform individuals through observation and discipline and individuals therefore start to internally control themselves. Surveillance was seen to hold the key to reform. He argued, “this great carceral network reaches all the disciplinary mechanisms that function throughout society” (Foucault, 1977: 298). Throughout the last part of Discipline and Punish Foucault suggests that a “carceral continuum” runs through modern society. He believed the mechanisms of discipline and power that control the prisoner’s life also control that of the citizen. Foucault’s account of the development of the prison and the carceral system makes it clear that society has a “carceral texture” and is penetrated by the same mechanisms that function within the prison. Similarly, through its construction of delinquency, the prison helps to control and regulate class conflict and popular misconduct. Whereas, “the carceral naturalizes the legal power to punish, as it legalizes the technical power to discipline” (Foucault, 1977:303).
For Foucault, an investigation of appearance of the prison in the early 18th century is actually a means of exploring the much wider and more contemporary themes of how domination is achieved and individuals are socially constructed in the modern world. Foucault related how the penal system with its outreaching arms affects society as a whole. He believed other governmental programs, such as welfare and new educational techniques, expanded from the penal system. He called this expansion of disciplinary control the “carceral archipelago”. It created a whole society of docile bodies submitting to the will of the state. He argued, “we have seen that, in penal justice, the prison transformed the punitive procedure into a penitentiary technique; the carceral archipelago transported this technique from penal institutions to the entire social body” (Foucault, 1977:298).
Finally, it gives an increase to the theatrical suggestion which Foucault refuses to accept is that the prison is the symbol of our “disciplinary society”. This however, does not mean that society is like a prison and everybody in it is targeted, what he argues is that society, like prison and other institutions keeps individuals under surveillance in order to keep peace and the birth of the prison which Foucault describes is in fact the progress of contemporary society itself.
Foucault argues, classicists such as Beccaria saw retribution as a process for requalifying individuals as juridical subjects whereas Foucault believes that law breakers have placed themselves outside the society by committing an offence but the penal process should aim at returning them back as law abiding citizens (Cavadino & Dignan, 2002: 45). He sees the carceral as the answer because here he believes the offender is not outside the law and society. In Foucault’s words, “the carceral with its far reaching networks, allows the recruitment of major delinquents and transforms their lives into disciplinary careers” (Foucault, 1977:300).
Within sociology, the work of Michel Foucault has completed a different understanding of power and discipline compared to analysis deriving from Weberian and Marxist theory. For Foucault the modern prison, with its mechanisms of total surveillance, represented a new form of knowledge and power. For Marx, the class struggle was the main problem in society as he believes the rich (bourgeoisie) get richer and the poor (proletariat) get poorer. Similarly, according to Foucault the ruling class used criminality as a way of preventing confrontations that could lead to revolution. He believed the ruling class used the law to diminish the power of these uprisings and the dominant class used the delinquent class as a means of profiting themselves (Smart, 1983).
In addition, although Foucault does not study the bureaucratic process in Weberian style, his studies of the prison and other social institutions go further than Weber in preparing the rational process for the administration of the carceral society. On the other hand, Foucault’s work also appeals to the political imagination within sociology, presenting a model of powerless monumental than either those of Marx or Weber. What for Weber was a level of regulation and law, for Foucault becomes an open prison committed to abolishing the last dark corner in which the soul might hide and yet in which the resistance is everywhere (O’Neill, 1986).
One of the most prominent critiques of Foucault from a liberal and criminological perspective is of David Garland. He states, the work of Foucault is meaningful when comparing with Weber on rationalisation and Freud on civilization. Each showing a different perspective of how life is cherished living in the modern world (Garland 1986:848). He advises Foucault’s work on power and discipline has attracted various agencies of health and education in developing their political analyses. On the other hand, Garland argues, that the power perception which he develops is a basic one, underpinning and enveloping all challenging explanations. He presents no quantitative or wide ranging evidence to support his classification of modern penal practise. In addition, Paul Patton agrees with Garland and believes Foucault can be criticised for failing to provide the evidence for the strong type of argument he stands for (Cited in Garland, 1986:871).
However, Smart believed Foucault could not be criticized for his approach and ideas because he does not intend to present an assumption of social construction. Instead, he tries to expand our theoretical structure by disclosing possible alternative justifications for our present situation that may lead to theoretical creation. However, he does not see them as a replacement (Smart, 1985). Subsequently, Cohen explains, Foucault leaves us within the “carceral society” without the possibility of its transformation. He believes Foucault, as an author who is expertise at correlating social movements and institutional changes but does not allow enough explanation for the future. Cohen claims that Foucault’s penology is in fact too basic and simple. However, Cohen (1985) remarks, Foucault “veers between a materialist connection between prison and emerging capitalism and an idealist obsession with the power of ideas” but he does agree with the fact that Foucault is more worried with the origins and effects of punishment than with its relations with the economy (Cited in Cavadino & Dignan, 2002:69).
Consequently, Critiques of Foucault are mainly revolved around his ideas of self-freedom from discipline. It is argued that he did not go in to enough depth in explaining the struggle between individuality and society and Foucault refused to give a reason for the struggle that existed or a goal to be obtained. On the other hand, theorists like Matheisen agreed with Foucault to some extent but varied in other. Matheisen believed the use of technologies like surveillance is an essential element of social control and quite apart from being an unpreventable part of modernity it does not have as well as repressive potential. The constant use of surveillance could be used to increase detection rates but there is no validity that it could be used to harsher penalties for those convicted (Cavadino & Dignan, 2002).
For all its restrictions, nevertheless, Foucault’s method of approaching universal and fundamental social themes through discipline is a great achievement. He does not just write a history of crime and punishment but rather is using historical materials and sociological insights from Marx, Weber and Durkheim to construct his understanding and analysis of the social universe.
In conclusion, Discipline and Punish so clearly illuminates and is so significant in understanding the communication between punishment and the disciplinary society. Foucault sees his book as a historical background to various studies of power, normalization and the formation of knowledge in society. Most readers will find Foucault’s vision interesting, some will find it emotionally persuasive and yet others will consider its political implications. Therefore, it is evident to believe that Foucault’s contribution has certainly transformed the sociology of punishment. Foucault’s writing did have a central theme and it proves that his main idea was the struggle of individuals against the power of society.
Word count = 1950
Bibliography
Cavadino, M and Dignan, J. (2002), The Penal System: An Introduction, Sage Publications Ltd: London, Third Edition.
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin Books: London.
Garland, D. (1986), “Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: An Exposition and Critique”, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 847-880.
O’Neill, J. (1986), “The Disciplinary Society: From Weber to Foucault”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 42-60.
Smart, B. (1983), Foucault, Marxism and Critique, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd: London.
Smart, B, (1985), Michel Foucault, Ellis Horward and Tavistock: London.