In what has been described as a “ground breaking” book, Michel Foucault discusses in Discipline and Punish the evolution of philosophical approaches to the treatment of criminals inside penal institutions. He explores the historical basis of discipline and punishment from the abolition of torture, to forced labor, to modern day practices. Foucalt refers to various writers on crime and punishment, even including a quote from Napoleon as well as a reference from classical theorist, Beccaria. Michel Foucault’s discourse on how the treatment of criminals has changed throughout time in our society and why these changes occurred causes the reader to have a better understanding of our present systems and how they came to be.
New knowledge gained
Perhaps the most eye opening aspect of crime and punishment that I learned through reading Discipline and Punish was the fact that discipline and punishment in prisons are so directly related to political climate. It was fascinating to read the vivid description of a convicted criminal’s (Damien’s) public torture and execution. At a time when sovereigns were very much in control of the state in Europe, any breaking of a law was considered an act against a sovereign person. The leader or sovereign made the law and any violation or attack of the law was punishable by extreme measures, at least to our standards today. The whole system of punishment, although barbaric to our present way of thinking, is somewhat understandable if one considers the philosophy behind it and that it was politically motivated. It caused me to wonder how much of our present “tough on crime” stance is politically motivated as well. It does seem as though our American society may be retrogressing to “punishment” as opposed to “rehabilitation.” It appeared, however, that Foucault felt that rehabilitation does not deter crime.
A unique and interesting concept that I found insightful was the fact that change in societies, or culture of the differing systems lead to a change in the definition of crime. Certain things that are not crimes now were considered crimes in the past. As an example, being a vagabond in our society is not a crime in and of itself; additional factors such as trespassing on private property or theft must enter into the picture before criminal acts are considered. In England and other parts of Europe, certain magistrates passed laws and punished people who were simply vagabonds. In other words, they were punished for their status alone.
Distinctions today are made between “white collar” crime and “street crime” where white collar crime is crime committed of a monetary nature, such as insider trading, forgery and fraud. Street crimes are crimes such as murder, assault, robbery, burglary. Foucault points out that in the past, the distinction between these two type of crimes were not very clear and sometimes the same punishment was given to each: the punishment for petty theft was to chop off the hand of the offender; the same punishment was given to someone who stabbed another person with a knife.
Another interesting insight from Discipline and Punish was the history of change in prisons from a disciplinary system to a corrective system. I now see that there are distinctions and changes throughout history in the way justice as been upheld. The visible comparison of the old system to the more modern system of discipline explained by Foucault was enlightening. He used sources from many different theorists, such as Beccaria, (who is one of my favorite classical theorists.) who helped bring about the change from public shame to private punishment with these words: “The murder that is depicted as a horrible crime is repeated in cold blood, remorselessly.
A critical assessment
In his Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault is thorough in his study and insights into discipline and punishment throughout history. The book however, lacks coherence and is confusing in parts. In courtesy to the author, however, I must admit that some of the confusion may be due to the fact that the book was translated to English from French and as in any translation, some of the original intent and explanations may have been clouded. To illustrate the challenge of translating, the translator, himself, said that the word ‘supplice’ specifically means public torture and execution of criminals. It can also mean many other things by the context and the way it is used. Symbols in French can and will have differing meanings for a similar meaning in English.
Michel Foucault’s arguments are rational and he supports his key features with substantial references to other literature and quotes from various authors. For example, to maintain the position that punishment moved from bodily pain and retribution, he illustrated the fact that prisons were built with the thought in mind to bring the prisoner to GodCto reform their soul and correct the evil behavior. Foucault mentions that although, by today’s standards, more people were put to death, the majority of punishment was in the form of banishment or fines.
Foucault’s arguments on how the change of society accepted differing forms of punishment are very logical and he supports his facts with previous findings. His insight into how severe punishment has diminished is also interesting. During the change in direction of punishment, Foucault sited several opinions on the ‘humanity’ of applying less painful penalties. He used quotes such as this one to back up his own opinion: “Punishment, if I may so put it, should strike the soul rather than the body”.
As a critic, I have to admit that Discipline and Punish was not “easy reading.” I found it quite incoherent in places and hard to follow. As I said, much may be due to the fact that it was translated; however, one must dig hard amongst the rambling to find a main theme. If there is a specific idea in the book, it must be the idea that society has changed the whole philosophy of punishment and the spectacle of it. Foucault’s ever-changing ideas, however, are cleverly illustrated with quotes and speculations.
Overall, I rate Discipline and Punish as a valuable, historical treatise on the direction of punishment and discipline in prisons. I find Michel Foucault’s ideas convincing, especially since he repeatedly supports them with quotes from others, including some very famous classical figures. His book portrays an interesting synthesis from the great minds and thinking of the past. And I feel that Foucault’s own words, such as this quote, repeated again, merits thoughtful consideration: “Punishment, if I may so put it, should strike the soul rather than the body.”
Comparison with other materials
Other classical theorists and philosophizers of the last few centuries have touched on some of the same kinds of observations Foucault has made. Originally, the public torture and spectacles that criminals went through was thought to deter the criminals but as Foucault suggested, crime hadn’t stopped and continued to be committed despite the harsh (by our standards) laws. One such factor that could help explain this is when the punishments were made public the offenders were allowed to slander kings, the law, and others. The crowds would often cheer when the condemned did. They had nothing to loose, as they were about to die anyway. Society, wanting to punish these criminals, moved away from public embarrassment that sometimes came about because the offenders said things that turned public opinion. Criminals’ punishment was then kept secret and moved from the public spectacle, locked up so no one could talk to them or see them. This in itself is a form of punishment however.
As Goffman, another author I have read during the course, states: avoidance rituals are in and of themselves punishment and convey a feeling of social distancing. The new philosophy that replaced the old public punishment spectacles was in itself creating a distancing of society from the offender. This social distancing of criminals from the rest of the public protected the magistrates and governments, but in some ways, was worse for the criminal who now had no “voice” but was locked away and anonymously put to death, in many cases.
I believe Michel Foucault was right on when he concluded that the social change during the times of the “renaissance of punishment” was a big factor in changing peoples’ perception of what was ‘humane’ and what wasn’t. A rise in wealth, demographic population, and property all contribute to differing types of crime, almost as if a middle class surfaced and began to have more say in the punishment of criminals. Even back during the time of public torture and ridicule many people looked on punishment inhumanely. Often it was used as a political instrument by the people in authority and power.
The third face of social psychology (Psychological Sociology) seems to play an important part in analyzing this reading. The macro level represented by the consensus that public torture was wrong influenced individuals. To express this concept, Faucault uses “real life” examples and doesn’t readily use experimental type methods. He observes what the general consensus was like through literature. Sociology in general uses empirical and quantitative methods to support its findings. I didn’t see much support like this in Foucault’s study. His studies are similar to Weber’s, however, because he does try to make comparisons in a social context. To illustrate, here is a quote: “By their very plethora these innumerable authorities canceled each other out and were incapable of covering the social body in its entirety. Paradoxically, their overlapping left penal justice with innumerable loopholes. This incompleteness was a result of differences of custom and procedure, despite the Ordonnance Generale of 1670; of internal conflicts of responsibility; of private interests – political or economic – which each authority found itself defending; and, lastly, of the interventions of the royal power, which could prevent, by means of pardons, commuted sentences, the evocation of a case before the royal council or direct pressure exerted on magistrates, the regular, austere course of justice.”
Conclusion
As previously stated, if one can be motivated to read through the rambling, translated text of Discipline and Punish, some interesting historical insights will be found. Much of the discussion is relevant to today’s prison situations as well as aiding in understanding the past. As for me, I find it much more refreshing to read profound ideas found in simple quotes such as this one: The only true freedom that any of us have is the freedom to discipline ourselves. (Bernard Baruch, advisor to President Roosevelt.)
