What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱賲乇丕賯亘丞 賵丕賱賲毓丕賯亘丞
賴賵 賰鬲丕亘 賱賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 賵丕賱亘丕丨孬 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 賲賷卮賷賱 賮賵賰賵 賵賷亘丿兀 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘乇爻賲 鬲氐賵賷乇賷 賱毓賲賱賷丞 鬲賳賮賷匕 丨賰賲 丕賱廿毓丿丕賲 毓丕賲 1757 毓賱賶 乇賵亘乇鬲 賮乇丕賳爻賵丕 丿賷賲賷貙 丕賱匕賷 丨丕賵賱 丕睾鬲賷丕賱 賱賵賷爻 丕賱禺丕賲爻 毓卮乇. 賵賮賷 丕賱氐賮丨丞 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱丞 賵囟毓 氐賵乇丞 賱賲禺胤胤 爻噩賳 氐賲賲 亘毓丿 80 毓丕賲丕賸 賮賯胤. 賵賷鬲爻丕亍賱 賮賵賰賵 毓賳 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲睾賷乇 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 賮賷賲丕 賷禺氐 賲毓丕賯亘丞 丕賱賲丿丕賳賷賳 賮賷 賲丿丞 賯氐賷乇丞 廿賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱丨丿. 賴丕鬲丕賳 氐賵乇鬲丕賳 賱賳賲胤賷賳 賲鬲賯丕亘賱賷賳 賲賲丕 賷爻賲賴 賮賵賰賵 "鬲賰賳賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱毓賯丕亘". 丕賱賳賲胤 丕賱兀賵賱貙 "丕賱毓賯丕亘 丕賱賲賱賰賷"貙 賷卮鬲賲賱 毓賱賶 賯賲毓 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 鬲賳賮賷匕 毓賲賱賷丕鬲 廿毓丿丕賲 賵鬲毓匕賷亘 賵丨卮賷丞 毓賱賳賷丞. 丕賱賳賲胤 丕賱孬丕賳賷貙 "丕賱毓賯丕亘 丕賱鬲兀丿賷亘賷"貙 賵賲丕 賷賯賵賱 賮賵賰賵 亘兀賳賴 賷賲丕乇爻 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬. 賷賲賳丨 丕賱毓賯丕亘 丕賱鬲兀丿賷亘賷 賰賱丕賸 賲賳 (丕賱賲毓丕賱噩 丕賱賳賮爻賷貙 賲賳賮匕 丕賱亘乇丕賲噩貙 丕賱囟丕亘胤 賮賷 丕賱爻噩賳) 爻賱胤丞 毓賱賶 (丕賱爻噩賷賳 兀賵 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賲 兀賵 丕賱賲乇賷囟)貙 賵賲賲丕 賷賱賮鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲亘丕賴 兀賳 丕賱賲丿丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲賵噩亘 毓賱賶 丕賱爻噩賷賳 賲孬賱丕賸 兀賳 賷賯囟賷賴丕 賮賷 丕賱爻噩賳 鬲鬲賵賯賮 毓賱賶 乇兀賷 丕賱賲禺鬲氐賷賳.
賷賯丕乇賳 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 亘丨孬賴 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵亘賷賳 "丕賱賲卮鬲賲賱" 賵賴賵 鬲氐賲賷賲 兀毓丿賴 噩賷乇賲賷 亘賷賳鬲丕賲夭 賱賲亘賳賶 爻噩賳 (賵賴匕丕 丕賱鬲氐賲賷賲 賱賲 賷賳賮匕 亘卮賰賱賴 丕賱兀氐賱賷 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓貙 賱賰賳賴 賰丕賳 匕賷 鬲兀孬賷乇 賵丕囟丨)貙 賮賷 丕賱賲卮鬲賲賱 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丨丕乇爻 賵丕丨丿 兀賳 賷乇丕賯亘 毓丿丿丕賸 賰亘賷乇丕賸 賲賳 丕賱爻噩賳丕亍 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷鬲賲賰賳賵丕 賲賳 賲卮丕賴丿鬲賴. 丕賱爻乇丕丿賷亘 丕賱賲毓鬲賲丞 賱爻噩賵賳 賲丕 賯亘賱 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 丕爻鬲亘丿賱鬲 亘爻噩賵賳 賮賷 兀亘賳賷丞 丨丿賷孬丞貙 賱賰賳 賮賵賰賵 賷丨乇氐 毓賱賶 兀賳 賷賵囟丨 兀賳 "丕賱乇丐賷丞 兀賵 丕賱毓賷賳 鬲禺丿毓". 賵賷卮賷乇 廿賱賶 兀賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賷爻鬲禺丿賲 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賱鬲胤亘賷賯 賳馗丕賲 丕賱鬲丨賰賲 賵丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 丕賱禺丕氐 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 (賵賴賲丕 賲氐胤賱丨丕賳 賷乇賶 賮賵賰賵 兀賳賴賲丕 賲鬲氐賱丕賳 亘亘毓囟賴賲丕 亘卮賰賱 噩匕乇賷貙 丨鬲賶 兀賳賴 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賴賲丕 睾丕賱亘丕賸 賲賯鬲乇賳鬲賷賳 兀賵 賲丿賲噩鬲賷賳 毓賱賶 賳丨賵 "power-knowledge / 賲毓乇賮丞 賭 爻賱胤丞". 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賷賯賵丿 廿賱賶 爻賱胤丞 鬲鬲乇亘毓 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 賲鬲夭丕賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賮乇丿賷丞貙 賷馗賴乇 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賯丿乇丞 丕賱賲丐爻爻丞 毓賱賶 鬲毓賯亘 賵賲乇丕賯亘丞 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 胤賵丕賱 丨賷丕鬲賴賲. 賷卮賷乇 賮賵賰賵 廿賱賶 乇賴丕亘 賲爻鬲賲乇 賵卮毓賵乇 丿丕卅賲 亘丕賱乇賯丕亘丞 賷爻乇賷 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬貙 亘丿亍丕賸 賲賳 丕賱爻噩賵賳 卮丿賷丿丞 丕賱鬲丨氐賷賳貙 丕賱賲賳丕夭賱 丕賱賲丨賲賷丞貙 丕賱賲賵馗賮賵賳貙 丕賱卮乇胤丞貙 丕賱賲毓賱賲賵賳貙 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賰賱 賳卮丕胤丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賷賵賲賷丞 賵馗乇賵賮 賲毓賷卮鬲賳丕 賵爻賰賳丕賳丕. 賰賱賴丕 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘丕賱賲乇丕賯亘丞 (丕賱賲鬲賳亘賴丞 兀賵 丕賱睾丕賮賱丞) 丕賱鬲賷 賷賯賵賲 亘賴丕 亘毓囟 丕賱賳丕爻 鬲噩丕賴 丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱丌禺乇貙 賱賱鬲丨賯賯 賲賳 丕賱鬲夭丕賲賴賲 亘兀賳賲丕胤 丕賱爻賱賵賰 丕賱賲賯亘賵賱丞.
賴匕賴 丕賱賳亘匕賴 賲賳 賲賵賯毓 賵賷賰賷亘賷丿賷丕 賵乇丕亘胤賴丕:
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D...
賷賯丕乇賳 賮賵賰賵 賮賷 亘丨孬賴 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵亘賷賳 "丕賱賲卮鬲賲賱" 賵賴賵 鬲氐賲賷賲 兀毓丿賴 噩賷乇賲賷 亘賷賳鬲丕賲夭 賱賲亘賳賶 爻噩賳 (賵賴匕丕 丕賱鬲氐賲賷賲 賱賲 賷賳賮匕 亘卮賰賱賴 丕賱兀氐賱賷 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓貙 賱賰賳賴 賰丕賳 匕賷 鬲兀孬賷乇 賵丕囟丨)貙 賮賷 丕賱賲卮鬲賲賱 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丨丕乇爻 賵丕丨丿 兀賳 賷乇丕賯亘 毓丿丿丕賸 賰亘賷乇丕賸 賲賳 丕賱爻噩賳丕亍 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷鬲賲賰賳賵丕 賲賳 賲卮丕賴丿鬲賴. 丕賱爻乇丕丿賷亘 丕賱賲毓鬲賲丞 賱爻噩賵賳 賲丕 賯亘賱 丕賱丨丿丕孬丞 丕爻鬲亘丿賱鬲 亘爻噩賵賳 賮賷 兀亘賳賷丞 丨丿賷孬丞貙 賱賰賳 賮賵賰賵 賷丨乇氐 毓賱賶 兀賳 賷賵囟丨 兀賳 "丕賱乇丐賷丞 兀賵 丕賱毓賷賳 鬲禺丿毓". 賵賷卮賷乇 廿賱賶 兀賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賷爻鬲禺丿賲 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賱鬲胤亘賷賯 賳馗丕賲 丕賱鬲丨賰賲 賵丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 丕賱禺丕氐 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 (賵賴賲丕 賲氐胤賱丨丕賳 賷乇賶 賮賵賰賵 兀賳賴賲丕 賲鬲氐賱丕賳 亘亘毓囟賴賲丕 亘卮賰賱 噩匕乇賷貙 丨鬲賶 兀賳賴 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賴賲丕 睾丕賱亘丕賸 賲賯鬲乇賳鬲賷賳 兀賵 賲丿賲噩鬲賷賳 毓賱賶 賳丨賵 "power-knowledge / 賲毓乇賮丞 賭 爻賱胤丞". 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賷賯賵丿 廿賱賶 爻賱胤丞 鬲鬲乇亘毓 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 賲鬲夭丕賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賮乇丿賷丞貙 賷馗賴乇 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賯丿乇丞 丕賱賲丐爻爻丞 毓賱賶 鬲毓賯亘 賵賲乇丕賯亘丞 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 胤賵丕賱 丨賷丕鬲賴賲. 賷卮賷乇 賮賵賰賵 廿賱賶 乇賴丕亘 賲爻鬲賲乇 賵卮毓賵乇 丿丕卅賲 亘丕賱乇賯丕亘丞 賷爻乇賷 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨丿賷孬貙 亘丿亍丕賸 賲賳 丕賱爻噩賵賳 卮丿賷丿丞 丕賱鬲丨氐賷賳貙 丕賱賲賳丕夭賱 丕賱賲丨賲賷丞貙 丕賱賲賵馗賮賵賳貙 丕賱卮乇胤丞貙 丕賱賲毓賱賲賵賳貙 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賰賱 賳卮丕胤丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賷賵賲賷丞 賵馗乇賵賮 賲毓賷卮鬲賳丕 賵爻賰賳丕賳丕. 賰賱賴丕 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘丕賱賲乇丕賯亘丞 (丕賱賲鬲賳亘賴丞 兀賵 丕賱睾丕賮賱丞) 丕賱鬲賷 賷賯賵賲 亘賴丕 亘毓囟 丕賱賳丕爻 鬲噩丕賴 丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱丌禺乇貙 賱賱鬲丨賯賯 賲賳 丕賱鬲夭丕賲賴賲 亘兀賳賲丕胤 丕賱爻賱賵賰 丕賱賲賯亘賵賱丞.
賴匕賴 丕賱賳亘匕賴 賲賳 賲賵賯毓 賵賷賰賷亘賷丿賷丕 賵乇丕亘胤賴丕:
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D...
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
4597 people are currently reading
87463 people want to read
About the author
Michel Foucault
732听books6,162听followersPaul-Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationships between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Though often cited as a structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, criminology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, Marxism and critical theory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lyc茅e Henri-IV, at the 脡cole Normale Sup茅rieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Coll猫ge de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lyc茅e Henri-IV, at the 脡cole Normale Sup茅rieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Coll猫ge de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,653 reviews
May 26, 2013
This book begins with a bang 鈥� in fact, a series of bangs. That is the point, you see. We need to be shocked about what is, after all, our relatively recent past. We too easily forget that there was a time when 鈥榩eople like us鈥� actually span back in history for nearly as far as the mind could imagine. Now, we struggle to believe that people who lived 20 or 30 years ago where quite like us 鈥� even when we ourselves were those people. Today we cast off selves and disown past selves like our endlessly cheap clothes 鈥� cheaper to buy than to wash, as someone pointed out recently 鈥� or like snakes and their skins, cicadas and their chrysalises. For, as Foucault points out here, the point of history isn鈥檛 for us to understand the past 鈥� that is dead and gone and has only the meaning we can give it from our vantage point 鈥� the point of history is to provide the narrative that helps us to understand the present.
I want to start with one of the quotes that go off with a bang at the start of this book 鈥� that shock us by how distant our world seems moved from that of a few hundred years ago:
鈥溾€n 1584 the assassin of William of Orange was abandoned to what seems like an infinity of vengeance. 'On the first day, he was taken to the square where he found a cauldron of boiling water, in which was submerged the arm with which he had committed the crime. The next day the arm was cut off, and, since it fell at his feet, he was constantly kicking it up and down the scaffold; on the third day, red-hot pincers were applied to his breasts and the front of his arm; on the fourth day, the pincers were applied similarly on the back of his arm and on his buttocks; and thus, consecutively, this man was tortured for eighteen days.' On the last day, he was put to the wheel and 'maillot茅' [beaten with a wooden club]. After six hours, he was still asking for water, which was not given him. 'Finally the police magistrate was begged to put an end to him by strangling, so that his soul should not despair and be lost'.鈥�
The spectacle of eighteen days of public torture seems extraordinary to us. Perhaps what is most shocking is the level of vengeance that is taken on the body of the guilty man. A transgression of the law 鈥� and the law at the time was represented in the body and in the will of the king 鈥� was equally revenged on the body of the transgressor.
The problem was that this expression of state power was far too often arbitrary and grossly overwrought. As in the example above, the vengeance of the state seems to know no bounds. However, and I guess ironically too, the state (king) was also able to pardon 鈥� that is, reserved the right to decide when and how the law might be applied 鈥� and this arbitrary law effectively undermined the state鈥檚 own moral authority.
We like to see our world as one on a kind of slow incline towards progress. And, let鈥檚 face it, it would be hard to read the description above and not think that from that particular south pole of inhumanity no matter which way we might have gone would have probably been 鈥榰p鈥�.
Our particular path up from that nadir was to decided that it was unreasonable to punish people鈥檚 bodies, that what we needed was to punish (or correct, rather) their souls. Now, this is only partly true, for as Guant谩namo Bay and Abu Ghraib prove, we still like to get off on torture. All the same, there was a clear shift in policy away from torture of bodies towards using punishment as means of making an example of the criminal and also perhaps being able to reform them. The focus shifted to the souls of the wrong doers 鈥� but also on the social consequences of their crimes. It wasn鈥檛 any longer a matter of 鈥榓n eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth鈥�, instead you might get punished more for a crime that might hardly harm any one single person, but have large social consequences. Punishments were increasingly seen as ways of improving both the individual and society 鈥� and therefore punishments tended to need to be seen as being 鈥榡ust鈥� 鈥� rather than an arbitrary expression of the will of the ruler. That is, punishments could no longer be 鈥榚xcessive鈥� in the way they had been before. They had to 鈥榤atch鈥� the crime. The punishment had to make risking doing the crime simply not worth it. The punishment also had to encourage the criminal to live a good life, that is, the punishment ought to make the crime abhorrent to the criminal.
That is, punishment needed a pedagogical function 鈥� it needs to teach the criminal the 鈥榬ight way鈥� to live one鈥檚 life. I couldn鈥檛 help, throughout this book, thinking of 鈥榬e-education camps鈥� and how we imagine changing a label from re-education to rehabilitation can allow us believe what we do is so much better than what those nasty communists did. To understand how to be good requires a particular kind of knowledge. Knowledge, then, is a direct consequence of power, of state power 鈥� and true knowledge is aligned with the exercise of power. Ok, that might sound like rubbish 鈥� but I think it is a remarkably interesting point. To punish someone now means two things, you have some idea of what is the right way to live a life and that if you inflict a certain punishment on a person that punishment will thereby make them a better person. Ever since Socrates the idea has been that if someone understands 鈥榯he good鈥� then they must also act in accordance with that knowledge. Well, if people are acting in ways that are not in accordance with the laws (and the laws are, naturally enough, to those who make them, completely rational and totally in accordance with 鈥榯he good鈥�) then the role of punishment isn鈥檛 so much to get revenge on those who break the laws, but rather, to help them to better understand the good 鈥� that is, to help them to become rational agents in society. Punishment is about re-educating those who transgress society鈥檚 laws because only those without reason would ever break these laws. Knowledge and Law and therefore also Power are all instances of the same thing.
There is a wonderful bit in Stephen Fry鈥檚 Moab is My Washpot where he says that having been at an English Public School meant that he had much less difficulty adjusting to prison life than other people. That a boarding school was run in much the same way that a prison is run and so it all seemed quite normal to him. This is Foucault鈥檚 point exactly, I think.
I need to talk about how you change people鈥檚 souls now 鈥� and therefore I need to talk about Foucault鈥檚 most fascinating metaphor 鈥� that of Bentham鈥檚 Panopticon. The Panopticon was designed to be an 鈥榠deal prison鈥� 鈥� and it was literally ideal, never actually having been built. The point is that the 鈥榠deal鈥� often helps explain the actual world. It is probably easier if you just Google Panopticon 鈥� but the basic idea is to build a prison in which all of the cells are in the circumference of a circular building while at the centre of the circular prison there is a tower. Inside the tower is a guard (or citizens who have dropped by to see that the prisoners are reforming). The cells on the circumference of the circular building all have two windows 鈥� one facing into the centre of the building and the other on the opposite wall looking out. The second window looking out provides light into the cell 鈥� the window facing the tower means that the prisoner can be watched at any time of the day or night by the guard. The whole thing is designed so that the prisoner just doesn't know if or when the guard is watching 鈥� but the prisoner does know that there is no time when the guard will definitely not be watching. It is all a bit like God 鈥� constantly watching to constantly provide you with a conscience (or what is the next best thing to a conscience, as you act as if you are doing right for its own sake, even though you are doing right just in case you get caught doing wrong).
There was also the problem of having lots of criminals in one place that needed to be addressed so as to stop that one place becoming a university of criminality. So, prisoners were not allowed to talk to one another. And they were kept in isolation for long periods of time. All the better to allow the voice of the prisoner鈥檚 conscience to work on them and thereby to help teach them right from wrong.
The secret to right moral action, then, is more than just the relationship between knowledge and power 鈥� but also of proper surveillance. And surveillance now dominates our lives. And not just the cameras that are everywhere filming our every movement. But also in our obsession with tests in schools and performance reviews at work. To Foucault, the panopticon was not just a model for the ideal prison, but also for the ideal hospital, factory and school. He points out that this surveillance has meant turning our lives into texts. There was a time when only the heroes of our world had books written about them - today we are our high school report cards, our credit ratings, our performance review results, our medical history cards.
One of the things Foucault does that I find utterly fascinating is to look at the etymology of words and to show how earlier meanings hang around the word鈥檚 usage today like ghosts. In this book he points out that the word discipline has always had the dual meaning it has today 鈥� a discipline as an area of study and discipline as in being forced to behave correctly. This seems terribly important to me.
Like in Orwell鈥檚 1984 鈥� the terrifying vision here is that power always acts in ways that are essentially inhuman. I鈥檓 certainly not advocating going back to a time when killing a king might involve you in 18 days of unspeakable torture 鈥� but then, one has only to read to know we use torture today in ways that would make O鈥橞rien blush with pride. We are shocked when we learn of the surveillance used by the Stasi 鈥� and rightly so 鈥� but we actively sign up so that international corporations can monitor every single item we purchase so as to better sell to us because they might agree to giving us a free chocolate bar every year or so. But then, what is the point of freedom and privacy if you can鈥檛 trade it for some chocolate?
This is a very disturbing book 鈥� it is also a must read.
I want to start with one of the quotes that go off with a bang at the start of this book 鈥� that shock us by how distant our world seems moved from that of a few hundred years ago:
鈥溾€n 1584 the assassin of William of Orange was abandoned to what seems like an infinity of vengeance. 'On the first day, he was taken to the square where he found a cauldron of boiling water, in which was submerged the arm with which he had committed the crime. The next day the arm was cut off, and, since it fell at his feet, he was constantly kicking it up and down the scaffold; on the third day, red-hot pincers were applied to his breasts and the front of his arm; on the fourth day, the pincers were applied similarly on the back of his arm and on his buttocks; and thus, consecutively, this man was tortured for eighteen days.' On the last day, he was put to the wheel and 'maillot茅' [beaten with a wooden club]. After six hours, he was still asking for water, which was not given him. 'Finally the police magistrate was begged to put an end to him by strangling, so that his soul should not despair and be lost'.鈥�
The spectacle of eighteen days of public torture seems extraordinary to us. Perhaps what is most shocking is the level of vengeance that is taken on the body of the guilty man. A transgression of the law 鈥� and the law at the time was represented in the body and in the will of the king 鈥� was equally revenged on the body of the transgressor.
The problem was that this expression of state power was far too often arbitrary and grossly overwrought. As in the example above, the vengeance of the state seems to know no bounds. However, and I guess ironically too, the state (king) was also able to pardon 鈥� that is, reserved the right to decide when and how the law might be applied 鈥� and this arbitrary law effectively undermined the state鈥檚 own moral authority.
We like to see our world as one on a kind of slow incline towards progress. And, let鈥檚 face it, it would be hard to read the description above and not think that from that particular south pole of inhumanity no matter which way we might have gone would have probably been 鈥榰p鈥�.
Our particular path up from that nadir was to decided that it was unreasonable to punish people鈥檚 bodies, that what we needed was to punish (or correct, rather) their souls. Now, this is only partly true, for as Guant谩namo Bay and Abu Ghraib prove, we still like to get off on torture. All the same, there was a clear shift in policy away from torture of bodies towards using punishment as means of making an example of the criminal and also perhaps being able to reform them. The focus shifted to the souls of the wrong doers 鈥� but also on the social consequences of their crimes. It wasn鈥檛 any longer a matter of 鈥榓n eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth鈥�, instead you might get punished more for a crime that might hardly harm any one single person, but have large social consequences. Punishments were increasingly seen as ways of improving both the individual and society 鈥� and therefore punishments tended to need to be seen as being 鈥榡ust鈥� 鈥� rather than an arbitrary expression of the will of the ruler. That is, punishments could no longer be 鈥榚xcessive鈥� in the way they had been before. They had to 鈥榤atch鈥� the crime. The punishment had to make risking doing the crime simply not worth it. The punishment also had to encourage the criminal to live a good life, that is, the punishment ought to make the crime abhorrent to the criminal.
That is, punishment needed a pedagogical function 鈥� it needs to teach the criminal the 鈥榬ight way鈥� to live one鈥檚 life. I couldn鈥檛 help, throughout this book, thinking of 鈥榬e-education camps鈥� and how we imagine changing a label from re-education to rehabilitation can allow us believe what we do is so much better than what those nasty communists did. To understand how to be good requires a particular kind of knowledge. Knowledge, then, is a direct consequence of power, of state power 鈥� and true knowledge is aligned with the exercise of power. Ok, that might sound like rubbish 鈥� but I think it is a remarkably interesting point. To punish someone now means two things, you have some idea of what is the right way to live a life and that if you inflict a certain punishment on a person that punishment will thereby make them a better person. Ever since Socrates the idea has been that if someone understands 鈥榯he good鈥� then they must also act in accordance with that knowledge. Well, if people are acting in ways that are not in accordance with the laws (and the laws are, naturally enough, to those who make them, completely rational and totally in accordance with 鈥榯he good鈥�) then the role of punishment isn鈥檛 so much to get revenge on those who break the laws, but rather, to help them to better understand the good 鈥� that is, to help them to become rational agents in society. Punishment is about re-educating those who transgress society鈥檚 laws because only those without reason would ever break these laws. Knowledge and Law and therefore also Power are all instances of the same thing.
There is a wonderful bit in Stephen Fry鈥檚 Moab is My Washpot where he says that having been at an English Public School meant that he had much less difficulty adjusting to prison life than other people. That a boarding school was run in much the same way that a prison is run and so it all seemed quite normal to him. This is Foucault鈥檚 point exactly, I think.
I need to talk about how you change people鈥檚 souls now 鈥� and therefore I need to talk about Foucault鈥檚 most fascinating metaphor 鈥� that of Bentham鈥檚 Panopticon. The Panopticon was designed to be an 鈥榠deal prison鈥� 鈥� and it was literally ideal, never actually having been built. The point is that the 鈥榠deal鈥� often helps explain the actual world. It is probably easier if you just Google Panopticon 鈥� but the basic idea is to build a prison in which all of the cells are in the circumference of a circular building while at the centre of the circular prison there is a tower. Inside the tower is a guard (or citizens who have dropped by to see that the prisoners are reforming). The cells on the circumference of the circular building all have two windows 鈥� one facing into the centre of the building and the other on the opposite wall looking out. The second window looking out provides light into the cell 鈥� the window facing the tower means that the prisoner can be watched at any time of the day or night by the guard. The whole thing is designed so that the prisoner just doesn't know if or when the guard is watching 鈥� but the prisoner does know that there is no time when the guard will definitely not be watching. It is all a bit like God 鈥� constantly watching to constantly provide you with a conscience (or what is the next best thing to a conscience, as you act as if you are doing right for its own sake, even though you are doing right just in case you get caught doing wrong).
There was also the problem of having lots of criminals in one place that needed to be addressed so as to stop that one place becoming a university of criminality. So, prisoners were not allowed to talk to one another. And they were kept in isolation for long periods of time. All the better to allow the voice of the prisoner鈥檚 conscience to work on them and thereby to help teach them right from wrong.
The secret to right moral action, then, is more than just the relationship between knowledge and power 鈥� but also of proper surveillance. And surveillance now dominates our lives. And not just the cameras that are everywhere filming our every movement. But also in our obsession with tests in schools and performance reviews at work. To Foucault, the panopticon was not just a model for the ideal prison, but also for the ideal hospital, factory and school. He points out that this surveillance has meant turning our lives into texts. There was a time when only the heroes of our world had books written about them - today we are our high school report cards, our credit ratings, our performance review results, our medical history cards.
One of the things Foucault does that I find utterly fascinating is to look at the etymology of words and to show how earlier meanings hang around the word鈥檚 usage today like ghosts. In this book he points out that the word discipline has always had the dual meaning it has today 鈥� a discipline as an area of study and discipline as in being forced to behave correctly. This seems terribly important to me.
Like in Orwell鈥檚 1984 鈥� the terrifying vision here is that power always acts in ways that are essentially inhuman. I鈥檓 certainly not advocating going back to a time when killing a king might involve you in 18 days of unspeakable torture 鈥� but then, one has only to read to know we use torture today in ways that would make O鈥橞rien blush with pride. We are shocked when we learn of the surveillance used by the Stasi 鈥� and rightly so 鈥� but we actively sign up so that international corporations can monitor every single item we purchase so as to better sell to us because they might agree to giving us a free chocolate bar every year or so. But then, what is the point of freedom and privacy if you can鈥檛 trade it for some chocolate?
This is a very disturbing book 鈥� it is also a must read.
November 1, 2021
Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison = Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Michel Foucault
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison is a 1975 book by the French philosopher Michel Foucault.
It is an analysis of the social and theoretical mechanisms behind the changes that occurred in Western penal systems during the modern age based on historical documents from France.
Foucault argues that prison did not become the principal form of punishment just because of the humanitarian concerns of reformists.
He traces the cultural shifts that led to the predominance of prison via the body and power. Prison used by the "disciplines" 鈥� new technological powers that can also be found, according to Foucault, in places such as schools, hospitals, and military barracks.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 卮卮賲 賲丕賴 丌诏賵爻鬲 爻丕賱 1999賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 鬲賳亘蹖賴: 鬲賵賱丿 夭賳丿丕賳貨 丕孬乇: 賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵貨 鬲乇丨賲賴: 賳蹖讴賵 爻乇禺賵卮貨 丕賮卮蹖賳 噩賴丕賳丿蹖丿賴貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賳蹖貙 爻丕賱1378貙 丿乇391氐貙 賲氐賵乇貙 卮丕亘讴9789643124328貨 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 爻丕賱1378貙 趩丕倬 趩賴丕乇賲 爻丕賱1382貙 趩丕倬 卮卮賲 爻丕賱1385貙 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲 爻丕賱1388貙 趩丕倬 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 爻丕賱1392貨 讴鬲丕亘賳丕賲賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 夭蹖乇賳賵蹖爻貙 賳賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇丿貙 賲賵囟賵毓 夭賳丿丕賳貙 丕賳囟亘丕胤貙 孬賵丕亘 賵 毓賯丕亘 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 - 爻丿賴 20賲
亘丕 毓賳賵丕賳 賮乇毓蹖: 芦夭丕蹖卮 夭賳丿丕賳禄貙 毓賳賵丕賳 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丕夭 芦賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵禄 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖 丕爻鬲貙 芦賮賵讴賵禄 丿乇 爻丕賱賴丕蹖1972賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賵1973賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 芦賮乇丕賳爻賴禄貙 賵 芦亘乇夭蹖賱禄貙 卮丕賲賱 芦亘乇乇爻蹖 噩丕賲毓賴贁 噩夭丕蹖蹖 賵 賯丿乇鬲 賯囟丕蹖蹖禄 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賳丿貨 賴賲丕賳 倬跇賵賴卮 丿乇 爻丕賱1975賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘賴 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 讴鬲丕亘 芦賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 鬲賳亘蹖賴: 夭丕蹖卮 夭賳丿丕賳禄 丕賳噩丕賲蹖丿貨
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 芦賮賵讴賵禄 丿賵丿賲丕賳 卮讴賱 诏蹖乇蹖 讴丕賱亘丿 賵 匕賴賳 乇丕貙 丿乇 趩丕乇趩賵亘 賳馗丕賲鈥屬囏й� 賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖貙 賵 丕賳囟亘丕胤蹖 賯丿乇鬲貙 賲賵乇丿 倬跇賵賴卮 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 賲丿毓蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 賴賲趩賵賳 芦賲丿丕乇爻禄貙 芦夭賳丿丕賳賴丕禄貙 芦亘蹖賲丕乇爻鬲丕賳鈥屬囏回� 賵 芦讴丕乇诏丕賴鈥屬囏回� 鬲讴賳蹖讴鈥屬囏й� 丕賳囟亘丕胤蹖 賵蹖跇賴貙 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 丿乇 趩賴丕乇趩賵亘 丌賳賴丕貙 賲賯乇乇丕鬲 丨丕讴賲 亘乇 乇賮鬲丕乇貙 賵 爻賱賵讴貙 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖貙 賵 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 丌賳賴丕 鬲丿賵蹖賳貙 賵 亘賴 丕噩乇丕 丿乇賲蹖鈥屫③屫�
夭賳丿诏蹖 芦丿丕賳卮 丌賲賵夭丕賳禄貙 芦爻乇亘丕夭丕賳禄貙 芦亘蹖賲丕乇丕賳禄貙 賵 芦夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳禄貙 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 賳馗丕乇鬲貙 賵 鬲賴蹖賴 蹖 诏夭丕乇卮 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 賵 乇賮鬲丕乇 亘賴賳噩丕乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲卮賵蹖賯貙 賵 乇賮鬲丕乇 賳丕賲胤賱賵亘貙 亘丕 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 鬲賳亘蹖賴蹖貙 賲賵丕噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賴丿賮 睾丕蹖蹖 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 賳馗丕乇鬲 賵 丕賳囟亘丕胤貙 亘賴賳噩丕乇 賳賲賵丿賳 賮乇丿貙 賵 丕夭 賲蹖丕賳 亘乇丿賳 亘蹖 丕賳囟亘丕胤蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 賵 乇賵丕賳蹖貙 賵 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 賲胤蹖毓貙 賵 爻賵丿丌賵乇貙 亘乇丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴鈥� 丕爻鬲貨
賮賵讴賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屬嗀�: (丿乇 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖貙 賵 讴蹖賮乇蹖 賲丕賯亘賱 賲丿乇賳貙 乇賵卮鈥屬囏й� 賵丨卮蹖丕賳賴 卮讴賳噩賴貙 賵 丌夭丕乇 亘丿賳蹖貙 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 丕賲丕 亘賴 鬲丿乇蹖噩 丕夭 爻丿賴 蹖 賴蹖噩丿賴賲 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘賴 亘毓丿貙 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鈥屬囏й� 亘丿賳蹖貙 噩丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕貙 亘賴 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鈥屬囏й� 馗乇蹖賮 乇賵丕賳蹖 丿丕丿貨 丕夭 丌賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鈥屬囏й� 噩丿蹖丿貙 乇賵丨 乇丕 丌賲丕噩 蹖賵乇卮 禺賵丿 賯乇丕乇 丿丕丿貙 賲噩賲賵毓賴 蹖 讴蹖賮乇卮賳丕爻蹖 噩丿蹖丿貙 亘賴 爻賵蹖 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賮乇丕诏蹖乇貙 亘丕夭诏乇丿丕賳丿賴 卮丿貨 丕夭 丌賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴 亘毓丿貙 夭賳丿丕賳鈥屬囏ж� 賲丿丕乇爻貙 賵 丌爻丕蹖卮诏丕賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 乇賵丕賳蹖貙 亘賴 賲賳馗賵賲賴鈥� 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賳馗丕乇鬲 賮乇丕诏蹖乇貙 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賳丿貙 讴賴 賮乇丿 乇丕貙 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 丿丕卅賲蹖貙 賵 亘丿賵賳 賵賯賮賴貙 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫ж� 賵 亘賴 鬲賴蹖賴 倬乇賵賳丿賴貙 賵 诏夭丕乇卮鈥屬囏й屰� 鬲賮氐蹖賱蹖貙 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇 賮乇丿貙 賵 鬲丿賵蹖賳 卮賳丕禺鬲 卮賳丕爻丕賳賴 丕夭 丌賳 丿丕丿賴鈥� 賴丕貙 蹖丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必池з嗀�)貨 倬丕蹖丕賳 賳賯賱
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賳馗賵賲賴 讴賴 芦賮賵讴賵禄 丌賳乇丕 芦賲蹖讴乇賵爻讴賵倬 賯丿乇鬲禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呝嗀� 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 毓賱賲蹖貙 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 賵 讴蹖賮蹖丕鬲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賯丿乇鬲貙 賵 匕賴賳蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖貙 亘丕 賴賲 鬲賱丕賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲蹖 馗乇蹖賮貙 賵 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴貙 亘乇 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 鬲兀孬蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж辟嗀�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 15/09/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 09/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison is a 1975 book by the French philosopher Michel Foucault.
It is an analysis of the social and theoretical mechanisms behind the changes that occurred in Western penal systems during the modern age based on historical documents from France.
Foucault argues that prison did not become the principal form of punishment just because of the humanitarian concerns of reformists.
He traces the cultural shifts that led to the predominance of prison via the body and power. Prison used by the "disciplines" 鈥� new technological powers that can also be found, according to Foucault, in places such as schools, hospitals, and military barracks.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 卮卮賲 賲丕賴 丌诏賵爻鬲 爻丕賱 1999賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 鬲賳亘蹖賴: 鬲賵賱丿 夭賳丿丕賳貨 丕孬乇: 賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵貨 鬲乇丨賲賴: 賳蹖讴賵 爻乇禺賵卮貨 丕賮卮蹖賳 噩賴丕賳丿蹖丿賴貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賳蹖貙 爻丕賱1378貙 丿乇391氐貙 賲氐賵乇貙 卮丕亘讴9789643124328貨 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 爻丕賱1378貙 趩丕倬 趩賴丕乇賲 爻丕賱1382貙 趩丕倬 卮卮賲 爻丕賱1385貙 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲 爻丕賱1388貙 趩丕倬 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 爻丕賱1392貨 讴鬲丕亘賳丕賲賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 夭蹖乇賳賵蹖爻貙 賳賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇丿貙 賲賵囟賵毓 夭賳丿丕賳貙 丕賳囟亘丕胤貙 孬賵丕亘 賵 毓賯丕亘 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 - 爻丿賴 20賲
亘丕 毓賳賵丕賳 賮乇毓蹖: 芦夭丕蹖卮 夭賳丿丕賳禄貙 毓賳賵丕賳 讴鬲丕亘蹖 丕夭 芦賲蹖卮賱 賮賵讴賵禄 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖 丕爻鬲貙 芦賮賵讴賵禄 丿乇 爻丕賱賴丕蹖1972賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賵1973賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 芦賮乇丕賳爻賴禄貙 賵 芦亘乇夭蹖賱禄貙 卮丕賲賱 芦亘乇乇爻蹖 噩丕賲毓賴贁 噩夭丕蹖蹖 賵 賯丿乇鬲 賯囟丕蹖蹖禄 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賳丿貨 賴賲丕賳 倬跇賵賴卮 丿乇 爻丕賱1975賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘賴 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 讴鬲丕亘 芦賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 鬲賳亘蹖賴: 夭丕蹖卮 夭賳丿丕賳禄 丕賳噩丕賲蹖丿貨
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 芦賮賵讴賵禄 丿賵丿賲丕賳 卮讴賱 诏蹖乇蹖 讴丕賱亘丿 賵 匕賴賳 乇丕貙 丿乇 趩丕乇趩賵亘 賳馗丕賲鈥屬囏й� 賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖貙 賵 丕賳囟亘丕胤蹖 賯丿乇鬲貙 賲賵乇丿 倬跇賵賴卮 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 賲丿毓蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 賴賲趩賵賳 芦賲丿丕乇爻禄貙 芦夭賳丿丕賳賴丕禄貙 芦亘蹖賲丕乇爻鬲丕賳鈥屬囏回� 賵 芦讴丕乇诏丕賴鈥屬囏回� 鬲讴賳蹖讴鈥屬囏й� 丕賳囟亘丕胤蹖 賵蹖跇賴貙 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 賵 丿乇 趩賴丕乇趩賵亘 丌賳賴丕貙 賲賯乇乇丕鬲 丨丕讴賲 亘乇 乇賮鬲丕乇貙 賵 爻賱賵讴貙 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖貙 賵 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賳馗丕乇鬲 亘乇 丌賳賴丕 鬲丿賵蹖賳貙 賵 亘賴 丕噩乇丕 丿乇賲蹖鈥屫③屫�
夭賳丿诏蹖 芦丿丕賳卮 丌賲賵夭丕賳禄貙 芦爻乇亘丕夭丕賳禄貙 芦亘蹖賲丕乇丕賳禄貙 賵 芦夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳禄貙 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 賳馗丕乇鬲貙 賵 鬲賴蹖賴 蹖 诏夭丕乇卮 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 賵 乇賮鬲丕乇 亘賴賳噩丕乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲卮賵蹖賯貙 賵 乇賮鬲丕乇 賳丕賲胤賱賵亘貙 亘丕 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 鬲賳亘蹖賴蹖貙 賲賵丕噩賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賴丿賮 睾丕蹖蹖 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賵 賳馗丕乇鬲 賵 丕賳囟亘丕胤貙 亘賴賳噩丕乇 賳賲賵丿賳 賮乇丿貙 賵 丕夭 賲蹖丕賳 亘乇丿賳 亘蹖 丕賳囟亘丕胤蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 賵 乇賵丕賳蹖貙 賵 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏й屰� 賲胤蹖毓貙 賵 爻賵丿丌賵乇貙 亘乇丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴鈥� 丕爻鬲貨
賮賵讴賵 賲蹖鈥屭堐屬嗀�: (丿乇 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖貙 賵 讴蹖賮乇蹖 賲丕賯亘賱 賲丿乇賳貙 乇賵卮鈥屬囏й� 賵丨卮蹖丕賳賴 卮讴賳噩賴貙 賵 丌夭丕乇 亘丿賳蹖貙 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 丕賲丕 亘賴 鬲丿乇蹖噩 丕夭 爻丿賴 蹖 賴蹖噩丿賴賲 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘賴 亘毓丿貙 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鈥屬囏й� 亘丿賳蹖貙 噩丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕貙 亘賴 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鈥屬囏й� 馗乇蹖賮 乇賵丕賳蹖 丿丕丿貨 丕夭 丌賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鈥屬囏й� 噩丿蹖丿貙 乇賵丨 乇丕 丌賲丕噩 蹖賵乇卮 禺賵丿 賯乇丕乇 丿丕丿貙 賲噩賲賵毓賴 蹖 讴蹖賮乇卮賳丕爻蹖 噩丿蹖丿貙 亘賴 爻賵蹖 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 賮乇丕诏蹖乇貙 亘丕夭诏乇丿丕賳丿賴 卮丿貨 丕夭 丌賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴 亘毓丿貙 夭賳丿丕賳鈥屬囏ж� 賲丿丕乇爻貙 賵 丌爻丕蹖卮诏丕賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 乇賵丕賳蹖貙 亘賴 賲賳馗賵賲賴鈥� 賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 賳馗丕乇鬲 賮乇丕诏蹖乇貙 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賳丿貙 讴賴 賮乇丿 乇丕貙 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 丿丕卅賲蹖貙 賵 亘丿賵賳 賵賯賮賴貙 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫ж� 賵 亘賴 鬲賴蹖賴 倬乇賵賳丿賴貙 賵 诏夭丕乇卮鈥屬囏й屰� 鬲賮氐蹖賱蹖貙 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇 賮乇丿貙 賵 鬲丿賵蹖賳 卮賳丕禺鬲 卮賳丕爻丕賳賴 丕夭 丌賳 丿丕丿賴鈥� 賴丕貙 蹖丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必池з嗀�)貨 倬丕蹖丕賳 賳賯賱
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲賳馗賵賲賴 讴賴 芦賮賵讴賵禄 丌賳乇丕 芦賲蹖讴乇賵爻讴賵倬 賯丿乇鬲禄 賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呝嗀� 诏賮鬲賲丕賳 毓賱賲蹖貙 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 賵 讴蹖賮蹖丕鬲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賯丿乇鬲貙 賵 匕賴賳蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖貙 亘丕 賴賲 鬲賱丕賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲蹖 馗乇蹖賮貙 賵 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴貙 亘乇 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 鬲兀孬蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж辟嗀�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 15/09/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 09/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
May 17, 2025
I knew nothing of Michel Foucault's work. So, what prompted me to choose this book? Perhaps Michel Foucault was one of the great French intellectuals of the second half of the twentieth century and a reference for many thinkers and philosophers.
Therefore, it is a novice criticism without any pretension. Still, it is undoubtedly good sometimes to look at works so much praised and commented on without any erudition.
I understood why Michel Foucault had acquired this fame from the first chapters. The divination of his analysis and the originality of his observations can only leave you speechless. It is a highly documented work. The author has conducted exhaustive research to include/understand the penitentiary system's current problems (in 1970). This genuine work as a historian led him to broaden his field of analysis to the organizational practices of our societies with the appearance, in the 16th century, of disciplinary structures inherited from monastic rules. These explain the gradual shift from justice as an authority's expression and power of a sovereign to a judge's control of normality.
Indeed, the prison is, according to Michel Foucault, only the tree that hides the forest. Suppose these elementary principles, panoptic control (seeing without being seen) and disciplinary rules of life, have never been called into question despite the perpetual failures of the system (crimes and misdemeanors have never diminished). In that case, these principles also apply to the control of populations by our political system. Disciplinary recurrence proves Foucault correct: in schools, in barracks, in hospitals, and the world of work, everything is subject to discipline. We categorize, separate, and divide in time and space to normalize and subjugate to better control.
These reflections echo in 2008 with the current questions of generalized computer filing, the development of video surveillance, and the lowering of the age of penalization to twelve years! This dramatic underlining, if not that of putting even more people into the circuit of delinquency, that of the most exposed classes, the unprotected classes, the poorest classes, this accentuation would have, at least without a doubt, made Michel Foucault react.
How is it proper not to protest when politicians stigmatize petty criminals, who are, according to them, responsible for all the evils of our daily lives? Meanwhile, the kings of finance live far from the cameras, sheltered from all suspicion, peacefully continuing to disregard the laws that guarantee our living together.
Here then! I understand why I suddenly wanted to read this introductory essay.
Therefore, it is a novice criticism without any pretension. Still, it is undoubtedly good sometimes to look at works so much praised and commented on without any erudition.
I understood why Michel Foucault had acquired this fame from the first chapters. The divination of his analysis and the originality of his observations can only leave you speechless. It is a highly documented work. The author has conducted exhaustive research to include/understand the penitentiary system's current problems (in 1970). This genuine work as a historian led him to broaden his field of analysis to the organizational practices of our societies with the appearance, in the 16th century, of disciplinary structures inherited from monastic rules. These explain the gradual shift from justice as an authority's expression and power of a sovereign to a judge's control of normality.
Indeed, the prison is, according to Michel Foucault, only the tree that hides the forest. Suppose these elementary principles, panoptic control (seeing without being seen) and disciplinary rules of life, have never been called into question despite the perpetual failures of the system (crimes and misdemeanors have never diminished). In that case, these principles also apply to the control of populations by our political system. Disciplinary recurrence proves Foucault correct: in schools, in barracks, in hospitals, and the world of work, everything is subject to discipline. We categorize, separate, and divide in time and space to normalize and subjugate to better control.
These reflections echo in 2008 with the current questions of generalized computer filing, the development of video surveillance, and the lowering of the age of penalization to twelve years! This dramatic underlining, if not that of putting even more people into the circuit of delinquency, that of the most exposed classes, the unprotected classes, the poorest classes, this accentuation would have, at least without a doubt, made Michel Foucault react.
How is it proper not to protest when politicians stigmatize petty criminals, who are, according to them, responsible for all the evils of our daily lives? Meanwhile, the kings of finance live far from the cameras, sheltered from all suspicion, peacefully continuing to disregard the laws that guarantee our living together.
Here then! I understand why I suddenly wanted to read this introductory essay.
May 23, 2025
This is the to-die-for cornucopia of the absolute-zero straight goods on how Society has morphed (in my and Foucault鈥檚 own lifetime) into a Prison.
It is ALL due that meddling 18th Century Utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham.
Jerry B. wanted to misguidedly make the world into Best of All Possible Worlds for the majority of people...
Read the people that matter - the Movers and the Shakers. Some animals are just more equal than others.
Now, these head honchos鈥� dream world is one that鈥檚 orderly.
So suddenly it was so - on the outside. Inside, we all live on incredibly sharp tenterhooks.
And they鈥檝e Zapped our Little Brains. Want FRIES with that, fellas?
Foucault has Aced Bentham鈥檚 concept of the Panopticon, AKA electronic wizardry compiling its records: Everything You Ever Wanted to know About Anyone but are Afraid to Ask.
Gotta keep your heads screwed up tight...
So now, it鈥檚 ALWAYS time for the Big Panopticon鈥檚 next big move.
No matter how they slice and dice you, what they get is ALWAYS Juicy.
We鈥檙e dead to rights.
Good night and sleep tight鈥�
Like the sound of this?
If your head isn鈥檛 screwed on tight (like mine) you鈥檒l love it.
For this is the true, unexpurgated Story of Modern Times.
Five totally zapped stars, guys!
This is the Straight Goods.
It is ALL due that meddling 18th Century Utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham.
Jerry B. wanted to misguidedly make the world into Best of All Possible Worlds for the majority of people...
Read the people that matter - the Movers and the Shakers. Some animals are just more equal than others.
Now, these head honchos鈥� dream world is one that鈥檚 orderly.
So suddenly it was so - on the outside. Inside, we all live on incredibly sharp tenterhooks.
And they鈥檝e Zapped our Little Brains. Want FRIES with that, fellas?
Foucault has Aced Bentham鈥檚 concept of the Panopticon, AKA electronic wizardry compiling its records: Everything You Ever Wanted to know About Anyone but are Afraid to Ask.
Gotta keep your heads screwed up tight...
So now, it鈥檚 ALWAYS time for the Big Panopticon鈥檚 next big move.
No matter how they slice and dice you, what they get is ALWAYS Juicy.
We鈥檙e dead to rights.
Good night and sleep tight鈥�
Like the sound of this?
If your head isn鈥檛 screwed on tight (like mine) you鈥檒l love it.
For this is the true, unexpurgated Story of Modern Times.
Five totally zapped stars, guys!
This is the Straight Goods.
January 8, 2016
鈥淒iscipline 'makes' individuals; it is the specific technique of a power that regards individuals both as objects and as instruments of its exercise.鈥�
鈥� Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish
I've had this book for nearly twenty years on myself. Before a couple weeks ago I never quite found myself in the "right" mood for a French post-structural look at power, prisons, and punishment. It is interesting reading this and thinking about how influential Foucault was in the modern criticisms of the penal system, and various areas of control (schools, hospitals, psychiatric facilities, the military and prisons).
I didn't realize until I read the prologue that the "Disciple" part of the title was originally Surveiller (Watch) et punir (Punish). It made sense back in the day to use discipline, but given the giant NSA observation issues, I kinda hope they consider changing the title at some point back to some variant of watch. That was a surprise part of the book that isn't communicated by discipline, and a part that is VERY relevant to the world we exist in.
Anyway, I could probably come up with some high-falutin reason to like or not like this book, but honestly, I kinda liked it, just not enough to put forward HUGE efforts of defense or evangelism. There were some of the obvious issues with a lot of postmodern historical books (big ideas, radical ways to look at things), but the damn flag is pretty high and pretty big and the pole is thin and isn't buried very deep. But God love Foucault and his big poles.
So, I still want to read his sexy books, his book on madness, and his book on the clinic, so I guess that makes this a four-star book. I don't want to read all of his stuff tomorrow, but I want to read more... but later, when nobody's watching.
鈥� Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish
I've had this book for nearly twenty years on myself. Before a couple weeks ago I never quite found myself in the "right" mood for a French post-structural look at power, prisons, and punishment. It is interesting reading this and thinking about how influential Foucault was in the modern criticisms of the penal system, and various areas of control (schools, hospitals, psychiatric facilities, the military and prisons).
I didn't realize until I read the prologue that the "Disciple" part of the title was originally Surveiller (Watch) et punir (Punish). It made sense back in the day to use discipline, but given the giant NSA observation issues, I kinda hope they consider changing the title at some point back to some variant of watch. That was a surprise part of the book that isn't communicated by discipline, and a part that is VERY relevant to the world we exist in.
Anyway, I could probably come up with some high-falutin reason to like or not like this book, but honestly, I kinda liked it, just not enough to put forward HUGE efforts of defense or evangelism. There were some of the obvious issues with a lot of postmodern historical books (big ideas, radical ways to look at things), but the damn flag is pretty high and pretty big and the pole is thin and isn't buried very deep. But God love Foucault and his big poles.
So, I still want to read his sexy books, his book on madness, and his book on the clinic, so I guess that makes this a four-star book. I don't want to read all of his stuff tomorrow, but I want to read more... but later, when nobody's watching.
January 14, 2024
Under (social) construction鈥�
Preamble:
...Forgive the pun. This review is merely a reminder for when I revisit this book, although it continues to sink under new priorities.
--I read this book early on (thank goodness in a reading group) when I had limited critical historical foundations:
1) From Default Liberal to Idealist Anarchist:
--Thus, my vague baseline was status quo, default-liberal assumptions (think: cosmopolitan capitalism: ex. "multi-culturalism" rhetoric, while relying on the imperialist global division of labour).
--Thankfully, Chomsky took my 鈥淲ar on Terror鈥� assumptions and flipped it upside upside-down (or right-side up) by filling in the 20th century context rather than relying on fear/ignorance/prejudice: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
--Next, Graeber waltzed in with playful social imagination (i.e. "idealism": the focus on ideas driving history/social change) for the longer history: Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
--Motion sickness from these somersaults is to be expected; I read Foucault during this time, and his postmodernism only added to my disorientation.
...I later became aware of a crucial context: Chomsky/Graeber are both self-identified "anarchists", thus in dialogue/debate (often not openly, thus tricky to spot) with "Marxists" (who prioritize "materialism"; see later). This means Chomksy/Graeber will refrain from repeating Marxist analysis they agree with, so you need to read this elsewhere:
i) Chomsky: indeed, seems to cite Classical Liberals like Adam Smith more than Marx. Thankfully, Chomsky does cite historical materialists like David F. Noble (ex. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation), so I do not mean there cannot be materialist anarchists as there is much agreement (though often between the lines).
ii) Graeber: while Graeber's provocative rhetoric can create a mess (ex. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity), the best of Graeber still seeks a synthesis [from Direct Action: An Ethnography, bold emphases added]:
2) From "A People's History" to (Geo)Political Economy/Historical Materialism:
--This second half was missing in my repertoire when I read Foucault...
--An easy step from "anarchism" is to "A People's History", popularized by Zinn's A People's History of the United States. This is a lens of history/social change "from below", to counter the bias of "Great Man theory"/winners writing history (ex. why so much focus on the wealth of elites and not on the living conditions of the masses?).
--While geopolitical propaganda was crumbling for me thanks to Chomsky/Graeber, capitalist propaganda remained opaque. I needed structural critiques. World-systems theory (World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction) helped bridge history with political economy (i.e. dissecting capitalism's structures), which of course eventually led to Marx's Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1.
...Varoufakis (intro: Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works鈥攁nd How It Fails) bridged Marx with Polanyi (historical capitalism's "Great Transformation" of labour/land/money markets) and Keynes (crises in global finance/trade). Hudson elaborated on the latter (The Bubble and Beyond) while the Patnaiks elaborated on imperialism, thus geopolitical economy (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present).
--Finally, with capitalist propaganda cracking open, I started revisiting the structures of history that I started to explore with World-systems theory, in particular a materialist lens on history/social change ("historical materialism"), i.e. focusing on the interaction between material conditions and social relations, esp. production/distribution/reproduction/surplus and the corresponding class struggles/bargaining powers. Harman's A People's History of the World: From the Stone Age to the New Millennium (see the link for my historical materialism checklist) tries to synthesis the "A People's History" lens with historical materialism.
...For intro to historical materialism, see , in particular these episodes:
-"6. Political Anthropology: When Communism Works and Why"
-"7. The Origins of Male Dominance and Hierarchy; what David Graeber and Jordan Peterson get wrong"
-"7.1 Material Conditions: Why You Can't Eliminate Sexism or Patriarchy by Changing Culture"
-"8. Materialism vs. Idealism: How Social Change Happens"
Highlights:
--Looking back on this book, my perception is a sprawling mess of connections minus Graeber鈥檚 clear and engaging presentation. The historical observations provided momentary grounding (although difficult to tie everything together), where the landmarks hint at further analysis in political economy: ex. comparing the function of punishment with the different systems of production, in particular the transition to an industrial economy requiring a "free" labour market:
--This required "corrective" detention. Idleness became criminalized, as time became increasingly quantified and controlled via surveillance (supervisors, Bentham's Panopticon). A "police-prison-delinquency circuit" formed based on a controlled "delinquency" and generalized policing. This now reminds me of the brutal workhouses to enforce work discipline in The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation.
--The Panopticon's method: power should be visible but unverifiable, a mechanized surveillance system where the possibility of surveillance prompts individuals to create self-discipline, some 200 years before our modern digital mass surveillance controversies:
-Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet
-This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World's Information
-When Google Met Wikileaks
--This is where it gets Foucauldian in terms of "power", where "Panocopticism" pervades over the scientific formation of knowledge and thus power: this starts in the 18th century, first in hospitals (i.e. examinations) and then in schools, workshops, armies, etc. As I work in health information, this was my most vivid recollection of the book.
--The sprawling web of connections conflicted with what I was learning from the best of physical/natural sciences (how to deal with confirmation bias/heuristics in pattern recognition, using careful study methodologies and meta-analysis):
-Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks
-I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That
鈥o we can avoid biases and untangle messes:
-ex. liberal materialism/physical sciences: How the World Really Works: A Scientist鈥檚 Guide to Our Past, Present and Future
-ex. liberal pop psychology/social science: Outliers: The Story of Success
-ex. vaporous critical theory: Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
-ex. undecipherable postmodern philosophy:
Next Encounter?:
--When I revisit, my game-plan starts with: revisit critical engagements with Foucault by Graeber's idealism, as well as Marxist historical materialism especially on the topic of 鈥減rimitive accumulation鈥� (the often-censored violence to set up and perpetuate capitalism). Relevant texts include:
-贵别诲别谤颈肠颈鈥檚 Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation (I recall there are critiques of Foucault)
-Perelman鈥檚 aforementioned The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation.
鈥f you鈥檝e already done this and can save me some time, do share :)
--Note: 鈥減rimitive accumulation鈥�, despite being a critical concept, is a bit of a misnomer. It comes from Adam Smith鈥檚 assumption of an idyllic 鈥減revious accumulation鈥� (so, "primitive" simply means "previous", not "barbaric" or "vulgar") where future capitalists first accumulated their capital through hard work.
...Marx critiqued this assumption at the end of Capital Volume 1, calling it 鈥�so-called primitive accumulation鈥� to expose the actual history of violent 鈥渆xpropriation鈥�. Later Marxists emphasized the fundamental continuity (as opposed to 鈥減revious鈥� or 鈥渙riginal鈥�) of this expropriation by capitalism, ex. David Harvey's 鈥渁ccumulation by dispossession鈥�). Marx on 鈥渟o-called primitive accumulation鈥� [Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, Ch.26, emphases added]:
Preamble:
...Forgive the pun. This review is merely a reminder for when I revisit this book, although it continues to sink under new priorities.
--I read this book early on (thank goodness in a reading group) when I had limited critical historical foundations:
1) From Default Liberal to Idealist Anarchist:
--Thus, my vague baseline was status quo, default-liberal assumptions (think: cosmopolitan capitalism: ex. "multi-culturalism" rhetoric, while relying on the imperialist global division of labour).
--Thankfully, Chomsky took my 鈥淲ar on Terror鈥� assumptions and flipped it upside upside-down (or right-side up) by filling in the 20th century context rather than relying on fear/ignorance/prejudice: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
--Next, Graeber waltzed in with playful social imagination (i.e. "idealism": the focus on ideas driving history/social change) for the longer history: Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
--Motion sickness from these somersaults is to be expected; I read Foucault during this time, and his postmodernism only added to my disorientation.
...I later became aware of a crucial context: Chomsky/Graeber are both self-identified "anarchists", thus in dialogue/debate (often not openly, thus tricky to spot) with "Marxists" (who prioritize "materialism"; see later). This means Chomksy/Graeber will refrain from repeating Marxist analysis they agree with, so you need to read this elsewhere:
i) Chomsky: indeed, seems to cite Classical Liberals like Adam Smith more than Marx. Thankfully, Chomsky does cite historical materialists like David F. Noble (ex. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation), so I do not mean there cannot be materialist anarchists as there is much agreement (though often between the lines).
ii) Graeber: while Graeber's provocative rhetoric can create a mess (ex. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity), the best of Graeber still seeks a synthesis [from Direct Action: An Ethnography, bold emphases added]:
It has always been these kinds of practical, moral questions that have tended to stir anarchist passions: What is direct action? What kind of tactics are beyond the pale and what sort of solidarity do we owe to those who employ them? Or: what is the most democratic way to conduct a meeting? At what point does organization stop being empowering and become stifling and bureaucratic? For analyses of the nature of the commodity form or the mechanics of alienation [i.e. capitalist structures, materialism], most [anarchists] have been content to draw on the written work of Marxist intellectuals (which are usually, themselves, drawn from ideas that originally percolated through a broader worker鈥檚 movement in which anarchists were very much involved). Which also means that, for all the bitter and often violent disagreements anarchists have had with Marxists about how to go about making a revolution, there has always been a kind of complementarity here, at least in potentia.
2) From "A People's History" to (Geo)Political Economy/Historical Materialism:
--This second half was missing in my repertoire when I read Foucault...
--An easy step from "anarchism" is to "A People's History", popularized by Zinn's A People's History of the United States. This is a lens of history/social change "from below", to counter the bias of "Great Man theory"/winners writing history (ex. why so much focus on the wealth of elites and not on the living conditions of the masses?).
--While geopolitical propaganda was crumbling for me thanks to Chomsky/Graeber, capitalist propaganda remained opaque. I needed structural critiques. World-systems theory (World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction) helped bridge history with political economy (i.e. dissecting capitalism's structures), which of course eventually led to Marx's Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1.
...Varoufakis (intro: Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works鈥攁nd How It Fails) bridged Marx with Polanyi (historical capitalism's "Great Transformation" of labour/land/money markets) and Keynes (crises in global finance/trade). Hudson elaborated on the latter (The Bubble and Beyond) while the Patnaiks elaborated on imperialism, thus geopolitical economy (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present).
--Finally, with capitalist propaganda cracking open, I started revisiting the structures of history that I started to explore with World-systems theory, in particular a materialist lens on history/social change ("historical materialism"), i.e. focusing on the interaction between material conditions and social relations, esp. production/distribution/reproduction/surplus and the corresponding class struggles/bargaining powers. Harman's A People's History of the World: From the Stone Age to the New Millennium (see the link for my historical materialism checklist) tries to synthesis the "A People's History" lens with historical materialism.
...For intro to historical materialism, see , in particular these episodes:
-"6. Political Anthropology: When Communism Works and Why"
-"7. The Origins of Male Dominance and Hierarchy; what David Graeber and Jordan Peterson get wrong"
-"7.1 Material Conditions: Why You Can't Eliminate Sexism or Patriarchy by Changing Culture"
-"8. Materialism vs. Idealism: How Social Change Happens"
Highlights:
--Looking back on this book, my perception is a sprawling mess of connections minus Graeber鈥檚 clear and engaging presentation. The historical observations provided momentary grounding (although difficult to tie everything together), where the landmarks hint at further analysis in political economy: ex. comparing the function of punishment with the different systems of production, in particular the transition to an industrial economy requiring a "free" labour market:
--This required "corrective" detention. Idleness became criminalized, as time became increasingly quantified and controlled via surveillance (supervisors, Bentham's Panopticon). A "police-prison-delinquency circuit" formed based on a controlled "delinquency" and generalized policing. This now reminds me of the brutal workhouses to enforce work discipline in The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation.
--The Panopticon's method: power should be visible but unverifiable, a mechanized surveillance system where the possibility of surveillance prompts individuals to create self-discipline, some 200 years before our modern digital mass surveillance controversies:
-Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet
-This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World's Information
-When Google Met Wikileaks
--This is where it gets Foucauldian in terms of "power", where "Panocopticism" pervades over the scientific formation of knowledge and thus power: this starts in the 18th century, first in hospitals (i.e. examinations) and then in schools, workshops, armies, etc. As I work in health information, this was my most vivid recollection of the book.
--The sprawling web of connections conflicted with what I was learning from the best of physical/natural sciences (how to deal with confirmation bias/heuristics in pattern recognition, using careful study methodologies and meta-analysis):
-Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks
-I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That
鈥o we can avoid biases and untangle messes:
-ex. liberal materialism/physical sciences: How the World Really Works: A Scientist鈥檚 Guide to Our Past, Present and Future
-ex. liberal pop psychology/social science: Outliers: The Story of Success
-ex. vaporous critical theory: Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
-ex. undecipherable postmodern philosophy:
Next Encounter?:
--When I revisit, my game-plan starts with: revisit critical engagements with Foucault by Graeber's idealism, as well as Marxist historical materialism especially on the topic of 鈥減rimitive accumulation鈥� (the often-censored violence to set up and perpetuate capitalism). Relevant texts include:
-贵别诲别谤颈肠颈鈥檚 Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation (I recall there are critiques of Foucault)
-Perelman鈥檚 aforementioned The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation.
鈥f you鈥檝e already done this and can save me some time, do share :)
--Note: 鈥減rimitive accumulation鈥�, despite being a critical concept, is a bit of a misnomer. It comes from Adam Smith鈥檚 assumption of an idyllic 鈥減revious accumulation鈥� (so, "primitive" simply means "previous", not "barbaric" or "vulgar") where future capitalists first accumulated their capital through hard work.
...Marx critiqued this assumption at the end of Capital Volume 1, calling it 鈥�so-called primitive accumulation鈥� to expose the actual history of violent 鈥渆xpropriation鈥�. Later Marxists emphasized the fundamental continuity (as opposed to 鈥減revious鈥� or 鈥渙riginal鈥�) of this expropriation by capitalism, ex. David Harvey's 鈥渁ccumulation by dispossession鈥�). Marx on 鈥渟o-called primitive accumulation鈥� [Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, Ch.26, emphases added]:
We have seen how money is transformed into capital; how surplus-value is made through capital, and how more capital is made from surplus-value. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalist production; capitalist production presupposes the availability of considerable masses of capital and labour-power in the hands of commodity producers. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn around in a never-ending circle, which we can only get out of by assuming a primitive accumulation (the 鈥榩revious accumulation鈥� of Adam Smith) [Note: 鈥楾he accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour鈥� (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk II, Introduction)] which precedes capitalist accumulation; an accumulation which is not the result of the capitalist mode of production but its point of departure.
This primitive accumulation plays approximately the same role in political economy as original sin does in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote about the past. Long, long ago there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal 茅lite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort finally had nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority who, despite all their labour, have up to now nothing to sell but themselves, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly, although they have long ceased to work [inheritance, passive income, money creating more money]. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property [i.e. capitalist property over the means of production; not personal property].
May 5, 2016
Foucault begins this book by recounting the fate of a man called Damien the regicide, who attempted to assassinate King Louis XV of France in 1757. He was publicly tortured for hours, beaten, stabbed and crushed only to be quartered by horses at last. Foucault says that Public executions and scenes like this were common and happened every once in a while for those who were accused of heinous crimes. This practice, perfectly inhuman and brutish, was officially sanctioned just two centuries ago. Criminals were subjected to torture, flogging, beating, humiliation and beheading in public. But the most surprising thing is that all this ended rather suddenly in the 19th century, which is when the modern prison system was born.
Foucault is meticulous. He inspects each and everything from philosophical and psychological point of view; He disrobes the myth and romance of history only to show us a picture that is as real as it is shocking. For the most part of reading it, I was not entirely sure what Foucault was coming at, he dropped hints here and there but more importantly, he intends to enable us to see for ourselves. All his works are an attempt to understand the relation between power, culture and the individual.
Modern prison is the model for control of an entire society. What happens behind the prison walls becomes so distant for the ones outside it, that they have no empathy for the man who suffers in solitary confinement or sleeps on cold prison floors. His sufferings become none of our concern. There is a 鈥榙ehumanizing鈥� effect that the modern prison has on the criminal, an effect that expels any chance of sympathy or pity for the prisoner. He fades rather quickly in society鈥檚 collective memory. Such was not the case, Foucault says, back when men were tortured in streets and executed brutally.
Power now looks kind, but isn鈥檛. In past it wasn鈥檛 kind and therefore it could encourage open rebellion. So Prison system, doesn鈥檛 only takes away the spectacle of torture and murder from the streets, it crushes dissent and shackles the conscience of the society.
There is much more to this book than I could possibly explain here. Taught and recommended in universities around the world, this book is a timeless classic. Since it is not an easy book to read, I鈥檇 recommend that the new reader starts slowly and take it chapter by chapter. You can agree with his thesis or you could disagree, but there no doubt that Foucault was a genius.
Foucault is meticulous. He inspects each and everything from philosophical and psychological point of view; He disrobes the myth and romance of history only to show us a picture that is as real as it is shocking. For the most part of reading it, I was not entirely sure what Foucault was coming at, he dropped hints here and there but more importantly, he intends to enable us to see for ourselves. All his works are an attempt to understand the relation between power, culture and the individual.
Modern prison is the model for control of an entire society. What happens behind the prison walls becomes so distant for the ones outside it, that they have no empathy for the man who suffers in solitary confinement or sleeps on cold prison floors. His sufferings become none of our concern. There is a 鈥榙ehumanizing鈥� effect that the modern prison has on the criminal, an effect that expels any chance of sympathy or pity for the prisoner. He fades rather quickly in society鈥檚 collective memory. Such was not the case, Foucault says, back when men were tortured in streets and executed brutally.
Power now looks kind, but isn鈥檛. In past it wasn鈥檛 kind and therefore it could encourage open rebellion. So Prison system, doesn鈥檛 only takes away the spectacle of torture and murder from the streets, it crushes dissent and shackles the conscience of the society.
There is much more to this book than I could possibly explain here. Taught and recommended in universities around the world, this book is a timeless classic. Since it is not an easy book to read, I鈥檇 recommend that the new reader starts slowly and take it chapter by chapter. You can agree with his thesis or you could disagree, but there no doubt that Foucault was a genius.
August 23, 2007
I've read this book three times: First time was in undergraduate, second time was in law school, third time was last week. I can honestly say that my understanding of this work has grown with each reading, but that growth in comprehension has come more from my reading of other books either discussing or related to Discipline and Punish.
Specifically, I would recommend Jurgen Habermas's critique of Foucault, although I now forget which book of his contains his critique. I would also recommend Goffman's "Asylums" and Sykes "The Society of the Prison" as works which can illuminate Foucault's oft dense prose.
Foucault's main thesis is that the transistion of society into modernity has resulted in institutions which are increasingly devoted to the control of the "inmate's" time. The instituions use this control of time to develop discipline. Discipline is then used to both reinforce the strength of the instituion and also to expand the reach of institution's into the community.
As other reviewers have noted, this book isn't really about Prisons. Rather, the development of the modern prison represents the pinnacle of the relationship between power and discipline. Foucault leads up to his discussion of the prison by examining developments in other instituions: the work shop, the school and the barracks.
I really would encourage admirers of this work to read Goffman's "Asylums". The two books overlap to a considerable degree, but they both complement one another.
Specifically, I would recommend Jurgen Habermas's critique of Foucault, although I now forget which book of his contains his critique. I would also recommend Goffman's "Asylums" and Sykes "The Society of the Prison" as works which can illuminate Foucault's oft dense prose.
Foucault's main thesis is that the transistion of society into modernity has resulted in institutions which are increasingly devoted to the control of the "inmate's" time. The instituions use this control of time to develop discipline. Discipline is then used to both reinforce the strength of the instituion and also to expand the reach of institution's into the community.
As other reviewers have noted, this book isn't really about Prisons. Rather, the development of the modern prison represents the pinnacle of the relationship between power and discipline. Foucault leads up to his discussion of the prison by examining developments in other instituions: the work shop, the school and the barracks.
I really would encourage admirers of this work to read Goffman's "Asylums". The two books overlap to a considerable degree, but they both complement one another.
February 2, 2013
NEW REVIEW [it took more than a few days to get back to this -- I hope someone reads it... lol]
I will add only a few additional comments to what I鈥檝e already written (below and in the comments sections). It will be enough and more than enough.
I came at this book with decades of prejudice built-up 鈥� and it showed in my (essentially failed) reading of Madness and Civilization. I knew that Foucault was a fake and a charlatan before I ever cracked a page. So to speak鈥�
So one can imagine my surprise at discovering that he was, in fact, a philosophical genius of sorts, and that this book 鈥� though difficult, slow, craggy, like 鈥渃racking nuts鈥�, paragraph by paragraph, was full of insight and sense and interest. To all those who are skeptical of opening up a front here, and it is a time consuming front鈥�, I have to say that 鈥淚, too, am a recovering Foucault-hater.鈥�
That does not mean that I am persuaded.
(1) To echo Habermas鈥� complaint, Foucault (like many of the postmodernists) equivocates between irony or literature and serious work 鈥� and he does not always know the difference himself. His verbal cleverness, the frequent use of reversals and antitheses, isocola, polarities, etc鈥�, often reveal NOT the underlying truth, but an addiction to illusion and pretense. It is rhetorical
鈥� none of which takes away from the sheer surface brilliance of this book.
-- and as a reader of Plato鈥檚 Theaetetus and Sophist, I *fully* understand the philosophical and metaphysical implications of 鈥榯he rhetorical鈥� 鈥� in fact, I teach a course on this topic.
(2) Worse, Foucault equivocates repeatedly on this question that 鈥淣athan鈥� and I were discussing regarding the law of contradiction. Taking pages out of the Philebus of Plato, Foucault loves to talk about the minute parts, exhaustive, continuous, almost infinite divisions and partitions into which his moral continua (and the physical continua, like body, as well) can be partitioned, divided, apportioned, etc. 鈥� without ever coming out and saying whether or not the division is infinite or not. That 鈥渁lmost鈥� is an equivocation of huge proportions, and it is deceitful. One must take a stand.
(3) Again, much rests in Foucault on his claims about 鈥減ower-knowledge鈥�. But what actually happens (in this book, at least) is that Foucault suggests the notion that knowledge is a function of power 鈥� and then seeks to ground this notion with an utterly fraudulent move (see my commentary below on induction) 鈥� and then operates from here on out as if his principal point had been established. Since very few people will have the time or patience to track the beast (the fallacy) to its lair 鈥� he pulls it off and persuades. But moves of this sort are (by definition) sophistical. And I have unmasked him.
(At least so far鈥� I now have a copy of Power & Knowledge, the interviews, and will be interested to see if there is a better justification put forth there 鈥� though I am skeptical that I will find it.)
These are decisive objections.
And yet none of them matter鈥�
Let me explain:
If Foucault relied on historical data QUA historical data, then his project would have been an utter failure. But my contention is that he uses 鈥榟istorical data鈥� as myth 鈥� like Rousseau鈥檚 story of le bon sauvage in the Second Discourse 鈥� like the story line in a Utopia or, in Foucault鈥檚 case, in a 鈥榝ictionalized鈥� dystopia. It does not matter whether the history is true or not. Even when he relies on real facts, they are 鈥榝alsified鈥� in their proportionality. Minor figures are treated as 鈥渢urning points of great moment鈥�, incidents that no one would remember (and quite rightly) are treated as 鈥渟ymbols鈥� of deeper truths (a use, or rather, an abuse of history that goes back to Dilthey, I believe)鈥� all these are clues, in my opinion, that Foucault did not intend us (or at least, in his more lucid moments would not have intended us) to take his history as 鈥榟istorical鈥� 鈥� it is simply the plot he weaves, a pseudo-history (made up of bits and pieces of the Real, perhaps鈥�, but nonetheless鈥�.), that forms the warp and matrix of a philosophical nightmare that he is seeing beneath the pattern of modernity鈥� and it is a nightmare that is anything but fictional鈥� Indeed, the events of the past 15 years, the advent of the 鈥榥ational security state鈥�, the 鈥榮urveillance state鈥�, the increasing, encroaching normalization of the Schmittian 鈥淪tate of Exception鈥� 鈥� the Society of the Spectacle 鈥� not only under Bush, but now continuing under a 鈥淟iberal鈥� Presidency, all show that Foucault was prescient.
Thus, those historians who criticize him for being ahistorical are missing the point entirely.
Now of course, it was Foucault鈥檚 obligation to indicate clearly to the reader that his account is only 鈥榟istory as such鈥︹€�, and I do not believe (though I could be wrong) that he does so. Maybe the postmodernist in him thinks irony is the default position, and that he doesn鈥檛 have to say anything鈥�, or maybe he was not quite sure himself鈥� but that is, in the final analysis, a relatively minor criticism鈥�
(*Just as an aside, I believe that I can prove that Rousseau has given his readers a massive hint that his account of the noble savage in the Second Discourse is, indeed, a myth (and not to be taken as history) 鈥� a topic which is controversial in the literature on Rousseau 鈥� and that he adopts this method from Plato. I thought once I would publish a paper on this, but as Rousseau is outside my field, and I would have had to read and master a bibliography outside my area of knowledge, I never did.)
PREVIOUS COMMENTS:
I must pause here and add what I believe might be a comment of some significance 鈥� for I have found (I believe) a major flaw in MF鈥檚 thinking.
I no longer think it is just to criticize Foucault for a lack of historical accuracy 鈥� for I do not think that he intends his work to be taken as 鈥渉istorical鈥�, despite appearances. I will develop this idea at greater length when I have finished the book. But I need first to take up an issue that I had raised in the comment section several weeks ago 鈥� and which concerns Foucault鈥檚 famous thesis about Power and Knowledge.
In my opening 鈥渃omment鈥�, I showed that Foucault had misinterpreted (pp. 41f.) the ancient notion of the 鈥渙rdeal鈥�, which he takes as 鈥渃reating鈥� truth, rather than simply 鈥渞eflecting鈥� it. He simply doesn鈥檛 know his history well enough, and his position is foolish.
Now, in the chapter on 鈥淧anopticism鈥� (225ff.), he argues that the empirical sciences were born, in the later Middle Ages, out of the politico-juridico processes of investigation exemplified by the Inquisition. These 鈥渋nvestigative techniques鈥� were actually developed, he says, in the 12th-13th centuries as a method for establishing 鈥渢ruth鈥�, and thus replacing the older method of 鈥渃reating鈥� truth through the 鈥渏oust鈥� or the 鈥渙rdeal鈥�.
This is absurd. The empirical sciences were born out of the development of the theory and practice of induction
(See A.C. Crombie, though I can supply a wealth of material on this: ),
which went back to the time of Roger Bacon, who got it (via the Arabs) from the Greek Commentary tradition -- that is, from the C.A.G.:
which developed these ideas in the context of Aristotle鈥檚 distinction between analysis and synthesis in geometry. The idea of analysis (which is clearly explained at the very beginning of Aristotle鈥檚 Physics I, however, was derived from the Socratic dialectic (itself a development of the sophistic/rhetorical dialectic of the late 5th cen.), which is analytical (and consciously so), not synthetic.
The theory of ideas was then postulated by Plato to explain why analysis works 鈥� and does not lead to an infinite division. This is incontrovertible.
Then, to adduce Francis Bacon, as Foucault does on p. 226, is really a blunder, for Francis Bacon was actually one of the very few people who recognized that induction had its roots in the Socratic dialectic (see Novum Organon, 1.105). Foucault simply doesn鈥檛 know what he is talking about. To seek to reduce 鈥榓nalysis鈥� to a juridico-investigative root is simply ignorance.
But if this postulated origin falls, then so too falls his theory that knowledge is simply power.
(That said -- I am really impressed by this book -- and think it is a major work, and I'm quite embarrassed to have missed its importance all these years. Consider the above a small attempt to make amends... in my typically Socratic fashion, of course....)
I will add only a few additional comments to what I鈥檝e already written (below and in the comments sections). It will be enough and more than enough.
I came at this book with decades of prejudice built-up 鈥� and it showed in my (essentially failed) reading of Madness and Civilization. I knew that Foucault was a fake and a charlatan before I ever cracked a page. So to speak鈥�
So one can imagine my surprise at discovering that he was, in fact, a philosophical genius of sorts, and that this book 鈥� though difficult, slow, craggy, like 鈥渃racking nuts鈥�, paragraph by paragraph, was full of insight and sense and interest. To all those who are skeptical of opening up a front here, and it is a time consuming front鈥�, I have to say that 鈥淚, too, am a recovering Foucault-hater.鈥�
That does not mean that I am persuaded.
(1) To echo Habermas鈥� complaint, Foucault (like many of the postmodernists) equivocates between irony or literature and serious work 鈥� and he does not always know the difference himself. His verbal cleverness, the frequent use of reversals and antitheses, isocola, polarities, etc鈥�, often reveal NOT the underlying truth, but an addiction to illusion and pretense. It is rhetorical
鈥� none of which takes away from the sheer surface brilliance of this book.
-- and as a reader of Plato鈥檚 Theaetetus and Sophist, I *fully* understand the philosophical and metaphysical implications of 鈥榯he rhetorical鈥� 鈥� in fact, I teach a course on this topic.
(2) Worse, Foucault equivocates repeatedly on this question that 鈥淣athan鈥� and I were discussing regarding the law of contradiction. Taking pages out of the Philebus of Plato, Foucault loves to talk about the minute parts, exhaustive, continuous, almost infinite divisions and partitions into which his moral continua (and the physical continua, like body, as well) can be partitioned, divided, apportioned, etc. 鈥� without ever coming out and saying whether or not the division is infinite or not. That 鈥渁lmost鈥� is an equivocation of huge proportions, and it is deceitful. One must take a stand.
(3) Again, much rests in Foucault on his claims about 鈥減ower-knowledge鈥�. But what actually happens (in this book, at least) is that Foucault suggests the notion that knowledge is a function of power 鈥� and then seeks to ground this notion with an utterly fraudulent move (see my commentary below on induction) 鈥� and then operates from here on out as if his principal point had been established. Since very few people will have the time or patience to track the beast (the fallacy) to its lair 鈥� he pulls it off and persuades. But moves of this sort are (by definition) sophistical. And I have unmasked him.
(At least so far鈥� I now have a copy of Power & Knowledge, the interviews, and will be interested to see if there is a better justification put forth there 鈥� though I am skeptical that I will find it.)
These are decisive objections.
And yet none of them matter鈥�
Let me explain:
If Foucault relied on historical data QUA historical data, then his project would have been an utter failure. But my contention is that he uses 鈥榟istorical data鈥� as myth 鈥� like Rousseau鈥檚 story of le bon sauvage in the Second Discourse 鈥� like the story line in a Utopia or, in Foucault鈥檚 case, in a 鈥榝ictionalized鈥� dystopia. It does not matter whether the history is true or not. Even when he relies on real facts, they are 鈥榝alsified鈥� in their proportionality. Minor figures are treated as 鈥渢urning points of great moment鈥�, incidents that no one would remember (and quite rightly) are treated as 鈥渟ymbols鈥� of deeper truths (a use, or rather, an abuse of history that goes back to Dilthey, I believe)鈥� all these are clues, in my opinion, that Foucault did not intend us (or at least, in his more lucid moments would not have intended us) to take his history as 鈥榟istorical鈥� 鈥� it is simply the plot he weaves, a pseudo-history (made up of bits and pieces of the Real, perhaps鈥�, but nonetheless鈥�.), that forms the warp and matrix of a philosophical nightmare that he is seeing beneath the pattern of modernity鈥� and it is a nightmare that is anything but fictional鈥� Indeed, the events of the past 15 years, the advent of the 鈥榥ational security state鈥�, the 鈥榮urveillance state鈥�, the increasing, encroaching normalization of the Schmittian 鈥淪tate of Exception鈥� 鈥� the Society of the Spectacle 鈥� not only under Bush, but now continuing under a 鈥淟iberal鈥� Presidency, all show that Foucault was prescient.
Thus, those historians who criticize him for being ahistorical are missing the point entirely.
Now of course, it was Foucault鈥檚 obligation to indicate clearly to the reader that his account is only 鈥榟istory as such鈥︹€�, and I do not believe (though I could be wrong) that he does so. Maybe the postmodernist in him thinks irony is the default position, and that he doesn鈥檛 have to say anything鈥�, or maybe he was not quite sure himself鈥� but that is, in the final analysis, a relatively minor criticism鈥�
(*Just as an aside, I believe that I can prove that Rousseau has given his readers a massive hint that his account of the noble savage in the Second Discourse is, indeed, a myth (and not to be taken as history) 鈥� a topic which is controversial in the literature on Rousseau 鈥� and that he adopts this method from Plato. I thought once I would publish a paper on this, but as Rousseau is outside my field, and I would have had to read and master a bibliography outside my area of knowledge, I never did.)
PREVIOUS COMMENTS:
I must pause here and add what I believe might be a comment of some significance 鈥� for I have found (I believe) a major flaw in MF鈥檚 thinking.
I no longer think it is just to criticize Foucault for a lack of historical accuracy 鈥� for I do not think that he intends his work to be taken as 鈥渉istorical鈥�, despite appearances. I will develop this idea at greater length when I have finished the book. But I need first to take up an issue that I had raised in the comment section several weeks ago 鈥� and which concerns Foucault鈥檚 famous thesis about Power and Knowledge.
In my opening 鈥渃omment鈥�, I showed that Foucault had misinterpreted (pp. 41f.) the ancient notion of the 鈥渙rdeal鈥�, which he takes as 鈥渃reating鈥� truth, rather than simply 鈥渞eflecting鈥� it. He simply doesn鈥檛 know his history well enough, and his position is foolish.
Now, in the chapter on 鈥淧anopticism鈥� (225ff.), he argues that the empirical sciences were born, in the later Middle Ages, out of the politico-juridico processes of investigation exemplified by the Inquisition. These 鈥渋nvestigative techniques鈥� were actually developed, he says, in the 12th-13th centuries as a method for establishing 鈥渢ruth鈥�, and thus replacing the older method of 鈥渃reating鈥� truth through the 鈥渏oust鈥� or the 鈥渙rdeal鈥�.
This is absurd. The empirical sciences were born out of the development of the theory and practice of induction
(See A.C. Crombie, though I can supply a wealth of material on this: ),
which went back to the time of Roger Bacon, who got it (via the Arabs) from the Greek Commentary tradition -- that is, from the C.A.G.:
which developed these ideas in the context of Aristotle鈥檚 distinction between analysis and synthesis in geometry. The idea of analysis (which is clearly explained at the very beginning of Aristotle鈥檚 Physics I, however, was derived from the Socratic dialectic (itself a development of the sophistic/rhetorical dialectic of the late 5th cen.), which is analytical (and consciously so), not synthetic.
The theory of ideas was then postulated by Plato to explain why analysis works 鈥� and does not lead to an infinite division. This is incontrovertible.
Then, to adduce Francis Bacon, as Foucault does on p. 226, is really a blunder, for Francis Bacon was actually one of the very few people who recognized that induction had its roots in the Socratic dialectic (see Novum Organon, 1.105). Foucault simply doesn鈥檛 know what he is talking about. To seek to reduce 鈥榓nalysis鈥� to a juridico-investigative root is simply ignorance.
But if this postulated origin falls, then so too falls his theory that knowledge is simply power.
(That said -- I am really impressed by this book -- and think it is a major work, and I'm quite embarrassed to have missed its importance all these years. Consider the above a small attempt to make amends... in my typically Socratic fashion, of course....)
January 11, 2008
This book rearranged my brain. I have never read something that met my intuition half way, and then expanded my vision beyond all critical capacities I knew before. I will never conceive of power, structures, knowledge, statistics, or my cock the same way again. His anti-humanitarian, empirical, and nonuniversal critiques that follow the money and the violence are the perfect medicine for people who have been reading saggy assed media studies and cultural studies for too long. Saved my life.
November 30, 2024
Until the 19th century, breaking the law was a declaration of war against the sovereign. Peace was only restored through public spectacle鈥攏amely, destruction of the condemned body. Sovereign power gradually transformed into state power. Punishment also changed. The body was no longer the target; it was the soul. This was not a humanitarian transformation. It was a diffusion of biopower. Society, not the sovereign, imposed disciplinary control on the soul. Industrially regimented society meant the soul had to be controlled through disciplinary institutions like schools, hospitals, and the military. We are not freer or more humane. We are disciplined to conform and punished if we do not.
Michel Foucault made this argument in his seminal book "Discipline and Punish." It is part poststructuralist critique of hierarchical systems and narratives, particularly vis-脿-vis power, and part genealogical historical analysis. I read the translation by Alan Sheridan. Foucault's content is usually quite dense, yet this translation was relatively easy to read. That said, due to the complexity of the arguments, I read it over a couple of weeks and a chapter at a time. This book is a classic in many disciplines, including political science, criminology, philosophy, etc. This is ironic considering Foucault critiques the way knowledge is regimented in disciplinary structures.
This book was thought-provoking, but I was not entirely convinced. Assuming Foucault's argument is correct, were forms of psychological discipline not also present in the pre-industrial era? Were public torture, serfdom to one's lord, and forced religious obedience, not mechanisms of power that disciplined and punished the soul? Furthermore, Foucault marginalises the role of justice in the law. Punishment holds individuals accountable for crimes, which are often grounded in principles of natural law rather than positivist precepts. The deprivation of liberty is a fair response to immoral acts if proportional, and not necessarily a means of discipline.
Michel Foucault made this argument in his seminal book "Discipline and Punish." It is part poststructuralist critique of hierarchical systems and narratives, particularly vis-脿-vis power, and part genealogical historical analysis. I read the translation by Alan Sheridan. Foucault's content is usually quite dense, yet this translation was relatively easy to read. That said, due to the complexity of the arguments, I read it over a couple of weeks and a chapter at a time. This book is a classic in many disciplines, including political science, criminology, philosophy, etc. This is ironic considering Foucault critiques the way knowledge is regimented in disciplinary structures.
This book was thought-provoking, but I was not entirely convinced. Assuming Foucault's argument is correct, were forms of psychological discipline not also present in the pre-industrial era? Were public torture, serfdom to one's lord, and forced religious obedience, not mechanisms of power that disciplined and punished the soul? Furthermore, Foucault marginalises the role of justice in the law. Punishment holds individuals accountable for crimes, which are often grounded in principles of natural law rather than positivist precepts. The deprivation of liberty is a fair response to immoral acts if proportional, and not necessarily a means of discipline.
April 16, 2025
鈥溬呚呚官嗀� 賱賷爻 賲噩鬲賲毓 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟貙 賵賱賰賳賴 賲噩鬲賲毓 賲乇丕賯亘丞鈥� 賮賳丨賳 賱爻賳丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丿乇噩丕鬲 兀賵 禺卮亘丞 丕賱賲爻乇丨貙 亘賱 丿丕禺賱 丿賵丕賱賷亘 丕賱丌賱丞 丕賱亘丕賳賵亘鬲賷賰賷丞鈥� 鈥� 賮賵賰賵.
賰鬲丕亘 賷丿乇爻 兀賵 賷亘丨孬 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賮賵賰賵 毓賳 丕賱鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 胤乇兀鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞 賵丕賱胤乇賯 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷丞 賵賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱賯氐丕氐賷丞丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 賮賷 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱賲賲鬲丿丞 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 丨鬲賶 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳貙 賵 丕賱匕賷 卮睾賱 賮賷賴 丕賱噩爻丿 賲丨賵乇 鬲賲孬賱丕鬲 丕賱胤乇賯 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷丞. 亘賳丕亍賸 毓賱賶 賵孬丕卅賯 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賮賷 賮乇賳爻丕. 丨賷孬 賷賲賰賳 賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 賲卮鬲乇賰 賱賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤賵賷丞 賵賱賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷丞. 賵丿賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賮賷 匕賱賰 賵賲丕 鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳 丌孬丕乇 兀氐丕亘鬲 亘賳賿賷丞 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵廿賳爻丕賳賷鬲賴.
賵賲丕 鬲亘毓 匕賱賰 賲賳 孬賵乇丞貙 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱兀噩爻丕丿 囟丿 噩爻丿 丕賱爻噩賳 亘丕賱匕丕鬲.
" 賳卮兀丞 丕賱爻噩賳 囟賲賳 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷貙 賵丕賱賮乇賵賯丕鬲 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱鬲胤賵乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賵丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲." 賲賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 賲賳 丕賱毓賯丕亘 兀賵 丕賱鬲毓匕賷亘 丕賱毓賱賳賷 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇賷- 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷貙 廿賱賶 丕賱毓賯丕亘 賮賷 丕賱爻噩賳 賵賲賳賴 廿賱賶 丕賱丕賳賮乇丕丿賷貙 賵賲丕 卮賲賱 匕賱賰 賲賳 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 貨 賰丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲貙 賵丕賱毓賲賱貙 賵睾賷乇賴. 兀賷 孬賵乇丞 賵鬲賲乇丿 毓賱賶 賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲 賱噩爻丿 丕賱爻噩賳 賵丕賱賯賵丞.
" 賮丕賱毓賳氐乇 丕賱賲毓鬲賲丿 賮賷 馗賴賵乇 丕賱爻噩賳 賴賵 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞 廿賱賶 賲丐爻爻丞貙 兀賵 亘氐賵乇丞 兀丿賯: 廿賳 爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘 ( 賲毓 丕賱賴丿賮 丕賱丕爻鬲乇丕鬲賷噩賷 丕賱匕賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲賴 賱賳賮爻賴丕 賮賷 丌禺乇 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓卮乇貙 賵賴賵 鬲賯賱賷氐 ( 丕賱賱丕卮乇毓賷丕鬲 丕賱卮毓亘賷丞) 鬲鬲兀賲賾賳 亘氐賵乇丞 兀賮囟賱 丨賷賳 鬲鬲禺賮賶 賵乇丕亍 賵馗賷賮丞 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 毓丕賲丞貙 丿丕禺賱 ( 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞)貙 兀賵 丨賷賳 鬲鬲賵馗賮 丿丕禺賱 賲丐爻爻丞 廿賰乇丕賴賷丞貙 囟賲賳 丕賱賲賰丕賳 丕賱賲睾賱賯貙 賮賷 ( 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨賷丞) 責" -( 氐181/182)
賵 賷胤乇丨 亘賴匕丕 丕賱氐丿丿 賮賵賰賵 毓丿丿賸丕 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞: 賰賷賮 丨賱 丕賱賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱廿賰乇丕賴賷貙 丕賱噩爻丿賷 貙 丕賱丕賳賮乇丕丿賷貙 丕賱爻乇賷 賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘貙 賲丨賱 丕賱賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱鬲氐賵乇賷貙 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷 丕賱丿賱丕賱賷貙 丕賱毓賱賳賷賾貙 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷賾責 賱賲丕匕丕 丨賱鬲 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞 賱賱毓賯賵亘丞 ( 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 丕賱鬲毓匕賷亘) 賲毓 丕賱爻噩賳 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 賯賵丕賲賴丕 丕賱賲丐爻爻賷貙 賲丨賱 丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賱賱丿賱丕賱丕鬲 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞貙 賵賲丨賱 丕賱丕丨鬲賮丕賱 丕賱氐丕禺亘 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇賵噩賴丕責
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷氐賵乇 亘卮賰賱 兀賵 亘丌禺乇 乇丨賱丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賮賷 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱亘卮乇賷貙 賵賷胤乇丨 兀賲孬賱丞 賲賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱馗賱賲 丕賱匕賷 賲丕乇爻鬲賴 丕賱爻賱胤丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱噩爻丿 亘丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱毓賳賮貙 賵丕賱匕賷 鬲噩賱賶 賮賷 賰丕賮丞 賲丐爻爻丕鬲賴丕 賲賳 賲孬賱貨 丕賱爻噩賵賳貙 賵丕賱賲爻鬲卮賮賷丕鬲貙 賵丕賱孬賰賳丕鬲 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷丞貙 賵睾賷乇賴丕. 賵賲賳 賯乇兀 賱賴 "鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱噩賳賵賳 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷"貙 爻賷賱賲爻 匕賱賰 賵亘卮賰賱 噩賱賷賾.
賰鬲丕亘 賲丐賱賲 賳賮爻賷丕賸 賵噩爻丿賷賸丕 賵賮賰乇賷賸丕.
賰鬲丕亘 賷丿乇爻 兀賵 賷亘丨孬 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賮賵賰賵 毓賳 丕賱鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱睾乇亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 胤乇兀鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞 賵丕賱胤乇賯 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷丞 賵賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱賯氐丕氐賷丞丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 賮賷 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱賲賲鬲丿丞 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇 丨鬲賶 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳貙 賵 丕賱匕賷 卮睾賱 賮賷賴 丕賱噩爻丿 賲丨賵乇 鬲賲孬賱丕鬲 丕賱胤乇賯 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷丞. 亘賳丕亍賸 毓賱賶 賵孬丕卅賯 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賮賷 賮乇賳爻丕. 丨賷孬 賷賲賰賳 賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 賲卮鬲乇賰 賱賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱爻賱胤賵賷丞 賵賱賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷丞. 賵丿賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 賮賷 匕賱賰 賵賲丕 鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳 丌孬丕乇 兀氐丕亘鬲 亘賳賿賷丞 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵廿賳爻丕賳賷鬲賴.
賵賲丕 鬲亘毓 匕賱賰 賲賳 孬賵乇丞貙 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱兀噩爻丕丿 囟丿 噩爻丿 丕賱爻噩賳 亘丕賱匕丕鬲.
" 賳卮兀丞 丕賱爻噩賳 囟賲賳 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷貙 賵丕賱賮乇賵賯丕鬲 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱鬲胤賵乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賵丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲." 賲賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 賲賳 丕賱毓賯丕亘 兀賵 丕賱鬲毓匕賷亘 丕賱毓賱賳賷 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇賷- 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷貙 廿賱賶 丕賱毓賯丕亘 賮賷 丕賱爻噩賳 賵賲賳賴 廿賱賶 丕賱丕賳賮乇丕丿賷貙 賵賲丕 卮賲賱 匕賱賰 賲賳 丕氐賱丕丨丕鬲 貨 賰丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲貙 賵丕賱毓賲賱貙 賵睾賷乇賴. 兀賷 孬賵乇丞 賵鬲賲乇丿 毓賱賶 賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱噩夭丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲 賱噩爻丿 丕賱爻噩賳 賵丕賱賯賵丞.
" 賮丕賱毓賳氐乇 丕賱賲毓鬲賲丿 賮賷 馗賴賵乇 丕賱爻噩賳 賴賵 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞 廿賱賶 賲丐爻爻丞貙 兀賵 亘氐賵乇丞 兀丿賯: 廿賳 爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘 ( 賲毓 丕賱賴丿賮 丕賱丕爻鬲乇丕鬲賷噩賷 丕賱匕賷 丕鬲禺匕鬲賴 賱賳賮爻賴丕 賮賷 丌禺乇 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓卮乇貙 賵賴賵 鬲賯賱賷氐 ( 丕賱賱丕卮乇毓賷丕鬲 丕賱卮毓亘賷丞) 鬲鬲兀賲賾賳 亘氐賵乇丞 兀賮囟賱 丨賷賳 鬲鬲禺賮賶 賵乇丕亍 賵馗賷賮丞 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 毓丕賲丞貙 丿丕禺賱 ( 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞)貙 兀賵 丨賷賳 鬲鬲賵馗賮 丿丕禺賱 賲丐爻爻丞 廿賰乇丕賴賷丞貙 囟賲賳 丕賱賲賰丕賳 丕賱賲睾賱賯貙 賮賷 ( 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨賷丞) 責" -( 氐181/182)
賵 賷胤乇丨 亘賴匕丕 丕賱氐丿丿 賮賵賰賵 毓丿丿賸丕 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞: 賰賷賮 丨賱 丕賱賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱廿賰乇丕賴賷貙 丕賱噩爻丿賷 貙 丕賱丕賳賮乇丕丿賷貙 丕賱爻乇賷 賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓賯丕亘貙 賲丨賱 丕賱賳賲賵匕噩 丕賱鬲氐賵乇賷貙 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷 丕賱丿賱丕賱賷貙 丕賱毓賱賳賷賾貙 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷賾責 賱賲丕匕丕 丨賱鬲 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞 賱賱毓賯賵亘丞 ( 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賱賷爻鬲 賴賷 丕賱鬲毓匕賷亘) 賲毓 丕賱爻噩賳 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 賯賵丕賲賴丕 丕賱賲丐爻爻賷貙 賲丨賱 丕賱賱毓亘丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賱賱丿賱丕賱丕鬲 丕賱毓賯丕亘賷丞貙 賵賲丨賱 丕賱丕丨鬲賮丕賱 丕賱氐丕禺亘 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷乇賵噩賴丕責
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷氐賵乇 亘卮賰賱 兀賵 亘丌禺乇 乇丨賱丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賮賷 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱亘卮乇賷貙 賵賷胤乇丨 兀賲孬賱丞 賲賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱馗賱賲 丕賱匕賷 賲丕乇爻鬲賴 丕賱爻賱胤丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱噩爻丿 亘丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱毓賳賮貙 賵丕賱匕賷 鬲噩賱賶 賮賷 賰丕賮丞 賲丐爻爻丕鬲賴丕 賲賳 賲孬賱貨 丕賱爻噩賵賳貙 賵丕賱賲爻鬲卮賮賷丕鬲貙 賵丕賱孬賰賳丕鬲 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷丞貙 賵睾賷乇賴丕. 賵賲賳 賯乇兀 賱賴 "鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱噩賳賵賳 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賰賱丕爻賷賰賷"貙 爻賷賱賲爻 匕賱賰 賵亘卮賰賱 噩賱賷賾.
賰鬲丕亘 賲丐賱賲 賳賮爻賷丕賸 賵噩爻丿賷賸丕 賵賮賰乇賷賸丕.
January 25, 2020
Is the world turning into a panopticon in which everyone of us cannot evade the gaze of whoever that is occupying the central point? I find this book to be making a powerful argument, but I do have doubts as to whether surveillance by itself (without corporal violence) could impose discipline ( in other words, whether the observed really interiorizes the system of surveillance). I also doubt as to whether the systems of micro-power really fits into a bigger top-down power hierarchy. In the example of the school for instance, I think that students have certain power over the teachers just as the teachers have over the students. I don't think power is as top-down as Foucault describes.
My favorite quote: "The ideal point of penality today would be an indefinite discipline: an interrogation without end, an investigation that would be extended without limit to a meticulous and ever more analytical observation, a judgement that would at the same time be the constitution of a file that was never closed, the calculated leniency of a penalty that would be interlaced with the ruthless curiosity of an examination."
My favorite quote: "The ideal point of penality today would be an indefinite discipline: an interrogation without end, an investigation that would be extended without limit to a meticulous and ever more analytical observation, a judgement that would at the same time be the constitution of a file that was never closed, the calculated leniency of a penalty that would be interlaced with the ruthless curiosity of an examination."
January 5, 2024
丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賾賴 賱丕 賷賳丕賯卮 賮賰乇丞 丕賱爻噩賵賳 賰丕丿賵丕鬲賺 氐購賲賲鬲 賱賱毓賯丕亘 賮賯胤 亘賱 賷鬲毓丿賾丕賴丕 廿賱賶 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱亘賳賷丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賱毓亘 丿賵乇賸丕 賲賴賲賸丕 賮賷 毓賲賱賷丞 丕賱賲乇丕賯亘丞 貙 賵兀賰亘乇 賲孬丕賱 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 丕賱賲爻鬲卮賮賷丕鬲 賵丕賱賲丿丕乇爻 亘毓賲賱賷丞 丕賱鬲丿賾噩賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賲 賮賷賴丕 賱氐丕賱丨 丕賱丨夭亘 丕賱丨丕賰賲 睾丕賱亘賸丕 貙 賲購賲丕乇爻丞賸 丕賱毓賯丕亘 亘氐賵乇賺 賲亘丕卮乇丞 賵睾賷乇 賲亘丕卮乇丞.
亘亘爻丕胤丞 丕賳鬲 賱丕 鬲丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賶 丕賱爻噩賳 賵丕賱鬲禺賵賷賮 丿丕卅賲賸丕 賱鬲爻賷胤乇 毓賱賶 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賵禺丕氐丞 賲毓 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賯丕卅賲 賱賽鬲購氐亘丨 丕賱爻賱胤丞 亘賲禺鬲賱賮 賲賰賵賳丕鬲賴丕 賵兀賮乇毓賴丕 噩賴丕夭 賱鬲睾賷賷乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵賯賲毓 丕賱丨乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賱廿乇丕丿丞.
兀賮賰丕乇 賮賵賰賵 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲乇賰賴丕 賮賷 賰鬲亘賴 賲賲賷夭丞 賵鬲賮鬲丨 丕賱匕賴賳 賱兀卮賷丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 鬲禺賮賶 毓賱賷 兀賵 賱賲 兀購毓乇賴丕 丕賴鬲賲丕賲賸丕 賲賳 賯亘賱!
亘亘爻丕胤丞 丕賳鬲 賱丕 鬲丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賶 丕賱爻噩賳 賵丕賱鬲禺賵賷賮 丿丕卅賲賸丕 賱鬲爻賷胤乇 毓賱賶 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賵禺丕氐丞 賲毓 丕賱鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賯丕卅賲 賱賽鬲購氐亘丨 丕賱爻賱胤丞 亘賲禺鬲賱賮 賲賰賵賳丕鬲賴丕 賵兀賮乇毓賴丕 噩賴丕夭 賱鬲睾賷賷乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵賯賲毓 丕賱丨乇賷丕鬲 賵丕賱廿乇丕丿丞.
兀賮賰丕乇 賮賵賰賵 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲乇賰賴丕 賮賷 賰鬲亘賴 賲賲賷夭丞 賵鬲賮鬲丨 丕賱匕賴賳 賱兀卮賷丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 鬲禺賮賶 毓賱賷 兀賵 賱賲 兀購毓乇賴丕 丕賴鬲賲丕賲賸丕 賲賳 賯亘賱!
February 17, 2013
Foucault, who was mentally unstable, tells us that there is no such thing as individual human agency except when we're lovingly embracing the slimy tendrils of "power". But "power" can't be defined because it's just out there slithering around for humans to use, even though it's an abstract concept. Oh yeah, and everything that' I'm writing right now is because I've (un)con)science)sciously submitted to the ruling authority of the keyboard, because the dominion of typing, which I will(fully) become the serpentine slave of, is part of an apparatus of discipline (disciple) which tells my hands what to do and by extension (existension) my soul, whatever that is, I'm not supposed to know, just Foucault.
October 31, 2022
Primo (e di certo non ultimo) incontro con Foucault, filosofo che ho deciso di approfondire per via dell'interesse che in me suscitano molte delle sue tematiche. In questa celebre opera Foucault esamina il passaggio dai vecchi supplizi medievali alla nascita della prigione come forma di sorveglianza e controllo. Vi si scopre il lento processo che, influenzato dalla progressiva capitalizzazione della societ脿, ha condotto a preferire lo sviluppo del sistema carcerario come espediente per eliminare gli individui ritenuti pericolosi o, tramite mezzi coercitivi, rieducare (diciamo) alle norme sociali imposte quelli ritenuti 'recuperabili'. Viene analizzato il fallimento di tutti questi propositi ed evidenziati i reali motivi che sottendono a simili pratiche. Il discorso si allarga poi alla dinamica del controllo e della sorveglianza che la societ脿 contemporanea esercita anche sugli individui liberi per irregimentarli e renderli docili alle disposizioni emanate dal potere. Lettura obbligatoria per tutti.
April 3, 2007
In many ways a response to the French government's penal codes of the 60s and 70s but also a continuation of Foucault's work in Madness and Civilization, the influence of D&P can be seen everywhere from Spielberg's Minority Report to Enemy of the State to Ted Conover's Newjack and most if not all critiques of surveillant governments. It's also a horrifying read, starting out as it does with an account of the ritualistic execution of a regicide, which Foucault compares favorably to the prisons of the Enlightenment. The general thrust is that under the guise of humanism, Europeans decided on punishing the soul rather than the body. This they accomplished first by quite theatrically monitoring prisoners and delinquents, and eventually by having prisoners monitor themselves, saving the government all the work.
I personally don't think Discipline and Punish is the strongest of Foucault's works, though. Partly, I think he misunderstands the nature of physical violence. His strategy here and in M&C is to lay out a pretty sinister historical transition in the way states used their power, passing over counterexamples that might disprove his point (Australia, anyone?), and then allow the reader to assume that the trend he has identified continues... to this... very... moment! You're supposed to wonder, is the videocamera in my bank (*gasp*) part of the Panopticon? Have I been deprived of my free will and become a tool of the State? Harold Bloom rightly complains of Foucault that he tended to forget that the historical ironies he uncovered were just metaphors, and aren't as all-encompassing as his many followers in academe suppose. Mikey's History of Sexuality books are much more closely reasoned, or at least Introduction is and what I've read of Uses of Pleasure.
The problem is that you can carp all day about D&P but you will continue to see it everywhere, long after you've set it down. That makes it an amazing book.
I personally don't think Discipline and Punish is the strongest of Foucault's works, though. Partly, I think he misunderstands the nature of physical violence. His strategy here and in M&C is to lay out a pretty sinister historical transition in the way states used their power, passing over counterexamples that might disprove his point (Australia, anyone?), and then allow the reader to assume that the trend he has identified continues... to this... very... moment! You're supposed to wonder, is the videocamera in my bank (*gasp*) part of the Panopticon? Have I been deprived of my free will and become a tool of the State? Harold Bloom rightly complains of Foucault that he tended to forget that the historical ironies he uncovered were just metaphors, and aren't as all-encompassing as his many followers in academe suppose. Mikey's History of Sexuality books are much more closely reasoned, or at least Introduction is and what I've read of Uses of Pleasure.
The problem is that you can carp all day about D&P but you will continue to see it everywhere, long after you've set it down. That makes it an amazing book.
January 7, 2021
This book made me think I must be getting older. Why? Because I used to enjoy trying to parse the unnecessarily complex and obtuse sentences of French intellectuals and now I seem to lack the patience. (A glorious example: "The moment that saw the transition from historico-ritual mechanisms for the formation of individuality to the scientifico-disciplinary mechanisms, when the normal took over from the ancestral, and measurement from status, thus substituting for the individuality of the memorable man that of the calculable man, that moment when the sciences of man became possible is the moment when a new technology of power and a new political anatomy of the body were implemented.") Oh, how we pine for our free-er days of savagery!
All that aside, Foucault seems to do an incredibly meticulous job of tracing the history of discipline and punishment. He takes the reader from medieval tortures and public executions on up through today's modern prison-industrial complex. As Marx predicted capitalism's eventual undoing of itself, Foucault seems to suggest that the prison itself will become obsolete, thereby being replaced by a series of ever more technical disciplinary apparatuses supplied by the likes of fields better suited for controlling/shaping the individual (sociology, psychology/psychiatry, education, etc.). Other than providing physical safety by removing the dangerous individual from his fellow citizens, we still seem to have very little additional insight into the benefits or preferred goals of incarceration. We still seem just as split on whether purely punitive measures are justified or whether rehabilitation is truly possible. The prison seems to mirror the very same social constructs we use to discipline and control ourselves--regimented schedules and timetables; clearly defined responses and roles; meaning, productivity, and avoidance of temptation through labor; etc. At one point, Foucault points out the arbitrary nature of penalization almost exactly split down the class divides (those who meet out justice and bring suits belonging to one class, and those who suffer punishment and commit crimes belonging to another; the arbitrary part being to which class and circumstances one is born).
I get the feeling that, like me, Mikey also requested a replica in the form of a cake in honor of his 12th birthday. The difference is in how we dealt with the disappointment of not getting such a cake. I shed a tear or two and played some Nintendo. But he didn't have Super Mario Brothers as a distraction, and thus he theorizes as such: "Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; behind the great abstraction of exchange, there continues the meticulous, concrete training of useful forces; the circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge; the play of signs defines the anchorages of power; it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, or altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole technique of forces and bodies."
And so, what are we left with? A court system that defines "offences" as that which the (nonviolent) accused sees as a vital life: "the lack of a home as vagabondage, the lack of a master as independence, the lack of work as freedom, the lack of a time-table as the fullness of days and nights." A separation between those who judge and those who punish, which gives an inordinate amount of power and mostly unmonitored discretion to those who punish. And an almost perpetual discussion over prison reform, a topic originating with the very first prison.
And here in the United States?
.
Note: This paperback edition has the worst book cover I've ever seen in my life.
-------------------------------------------------------
Words I Learned While Reading This Book:
| | | |
-----------------------------------------------
11/12/19 Update: I woke up a morning or two ago and thought to myself how much funnier it would have been if my review had simply read: This is the worst BDSM manual ever.
All that aside, Foucault seems to do an incredibly meticulous job of tracing the history of discipline and punishment. He takes the reader from medieval tortures and public executions on up through today's modern prison-industrial complex. As Marx predicted capitalism's eventual undoing of itself, Foucault seems to suggest that the prison itself will become obsolete, thereby being replaced by a series of ever more technical disciplinary apparatuses supplied by the likes of fields better suited for controlling/shaping the individual (sociology, psychology/psychiatry, education, etc.). Other than providing physical safety by removing the dangerous individual from his fellow citizens, we still seem to have very little additional insight into the benefits or preferred goals of incarceration. We still seem just as split on whether purely punitive measures are justified or whether rehabilitation is truly possible. The prison seems to mirror the very same social constructs we use to discipline and control ourselves--regimented schedules and timetables; clearly defined responses and roles; meaning, productivity, and avoidance of temptation through labor; etc. At one point, Foucault points out the arbitrary nature of penalization almost exactly split down the class divides (those who meet out justice and bring suits belonging to one class, and those who suffer punishment and commit crimes belonging to another; the arbitrary part being to which class and circumstances one is born).
I get the feeling that, like me, Mikey also requested a replica in the form of a cake in honor of his 12th birthday. The difference is in how we dealt with the disappointment of not getting such a cake. I shed a tear or two and played some Nintendo. But he didn't have Super Mario Brothers as a distraction, and thus he theorizes as such: "Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; behind the great abstraction of exchange, there continues the meticulous, concrete training of useful forces; the circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge; the play of signs defines the anchorages of power; it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, or altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole technique of forces and bodies."
And so, what are we left with? A court system that defines "offences" as that which the (nonviolent) accused sees as a vital life: "the lack of a home as vagabondage, the lack of a master as independence, the lack of work as freedom, the lack of a time-table as the fullness of days and nights." A separation between those who judge and those who punish, which gives an inordinate amount of power and mostly unmonitored discretion to those who punish. And an almost perpetual discussion over prison reform, a topic originating with the very first prison.
And here in the United States?
.
Note: This paperback edition has the worst book cover I've ever seen in my life.
-------------------------------------------------------
Words I Learned While Reading This Book:
| | | |
-----------------------------------------------
11/12/19 Update: I woke up a morning or two ago and thought to myself how much funnier it would have been if my review had simply read: This is the worst BDSM manual ever.
Read
October 12, 2016Ovo je bilo mnogo prijatnije iskustvo nego 拧to sam o膷ekivala - e, da mi je Nadzirati i ka啪njavati pre iks godina bio prvi Fuko, a ne Re膷i i stvari, ko zna 拧ta bi bilo.
S druge strane, drago mi je 拧to ga 膷itam s malo razvijenijim kriti膷kim mi拧ljenjem nego onomad sa dvaes godina :P Jer Fuko pi拧e tako super retori膷ki zavodljivo a usto potkovano 膷injenicama da mic po mic 膷italac krene da prihvata i one klimavije delove njegovih teorija o zatvoru kao sistemu za (jelte) nadziranje i ka啪njavanje koji u su拧tini odra啪ava ustrojstvo 膷itave dr啪ave i povratno ga odre膽uje. Sve je to izlo啪eno tako ubedljivo i, ponovi膰u, sa sjajnom retorikom i inteligentnom stra拧膰u (koja mnohohogo nedostaje raznim Fukoovim sledbenicima) da u nekom trenutku prosto mo啪e da izmakne kako Fuko "dr啪avi kao represivnom aparatu" ne suprotstavlja ni拧ta tj. kad 膷ovek bolje pogleda ispada da 啪ivot van represivnog sistema ne samo da nije mogu膰 nego da nije ni zamisliv sistem koji nije represivan. Ili kad na kvarnjaka izjedna膷ava zatvore i 拧kolstvo (zapravo ne, to je ok), dakle zatvore i bolnice - jasno je da to 膷ini jer ga zanima odnos prema *du拧evnim* bolesnicima (slede膰e na spisku: Istorija ludila u doba klasicizma) ali zaboga, re膰i 膰ete vi, nije to sasvim isto! a Fuko 膰e odgovoriti nenenene jeste, slu拧aj pa啪ljivo, i onda 膰e navaliti s brdom dokaza i primera i sve koji se savr拧eno uklapaju u njegovu teoriju i 膷ik se onda vi dr啪ite ne膷eg drugog.
Stvarno dobra knjiga i stvarno pristupa膷na i zanimljiva i lep dokaz da poststrukturalisti umeju i jasno da se izra啪avaju kad ho膰e. Samo 膷itati sa zrnom soli (i ruke dalje od epigona, hvala, dovoljno).
S druge strane, drago mi je 拧to ga 膷itam s malo razvijenijim kriti膷kim mi拧ljenjem nego onomad sa dvaes godina :P Jer Fuko pi拧e tako super retori膷ki zavodljivo a usto potkovano 膷injenicama da mic po mic 膷italac krene da prihvata i one klimavije delove njegovih teorija o zatvoru kao sistemu za (jelte) nadziranje i ka啪njavanje koji u su拧tini odra啪ava ustrojstvo 膷itave dr啪ave i povratno ga odre膽uje. Sve je to izlo啪eno tako ubedljivo i, ponovi膰u, sa sjajnom retorikom i inteligentnom stra拧膰u (koja mnohohogo nedostaje raznim Fukoovim sledbenicima) da u nekom trenutku prosto mo啪e da izmakne kako Fuko "dr啪avi kao represivnom aparatu" ne suprotstavlja ni拧ta tj. kad 膷ovek bolje pogleda ispada da 啪ivot van represivnog sistema ne samo da nije mogu膰 nego da nije ni zamisliv sistem koji nije represivan. Ili kad na kvarnjaka izjedna膷ava zatvore i 拧kolstvo (zapravo ne, to je ok), dakle zatvore i bolnice - jasno je da to 膷ini jer ga zanima odnos prema *du拧evnim* bolesnicima (slede膰e na spisku: Istorija ludila u doba klasicizma) ali zaboga, re膰i 膰ete vi, nije to sasvim isto! a Fuko 膰e odgovoriti nenenene jeste, slu拧aj pa啪ljivo, i onda 膰e navaliti s brdom dokaza i primera i sve koji se savr拧eno uklapaju u njegovu teoriju i 膷ik se onda vi dr啪ite ne膷eg drugog.
Stvarno dobra knjiga i stvarno pristupa膷na i zanimljiva i lep dokaz da poststrukturalisti umeju i jasno da se izra啪avaju kad ho膰e. Samo 膷itati sa zrnom soli (i ruke dalje od epigona, hvala, dovoljno).
May 27, 2015
The first two chapters are interesting, although his defense of public torture is idiotic. His critique of modern society is a stunning case of postmodern claptrap. My god, prisons are meant to dissuade us from committing crime! You don't say! He essentially says Enlightenment reform was actually insidious and bad for humanity. In this way he is actually a conservative, by calling into question all the reasons for reform. The fact that the left embraced this book, which was a grand critique of left wing reform ideology, is just another reason why the conservatives triumphed in the age of postmodernism, when leftists became their own worst enemy. Internal debate is good, but without a moral compass and faith in reform, then you are lost. I think/hope the left is regaining this and abandoning the poisons of postmodernism and its hand-maiden moral relativism. Simply put, this is a nihilistic work if you follow it to its conclusion, and nihilism serves no end. Read Locke, Rousseau, and just about anyone else if you can.
June 3, 2008
This book is terrible. Is it history? Is it philosophy? It is neither, both, and blows. I will let Foucault in on a little secret: when you write a book in which you are presenting an argument, the readers should not be made to have their eyes start bleeding as they try to pinpoint and tack down exactly what your argument is. Yes, many women will be impressed by your colorful, flowery language and you will get laid. However, no one will ever understand what you are on about. Hmm, maybe that was your angle. After all, you can't criticise an argument that you don't understand...
May 24, 2020
This deeply disturbing work starts with the evolution of modern penal justice system from the public spectacle of gruesome tortures and executions pertaining to the earlier 17th and 18th centuries. Foucault argues, with his rich historical citations, that the changing to听the methods of incarceration to maintain social order marks the shift of subjection听and control from individual's anatomy over psyche by means of various schemes of hierarchical observation(surveillance). With architectural figure of 'Panopticon' implemented in prisons enables and exposes听the prisoners听to being observed, watched upon anytime from the centralized annular watch tower.
It felt听ineluctable to note from citations provided parallels to major historical movements like Enlightenment or French Revolution. Foucault here also connects the other 'emergent' structures听of Enlightenment era such as the militia schools,听education system, systematic working patterns in (manu)factories and other institutions听with the ways of social control with this evolving form of discipling the听crime and听punishment.
"Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?"
What started as a erudite historicity of incarceration and penal practices ends with underscoring the problem and the power of normalization in the mass society making it all the more 'undemocratic' and its further production of knowledge and 'disciplines.' Are we all prisoners of this constructed听human reality?
Afterall听a highly unavoidable read to explore the dynamics of power relations and authority, existing hegemony of the western societies which pretty impact everywhere in these postcolonial postmodern times.
Foucault was a mad Genius with an intriguing biography. His influences from youth communist circle, experimentations with homosexuality, recreational stuffs, BDSM, and听Nietzsche, Kant, Heidegger,听Althusser, Freud, Sade make his books a weird mix of rich intellectual experience. As for me, this is the most approachable Foucault having tried and dropped many of his works.
It felt听ineluctable to note from citations provided parallels to major historical movements like Enlightenment or French Revolution. Foucault here also connects the other 'emergent' structures听of Enlightenment era such as the militia schools,听education system, systematic working patterns in (manu)factories and other institutions听with the ways of social control with this evolving form of discipling the听crime and听punishment.
"Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?"
What started as a erudite historicity of incarceration and penal practices ends with underscoring the problem and the power of normalization in the mass society making it all the more 'undemocratic' and its further production of knowledge and 'disciplines.' Are we all prisoners of this constructed听human reality?
Afterall听a highly unavoidable read to explore the dynamics of power relations and authority, existing hegemony of the western societies which pretty impact everywhere in these postcolonial postmodern times.
Foucault was a mad Genius with an intriguing biography. His influences from youth communist circle, experimentations with homosexuality, recreational stuffs, BDSM, and听Nietzsche, Kant, Heidegger,听Althusser, Freud, Sade make his books a weird mix of rich intellectual experience. As for me, this is the most approachable Foucault having tried and dropped many of his works.
owned-for-years-but-still-not-read
November 10, 2007I started it. I didn't finish. And unless I one day find myself in a situation with extremely limited mobility and options, with a great deal of time (read: years) on my hands, it's conceivable that I never will.
I'd like to have read this book, since I'm very interested in the topics it addresses, but I don't know that I have the mind, stomach, or patience for Foucault. So while I'd like to have read it, I don't know that I'd like as much to read it, if you get what I'm saying. Well, maybe someday.... It wasn't boring, but it was kind of hard, and as I'm not much of a French Theory type of girl, nor am I particularly Intellectual, every other page I was sort of scratching my little tete and sort of wondering all over again what the point of all this was, and whether it was even possible that there was one.
I bet a lot of people'd love this. Plus, anyone who doubts its relevance completely (and not just periodically) should read about the NYPD's new "Sky Watch" tower program.
Next time I try this guy, if I do, I'll probably go for the stuff on madness.
I'd like to have read this book, since I'm very interested in the topics it addresses, but I don't know that I have the mind, stomach, or patience for Foucault. So while I'd like to have read it, I don't know that I'd like as much to read it, if you get what I'm saying. Well, maybe someday.... It wasn't boring, but it was kind of hard, and as I'm not much of a French Theory type of girl, nor am I particularly Intellectual, every other page I was sort of scratching my little tete and sort of wondering all over again what the point of all this was, and whether it was even possible that there was one.
I bet a lot of people'd love this. Plus, anyone who doubts its relevance completely (and not just periodically) should read about the NYPD's new "Sky Watch" tower program.
Next time I try this guy, if I do, I'll probably go for the stuff on madness.
October 20, 2022
賮賵讴賵貙 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩踿 賴賲讴丕乇蹖鈥屫ж� 亘丕 诏乇賵賴蹖 丕賮乇丕胤蹖 丕夭 丕讴鬲蹖賵蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 丨丕賲蹖 丕氐賱丕丨 丿乇 夭賳丿丕賳鈥屬囏� 賳賵卮鬲. 丕蹖丿賴鈥屰� 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳馗丕乇鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 賲丿乇賳貙 丿乇 賲賯丕蹖爻賴 亘丕 丿賳蹖丕蹖 賯丿蹖賲貙 賮乇丕诏蹖乇鬲乇 卮丿賴 賵 亘賴 賳丨賵 卮乇蹖乇丕賳賴鈥屫臂� 丕毓賲丕賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丕蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴 亘賴 诏賵卮 賳爻賱蹖 讴賴 賲禺丕胤亘丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賵丿賳丿貙 丨乇賮 趩賳丿丕賳 鬲丕夭賴鈥屫й� 賳賲蹖鈥屫①呚�. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱 丕诏乇 賮賵讴賵 匕乇賴鈥屫й� 丿乇讴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 丿丕卮鬲 賵 丕蹖賳賯丿乇 賴賲 賲夭賵乇* 賳亘賵丿貙 卮丕蹖丿 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 讴賲蹖 亘乇 丨乇賮賴丕蹖卮 鬲丕賲賱 讴乇丿. 賵賱蹖 丕賵 鬲賳賴丕 賯氐踿 賮賱爻賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘз佖�. 噩丕賱亘 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲丕孬蹖乇蹖 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 丕賳诏賱锟斤拷爻蹖鈥屫藏ㄘз� 賵 亘賴 鬲亘毓卮 丿乇 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖蹖 亘丕 賮乇賴賳诏 丿賳亘丕賱賴鈥屫辟堌� 賲孬賱 丕蹖乇丕賳貙 诏匕丕卮鬲貙 賴蹖趩 賵賯鬲 丿乇 禺賵丿 賮乇丕賳爻賴 賳丿丕卮鬲
*賴賳賵夭 爻賴 爻丕賱 丕夭 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳诏匕卮鬲賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 氐丿丕蹖 丕賳讴乇丕賱丕氐賵丕鬲 丕賳賯賱丕亘 丕爻賱丕賲蹖 丕蹖乇丕賳 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 倬蹖趩蹖丿. 賮賵讴賵 讴賴 丕夭 鬲噩爻賲 禺卮賵賳鬲鈥屫ㄘж� 丕乇丕丿踿 噩賲毓蹖貙 賲孬賱 亘趩賴鈥屫й屫� 亘賴 卮賵賯 丌賲丿賴 亘賵丿貙 丿賵 亘丕乇 亘賴 丕蹖乇丕賳 爻賮乇 讴乇丿 賵 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 卮蹖賮鬲踿 鬲賲丕賲鈥屬傌� "賲毓賳賵蹖鬲" 禺賲蹖賳蹖 卮丿賴 亘賵丿貙 亘賴 丿爻鬲鈥屫ㄙ堌池� 丿乇 賳賵賮賱 賱賵卮丕鬲賵 卮鬲丕賮鬲. 賮賵讴賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 鬲乇賵乇蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕爻賱丕賲鈥屭必� 乇丕 "乇賵丨 噩賴丕賳蹖 亘蹖鈥屫辟堌�" 賲蹖鈥屫屫� 丌賳賵賯鬲 亘乇丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖鈥屬囏� 賲賳亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 讴賴 賲丿丕乇爻卮丕賳貙 丿乇 毓賲賱貙 丨讴賲 夭賳丿丕賳 乇丕 丿丕乇丿
*賴賳賵夭 爻賴 爻丕賱 丕夭 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳诏匕卮鬲賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 氐丿丕蹖 丕賳讴乇丕賱丕氐賵丕鬲 丕賳賯賱丕亘 丕爻賱丕賲蹖 丕蹖乇丕賳 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 倬蹖趩蹖丿. 賮賵讴賵 讴賴 丕夭 鬲噩爻賲 禺卮賵賳鬲鈥屫ㄘж� 丕乇丕丿踿 噩賲毓蹖貙 賲孬賱 亘趩賴鈥屫й屫� 亘賴 卮賵賯 丌賲丿賴 亘賵丿貙 丿賵 亘丕乇 亘賴 丕蹖乇丕賳 爻賮乇 讴乇丿 賵 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 卮蹖賮鬲踿 鬲賲丕賲鈥屬傌� "賲毓賳賵蹖鬲" 禺賲蹖賳蹖 卮丿賴 亘賵丿貙 亘賴 丿爻鬲鈥屫ㄙ堌池� 丿乇 賳賵賮賱 賱賵卮丕鬲賵 卮鬲丕賮鬲. 賮賵讴賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 鬲乇賵乇蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 丕爻賱丕賲鈥屭必� 乇丕 "乇賵丨 噩賴丕賳蹖 亘蹖鈥屫辟堌�" 賲蹖鈥屫屫� 丌賳賵賯鬲 亘乇丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖鈥屬囏� 賲賳亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 讴賴 賲丿丕乇爻卮丕賳貙 丿乇 毓賲賱貙 丨讴賲 夭賳丿丕賳 乇丕 丿丕乇丿
May 30, 2015
Finally reading Foucault after reading a ton of stuff that was (supposedly) inspired by Foucault made me realize I like Foucault a LOT more than I like people who like Foucault.
May 18, 2025
Offers a profound analysis of the relationship between power, institutions, and individual autonomy. Its exploration of modernity as a system of increased repression, rather than progress, challenges the notion of civilization's advance as presented by thinkers like Steven Pinker. While Pinker argues in The Better Angels of Our Nature that violence has declined in modern society, Foucault counters by illustrating that this apparent reduction in physical violence has been replaced by a more insidious form of control鈥攑sychological and moral discipline.
Foucault鈥檚 critique centers on the rise of institutions that govern and regulate human behavior鈥攕chools, hospitals, military parades, and factories. These systems, ostensibly set up for social care, actually serve to repress individuality, autonomy, and freedom, under the guise of efficiency. Modern society, in Foucault鈥檚 view, is not more liberated but more deeply regimented, with work itself becoming a primary tool of social control. Here, Foucault builds upon Nietzsche鈥檚 ideas, recognizing that, in the name of liberalism, society has become a vast network of prisons that discipline not just the body but the very essence of the self.
The power structures Foucault describes are not merely external forces exerting control but are internalized in individuals, shaping our desires, actions, and perceptions of reality. This insight leads him to critique the hypocrisy of modern liberalism, which champions freedom while maintaining systems that ensure subjugation. Foucault urges us to recognize that much of our 鈥渇reedom鈥� is illusory, as it operates within boundaries set by institutional power.
Foucault鈥檚 writing, while often dense and challenging, is well worth the effort. His work requires readers to slow down and think critically about how power functions in modern life, beyond the obvious forms of domination. Discipline and Punish is not merely an intellectual exercise but a call to recognize and confront the structures that shape our lives, often without our awareness.
For anyone interested in understanding the relationship between power and personal autonomy, this work is essential. It may require careful, patient reading, but its insights are worth the intellectual investment. Foucault鈥檚 critique remains relevant today, making this text not only an academic classic but a timely exploration of modern social dynamics.
Foucault鈥檚 critique centers on the rise of institutions that govern and regulate human behavior鈥攕chools, hospitals, military parades, and factories. These systems, ostensibly set up for social care, actually serve to repress individuality, autonomy, and freedom, under the guise of efficiency. Modern society, in Foucault鈥檚 view, is not more liberated but more deeply regimented, with work itself becoming a primary tool of social control. Here, Foucault builds upon Nietzsche鈥檚 ideas, recognizing that, in the name of liberalism, society has become a vast network of prisons that discipline not just the body but the very essence of the self.
The power structures Foucault describes are not merely external forces exerting control but are internalized in individuals, shaping our desires, actions, and perceptions of reality. This insight leads him to critique the hypocrisy of modern liberalism, which champions freedom while maintaining systems that ensure subjugation. Foucault urges us to recognize that much of our 鈥渇reedom鈥� is illusory, as it operates within boundaries set by institutional power.
Foucault鈥檚 writing, while often dense and challenging, is well worth the effort. His work requires readers to slow down and think critically about how power functions in modern life, beyond the obvious forms of domination. Discipline and Punish is not merely an intellectual exercise but a call to recognize and confront the structures that shape our lives, often without our awareness.
For anyone interested in understanding the relationship between power and personal autonomy, this work is essential. It may require careful, patient reading, but its insights are worth the intellectual investment. Foucault鈥檚 critique remains relevant today, making this text not only an academic classic but a timely exploration of modern social dynamics.
September 7, 2017
韦慰 螤伪谓慰蟺蟿喂魏蠈谓, 蠅蟼 畏 伪蟺慰蟿蔚位蔚蟽渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿蔚蟻畏 渭苇胃慰未慰蟼 蔚位苇纬蠂慰蠀. 螒蟺伪蟻伪委蟿畏蟿慰 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 魏伪蟿伪谓蠈畏蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 渭伪蟼.
Read
November 14, 2024Once upon a time, there was a strict prison.
Prison had many unhappy inmates.
Inmates plotted a daring escape.
Escape plans were discovered by guards.
Guards tightened security measures.
Measures included constant surveillance.
Surveillance made inmates very paranoid.
Paranoid inmates started reading " Discipline and Punish ".
" Discipline and Punish " made inmates acting strangely.
Strangely, surveillance began to be perceived as a panopticon.
Panopticon made one inmate befriend a guard.
Guard didn't read " Discipline and Punish ".
"Discipline and Punish " became a panopticon.
Panopticon made guard share secrets about the warden.
Warden was secretly afraid of mice.
Mice were smuggled into the prison.
Prison became overrun with rodents.
Rodents caused confusion.
Confusion allowed inmates to escape.
Escape made inmates reflect deeper on the panopticon.
Panopticon made inmates return to the prison.
Prison was happy to host them again.
Again, inmates started to read " Discipline and Punish ", and lived happily ever after.
Prison had many unhappy inmates.
Inmates plotted a daring escape.
Escape plans were discovered by guards.
Guards tightened security measures.
Measures included constant surveillance.
Surveillance made inmates very paranoid.
Paranoid inmates started reading " Discipline and Punish ".
" Discipline and Punish " made inmates acting strangely.
Strangely, surveillance began to be perceived as a panopticon.
Panopticon made one inmate befriend a guard.
Guard didn't read " Discipline and Punish ".
"Discipline and Punish " became a panopticon.
Panopticon made guard share secrets about the warden.
Warden was secretly afraid of mice.
Mice were smuggled into the prison.
Prison became overrun with rodents.
Rodents caused confusion.
Confusion allowed inmates to escape.
Escape made inmates reflect deeper on the panopticon.
Panopticon made inmates return to the prison.
Prison was happy to host them again.
Again, inmates started to read " Discipline and Punish ", and lived happily ever after.
January 24, 2022
讴鬲丕亘 亘爻蹖丕乇 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿蹖爻鬲貙 卮丕蹖丿 丿乇 賮氐賱 賴丕蹖蹖 賳诏丕賴 爻禺鬲诏蹖乇丕賳賴鈥屫й� 丿丕乇丿 亘賴 禺氐賵氐 丿乇 亘丕亘 丕賳囟亘丕胤 丿乇 亘蹖賲丕乇爻鬲丕賳. 丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓 賳诏丕賴 卮禺氐 賲賳 亘賴 賲賯賵賱賴 賲乇丕賯亘鬲 (讴賴 丨丕賱丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 夭賲丕賳 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿乇诏蹖乇卮 賴爻鬲蹖賲) 乇丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 丿丕丿.
賳诏丕賴 爻乇丕爻乇亘蹖賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 賵 爻丕禺鬲 賵 賲賴賳丿爻蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿卮丕賳 倬賱蹖爻 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘丕卮賳丿. 禺賵丿賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖: 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 趩賯丿乇 丕夭 丕毓賲丕賱蹖 讴賴 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴蹖賲 乇丕 亘丕 倬蹖卮 賮乇囟 丿蹖丿賴 卮丿賳貙 賲賳囟亘胤 亘賵丿賳貙 卮賴乇賵賳丿 賲胤蹖毓 賯丕賳賵賳 亘賵丿賳 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴蹖賲責
鈥� 趩乇丕 蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 讴賲 丿丕丿賲責 丿賱蹖賱卮 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲丕 乇亘胤蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿 讴鬲丕亘 賳丿丕乇丿貙 亘賱讴賴 賲賳 亘賴 賴乇 卮禺氐蹖 讴賴 丿賱 丿乇 诏乇賵 丕賳賯賱丕亘 鄣鄯 丿丕卮鬲 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賲 賳诏丕賴 亘丿賵賳 爻賵诏蹖乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賲. 賲賳 噩賲賱賴 賮賵讴賵 讴賴 鬲讴賱蹖賮卮 乇賵卮賳 丕爻鬲.
賳诏丕賴 爻乇丕爻乇亘蹖賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 賵 爻丕禺鬲 賵 賲賴賳丿爻蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿卮丕賳 倬賱蹖爻 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘丕卮賳丿. 禺賵丿賲乇丕賯亘鬲蹖: 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 趩賯丿乇 丕夭 丕毓賲丕賱蹖 讴賴 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴蹖賲 乇丕 亘丕 倬蹖卮 賮乇囟 丿蹖丿賴 卮丿賳貙 賲賳囟亘胤 亘賵丿賳貙 卮賴乇賵賳丿 賲胤蹖毓 賯丕賳賵賳 亘賵丿賳 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴蹖賲責
鈥� 趩乇丕 蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 讴賲 丿丕丿賲責 丿賱蹖賱卮 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲丕 乇亘胤蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿 讴鬲丕亘 賳丿丕乇丿貙 亘賱讴賴 賲賳 亘賴 賴乇 卮禺氐蹖 讴賴 丿賱 丿乇 诏乇賵 丕賳賯賱丕亘 鄣鄯 丿丕卮鬲 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賲 賳诏丕賴 亘丿賵賳 爻賵诏蹖乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賲. 賲賳 噩賲賱賴 賮賵讴賵 讴賴 鬲讴賱蹖賮卮 乇賵卮賳 丕爻鬲.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,653 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.