Discipline And Punish: The Birth of the Prison

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1975

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Part 2Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 2: “Punishment”

Part 2, Chapter 1 Summary: “Generalized punishment”

In this chapter, Foucault outlines the disparate reasons for the shift from torture and public spectacle to the carceral system. The continuance of this form of punishment gave ruling leaders a reputation of tyranny and brutality. Furthermore, the importance of spectators and their interest in the accused created a platform for rebellion against the king. Protests against public torture increased in the 1700s. Foucault suggests that—although the rhetoric of these protests centered on humanitarian ideologies—the reason for the shift in judicial punishment was a reframing of power.

In the 18th century, crimes were overall less violent. This decrease in aggressive offenses reflected a shift in the economy. People were becoming wealthier, and, therefore, placed greater value on their possessions. As the quality of life improved for the population, most crimes were related to theft and scamming rather than violent behavior. The law was becoming more detailed and addressed more minor offenses than it ever had before. Investigators became better at uncovering perpetrators and proving their guilt through scientific methods, while law enforcement developed greater surveillance. All these changes, however, were results of a shifting system of power.

Public torture and punishment revealed an imbalance of power in the judicial system. The people were increasingly aware of the omnipotent control of the prosecution, judges, and sovereign leaders. Each time punishments were applied that revealed loopholes in the system, favoritism, or abuses of power, the people grew further disillusioned. Therefore, punishment needed to serve as a strategy of power—one that would maintain the compliance of the masses. The law needed to have the appearance of equality and recognize public power.

The law also needed to reflect the shift in illegalities. Foucault argues that all social classes embrace their forms of illegalities and that certain levels of illegalities are necessary for the maintenance of an economy. Lower classes engage in the illegalities of property: the thief and burglar. This illegality was subject to certain limitations. Those within the lower classes were free to steal from one another but not someone from the government, wealthier class, or someone from an even lower class, such as an unhoused person. Meanwhile, upper classes enjoyed an illegality of rights they imposed freely upon the proletariat. Both illegalities of property and illegality of rights had the tendency to expand to serious offenses. Therefore, a system of legislation was needed to address this possibility.

The system reflected the class system. Illegalities of property were handled by lower courts while special judicial systems were applied for the major offenses of illegalities of rights like fraud and tax evasion. These special systems applied leniency to the bourgeoisie, ensuring the continuation of the illegalities of rights. The purpose of this modern penal system was not to eliminate illegality. Instead, it was to apply power in a way that favored some and targeted others.

A humanitarian approach to punishment provided the best opportunity for this framework of power. Foucault argues that the concept of “humanity” is rooted in money and power. Punishing the body did little to address the social disorders that occurred as a result of a crime. Rather than assigning values to a hierarchy of crimes, punishments are based on the ripple effects of a crime—the attention, scandal, and likelihood of re-offense. The focus shifted from what happened to what could potentially occur. This new framework of power needed to follow five rules.

First, it must have sufficient ideality—meaning that the pain involved in punishment should be centered on the possibility rather than the actuality. People need to fear the idea of punishment rather than experience bodily pain. Second, it must have a lateral effect; it should be intense enough to discourage others from committing the same crime. Third, it must have perfect certainty. The law must be exact and known so people can follow it. Fourth, it must have common truth. Public torture elicited a public confession, which acted as a form of proof of guilt. This new system must be assured of guilt before punishment by a variety of proofs. Fifth, the new penal system must have optimal punishment, which means that the punishments applied must mean something to the accused. A small fine may be a substantial punishment to someone in a lower class and too small to worry a member of the bourgeoisie.

Part 2, Chapter 2 Summary: “The gentle way in punishment”

A penal system that functions as punishment of the soul rather than the body requires specific conditions. First, the punishments cannot be random. Foucault asserts that someone considering committing a crime should be able to picture and fully conceive the ramifications of the action. Second, many forces must come together to create a mechanical system of punishment. The public must feel that crimes are unattractive and feel fearful of the possibility of punishment. The discipline must outweigh the appeal of the crime. Third, the penalty must come to a conclusion. Foucault suggests that the punishment loses its meaning if it does not end. In traditional public spectacle, the punishment culminated in death. Imprisonment also requires a close, but the purpose of rehabilitation means a different kind of closure.

Fourth, the punishment should have a reverberating effect. While a punishment is directed toward a criminal, it must also be directed at anyone considering committing a crime. Furthermore, it must be administered in a way that makes everyone feel invested in the punishment. The public must believe that it is in the interest of the common good that discipline be applied. Crimes must be about more than a mere attack on the sovereign. The public must believe that criminals are wronging everyone by their actions. This idea connects to the fifth condition, which suggests a complete reframing of society itself as an “economy of publicity” (109). Rather than focusing on the horrific nature of punishment through public torture, society must focus on morality and the lessons to be learned from punishment. The drama of the accused must be played again and again to continually refresh, or recode, the lesson in the minds of the masses. This means that society must be pitted against the criminal, which makes up the sixth condition. Foucault suggests that the public tends to make heroes out of criminals, but this is a reversal of the aim of punishment. Therefore, the new system must be a part of the moral and social fabric of the people.

Foucault devotes the second half of the chapter to the concept of imprisonment. Originally, imprisonment was disdained by those advocating for penal reform. Imprisonment was a drain on public funds and served no purpose. It was also reminiscent of public torture; forcing someone to live without liberty and to undergo constant surveillance felt like another version of the same brutality of the sovereign. Yet, detention continued to grow in the 18th and 19th centuries. Children, women, and the sick could not be publicly executed, but they could be imprisoned. Therefore, detention began as a necessity for certain groups of people but grew as sensibilities changed. All countries began filling prisons with bodies, and England and the United States provided models for other countries to adopt.

In these new models, the administration of the prison held great power. Administration could alter the length of a sentence based on the conduct of the prisoner. Furthermore, all inmates were required to work under constant surveillance and receive moral training. The hope was that they would save enough money to start afresh once they were released and that their studies would help keep them on the path of righteousness. The common belief was that idleness caused people to commit crimes, so these prisons filled each hour of the day with specific activities and rituals. The prisoners were watched, and their behaviors were recorded. Administration separated inmates based upon their behaviors and backgrounds. Most essentially, these prisons concealed from the public the reality of the penalties.

Part 2 Analysis

It is important to note how power works in various ways throughout penal reform. At first glance, it is tempting to think that Foucault’s ideas align with Marxism: The examination of how the bourgeoisie and sovereign leaders manipulate and exercise power as a strategy connect to Karl Marx’s assertion that the upper classes impose and oppress through the expression of power. Foucault suggests that the bourgeoisie utilize punishment as a strategy of power to maintain their ability to engage in the illegalities of rights. However, Foucault did not agree with Marxism. He saw power as a pervasive element that endowed people with humanity: To express power was to be human.

This is evidenced by his emphasis also on the illegalities of property. The proletariat had access to this illegality so long as it did so under certain restrictions. In addition to judicial and bourgeoisie powers, Foucault also examines how the spectators and protests shaped the framework of the modern carceral system. Public power was not to be ignored. During public spectacles of torture and execution, the observers had a great amount of power in determining the outcome of the accused. Their cries to the king often turned into riots; if they did not believe the confession, they were angry at the possibility of an innocent person being killed. They held power in these moments, and that power was predicated upon knowledge.

Foucault’s examination of the function of power as a strategy is further expressed in the theme The Relationship Between Knowledge and Power. Public execution relied upon an element of secrecy, a concealment of power, to function. The accused was unaware of the work of the investigation and had no idea what charges or evidence had surfaced. The concealment intensified the fear of the accused. In contemporary punishment, the concealment is reflected in the detention: “The prison functions in this as an apparatus of knowledge” (126). The penalty of prison is hidden from public view; although people may understand what it means to be in prison, they are disconnected from the reality of the everyday existence of a prisoner. Therefore, the fear is directed toward the possibility of punishment. In both cases, concealment functions as a strategy of power. It is used to manipulate and control. As Foucault considers the conditions within which this new penal system could operate, he asserts that power must remain hidden behind a veil of humanitarianism. Governments can utilize secrecy in punishment because it is masked as kindness.

These conflicting ideas cause some to criticize Foucault’s rejection of Marxism and focus on the pervasiveness of power. The shift from public spectacle to concealment was rooted in the need to strip the public of its power at the scaffold. The bourgeoisie created the shift in the penal system to preserve their own illegalities and to maintain the total authority of the sovereign ruler.

One of the outcomes of concealment is that it may be easy for people to forget their fear—out of sight, out of mind. Foucault asserts that the public requires a constant refreshing of the lesson of punishment. Because the system no longer relies on the public spectacle of torture, this element of punishment is acted out in the drama of court rooms and sentencing. Consider this argument within the context of modern crime dramas, publicized court cases, and the prevalence of true crime documentaries and podcasts. The popularity of crime investigation and punishment reflects the shift from body to soul as detailed in the theme The Body Versus the Modern Soul. Rather than engaging in watching a body tortured in the town square, the public gathers to debate the morality of the accused. Discussions about crime have become increasingly cerebral, philosophical, and scientific. Foucault points to the Enlightenment as the catalyst for this shift. The Age of Reason meant that discipline must be considered through a lens of principle and rationality. It could no longer be a raucous affair of mob mentality.

When referring to the conditions of this new penal system, Foucault refers to ideas being coded. Foucault speaks about punishment as a form of language. The idea of a crime must be coded to the punishment rather than the gratification of the behavior. This idea further connects to The Function of Punishment. In the new system, punishment must go beyond rectifying an abuse of sovereign law. It must deter and affect all people. Advocates for reform argued that public torture desensitized the public to violent acts. Imprisonment helped to assuage this problem, but it also had the potential of eliminating the deterrent. Therefore, laws needed to become more specific and prevalent in the minds of the public so they could instantaneously connect the idea of a crime with its corresponding discipline.

Foucault’s emphasis on the language of punishment also reflects his other works on language. Just as Foucault embraced relativism in his work with discipline and punishment, he utilized relativism to understand language. Foucault suggested that words could never be complete representations of what they coded. When applied to the penal system, this idea means that the reality of punishment can never perfectly correlate with the crime. It will always be colored by individual experience and social and historical contexts.