Discipline And Punish: The Birth of the Prison

In this chapter, Foucault outlines the disciplines that combine for optimal training of bodies. He argues that discipline “makes individuals,” reducing them and documenting everything about them (170). Hierarchical observation is the first of these disciplines. This form of observation permeated all institutions of power as the use of docile bodies became more prevalent. People were carefully watched, for example, in military camps. It was not enough to surveille the outside of these camps; intricate internal observation was needed. The space needed to be constructed so administrators could move freely about the space and see all interiors. Foucault describes this as a “microscope of conduct,” a disciplinary strategy to regulate every small action. The ideal enactment of this discipline would enable the observer to see everything at once. Limitations of space meant that leaders needed to appoint officers who could assist with observation; for example, in a classroom, a teacher may select one or two students to serve as hall monitors.

The second discipline is normalizing judgment. Training requires that individuals submit to constant judgment of behavior and actions. Foucault describes how children at an orphanage begin each day with an assessment. Every movement is regulated and judged. Punishment is used to correct a failure to comply with regulations. Therefore, the focus of punishment is non-conformance with norms. Punishment must be applied to actions that have little to no effect on the whole because those actions comprise a larger system of accepted behavior. Foucault describes Norms as a kind of power. Society replaced status and privilege with Norms; people were expected to blindly comply. The same is true in an institution; subjects must adhere to the accepted norms. Favored punishments are those that require the individual to practice and repeat the desired behavior. Along with and more often than punishment, administration should use gratification and rewards to achieve desired action.

The third discipline is examination. This combines elements of the previous two disciplines by utilizing a hierarchy and judgment. Examination makes individuals visible; a careful record of their abilities and adherence to Norms is documented. These documents form their own system of power through knowledge. The subject becomes visible while the observer fades into concealment. Foucault describes this as the power of the gaze. This documentation also contributes to the individualization of subjects. A dossier of their actions and examinations solidifies them into the system and transforms them into recognizable objects or “cases.”

In contrast to the rigid disciplines outlined in the previous chapter, Foucault centers on another form of discipline called “Panopticism.” He opens by describing the closing of a town during a pandemic. While authorities took extreme measures to isolate everyone, there were too many people to surveille. Foucault argues that the rise of plague planted the seed of organized surveillance and disciplines of separation and control. The Panopticon, a concept developed by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, provided the physical structure to ensure these measures. The Panopticon is a piece of architecture that provides optimal observation. A tower sits at the center with large windows, surrounded by a circle of divided cells. Each cell is singular and walled off from the others. Those in the cells cannot see each other, but they can see the tower. Inside the tower is the observer. Light is utilized to keep those in the cell from seeing the guard inside the tower. This mechanism maximizes visibility of prisoners while concealing power. Prisoners are aware that someone might be observing them, but they are unable to tell who is watching or when that observation is taking place.

Bentham asserted that power needed to be both “visible and unverifiable” (201). It was integral to the success of the mechanism that the inmates have the tower constantly in view but never the guards. In this way, the Panopticon strips power of individuality; there is no singular person toward which to direct disdain or fear. Additionally, the Panopticon provides observers with the opportunity to perform myriad experiments upon the prisoners and monitor their outcomes. Foucault recognizes the many potential uses of this model and its ability to produce docile bodies. The Panopticon also eliminates issues of sovereign tyranny by decentralizing power. He suggests that the tower should be made available to any outsider who may want to observe the activities of the inmates.

Foucault outlines how traditional institutions were less effective than the Panopticon. They relied on disciplines that suppressed, whereas individuals working within Bentham’s mechanism are enabled; they can learn and grow. Traditional styles relied on external surveillance; it needed to observe and control everything surrounding the institution. The Panopticon makes it possible to limit the need for control. Traditional models were often run by private religious groups or centralized police forces with ties to sovereign power. The Panopticon utilizes police in a different way. They have limited control but still have complete power so long as they make others visible and themselves invisible. Bentham’s model presents an opportunity for maximum results with low economic cost while still maintaining power through the control of knowledge.