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 4Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 4: “Prison”

Part 4, Chapter 1 Summary: “Complete and austere institutions”

Prisons are a contemporary invention and, therefore, born with problems. From its inception, the prison has been the focus of reform and advocacy. The concept of incarceration was intended to be a totally equal form of punishment. It quickly became a self-feeding monster that replaced all other forms of disciplinary action. Its central act of punishment was the removal of liberty. This made it appear to be a fair and equitable solution to criminality. Sentences could be applied for a smattering of crimes, and the time could be adjusted to fit the severity. Soon, prisons were expected to do more than merely contain individuals. They were expected to transform them. The public saw penal institutions as places where inmates could practice living within societal Norms. Because the prison functioned in a similar way to other institutions—schools, hospitals, barracks—prisoners could practice their reformed behaviors.

Foucault suggests that the process of punishment in a prison is ongoing and strips the prisoners of all liberty; it represses. It utilizes principles that were first imagined by reformers but have been proven ineffective. The first is isolation. Not only is the accused isolated from the external world; the accused is also isolated from fellow prisoners. The architecture of the institution must repress the possibility of collaboration and revolt. Solitude is intended to also serve as an opportunity for the inmate to reflect and improve. The time of the inmate was carefully monitored and controlled, alternating work, food, and prayers. Prisoners are expected to work six days a week and take the final day for meditation and prayer. The reforming principle argues that criminals live unmeasured existences; stability and routine would help to alter their behaviors. Foucault presents two strategies for implementing these elements: the penitentiary technique and the delinquent technique. The penitentiary technique utilizes the loss of liberty and constant surveillance. The delinquent technique transforms the offender into a person whose psychology can be understood. It individualizes the criminal.

The philosopher challenges the effectiveness of prisons as institutions of reform. He argues that their only purpose is to function as a strategy of power. Administrators within the prison are endowed with the same power as the executioner and king in the public spectacle model.

Part 4, Chapter 2 Summary: “Illegalities and delinquency”

At the end of the 19th century, the chain-gang became a prominent element of the American prison system. Highway travelers could see prisoners chained to one another, digging ditches, and speculate about their crimes. Foucault suggests that this apparatus was a leftover of the public spectacle model of punishment. When chain-gangs disappeared, media took over, engaging the public in the drama of courtrooms and sentences. Criminals embraced this celebrity, tattooing themselves with the narrative of their crimes. The persistence of the public spectacle contributes to Foucault’s argument that punitive measures do not evolve or improve; they cycle.

The birth of prison brought the birth of prison reform. The arguments made in contemporary society about the failures of prisons to rehabilitate and follow through on their promises are the same as they were when prisons were first constructed. Prisons do not lower crime; in fact, they bolster or increase it. They cause recidivism: Those who leave prisons are highly likely to return. Advocates for reform argue that the very nature and structure of prisons encourage criminals to repeat their offenses. Inside prison walls, inmates develop associations with one another that flourish once they are released into further criminality. Furthermore, by placing men and women into these institutions, their families are left without the support of a parent, meaning that an inmate’s family members are also likely to become institutionalized.

Despite these continuous critiques, prisons continue to operate in the same way they always have. They focus on reform and transformation of the individual through isolation, education, and work. Administration can alter sentencing based on an inmate’s behavior. Prisoners are always surveilled. Foucault criticizes the way in which these institutions continue to maintain the status quo despite continuous and focused critique. He suggests that this fact should raise a question as to the actual purpose and function of the penal system. The fact that it has not altered its course reveals that reform was never its aim; instead, the penal system is designed to regulate illegalities—to provide ample freedom to some while limiting others.

Part 4, Chapter 3 Summary: “The carceral”

The birth of the carceral system is simultaneous with the birth of scientific psychology. Foucault defines the date of the beginning of the carceral system as January 22, 1840, which marked the opening of the Mettray prison colony. This institution represented the extreme of the disciplines outlined in previous chapters. Despite the brutality exhibited at the Mettray prison, the actions were justified under the perceived humane practices of penal institutions. Foucault concludes by outlining the various outcomes of this new penal system. First, it established a cycle of recidivism and criminality. Second, it recruits new inmates, or “delinquents.” Third, it solidifies “the power to punish,” codifying it as a necessary and moral component of contemporary society (301). Fourth, the carceral system bends law to fit it rather than the reverse. Finally, the carceral system ensures the continuous observation of the body and, therefore, the continuous cycle of power.

Part 4 Analysis

In this final section, Foucault shows how the modern carceral system appeared at the same time as both prison reform and scientific psychology. The convergence of reform and prisons is representative of the idea that imprisonment was never about transformation. Foucault points to the fact that prisons maintain the same disciplinary action despite repeated calls for reform and that the same complaints about the carceral system were made about public torture and execution. Because the concept of the prison was flawed from the beginning, it is important to question why it persisted in the same manner throughout history. This reveals that The Function of Punishment is about something other than rehabilitation. The very concepts that were intended to reform the prison system—work, routine, isolation—became tools for maintaining this illusive function. Foucault argues that the reality of the failure of the prison system should demand an inquiry into its purpose: Why does it persist?

The answer, he asserts, is the regulation of illegalities. This idea aligns with his earlier statements about the illegalities of rights and properties. Foucault maintained that the bourgeoisie enjoyed certain illegalities of rights, which they could exercise as they pleased. He suggests that the prison system is not intended to address the illegalities of the bourgeoisie; in fact, it is intended to preserve them. All punishment is a strategy of power, and the punishment of prisons is an exercise of maintaining power for the bourgeoisie. It is important to note that Foucault sees power as pervasive; he acknowledges in earlier chapters that power is used and controlled by all. However, the carceral system represents the control of the bourgeoisie and its unfettered power. This connects to the theme The Relationship Between Knowledge and Power. The carceral system is a means of obtaining information and, thereby, preserving power.

Through carceral independence, prisons complete the cycle of sovereign power. In the previous punitive methods of public torture and execution, the power rested with the sovereign leader. The king could determine whether to proceed with capital punishment or to grant mercy. At all times, public spectacle was utilized to enforce the autonomy and domination of the sovereign. Similarly, the carceral system places its power in the hands of the prison administrators. They can lengthen and shorten sentences by their own determination: “a power that not only possesses administrative autonomy but is also a part of punitive sovereignty” (247). The cycle of sovereign power is repeated in any form of punishment, body or otherwise. There will always be someone wielding power to maintain an established Norm. In this instance, the Norm is the retention of the freedom and liberties of the bourgeoisie.

The rise of scientific psychology at the same time as the carceral system represents the invention of the modern soul. Varying penal systems align with different aspects of The Body Versus the Modern Soul. Foucault asserts that no punitive system is completely free from oppression of the body. Torture uses the body as a political playground while prison strips the body of liberty and forces it into a rhythm of routine. It is difficult to say which came first—the modern soul or the carceral system. Foucault suggests that the two are intrinsically linked; each advances the other.

The continuous observation, surveillance, and documentation of the actions of the body contributes to the theme The Relationship Between Knowledge and Power. Because all punitive measures are strategies of power, they all rely upon the collection of information. The carceral system turns prisoners into individual cases and creates thick and detailed files of their transgressions, behavior, and psychological conditions. In this way, the two themes converge. The need for power through the acquisition of knowledge created the modern soul; the elimination of public torture required a new way of gathering information and exerting control. Scientific psychology provided fertile ground for enacting that power.