Discipline and Punish Essays

Discipline and Punish Essays Discipline and Punish Essay Discipline and Punish Essay Essay Topic: Discipline and Punish the Birth Of the Prison In addition, although Foucault does not study the bureaucratic process in Weberian style, his studies of the prison and other social institutions go further than Weber in preparing the rational process for the administration of the carceral society. On the other hand, Foucaults work also appeals to the political imagination within sociology, presenting a model of powerless monumental than either those of Marx or Weber. What for Weber was a level of regulation and law, for Foucault becomes an open prison committed to abolishing the last dark corner in which the soul might hide and yet in which the resistance is everywhere (ONeill, 1986). One of the most prominent critiques of Foucault from a liberal and criminological perspective is of David Garland. He states, the work of Foucault is meaningful when comparing with Weber on rationalisation and Freud on civilization. Each showing a different perspective of how life is cherished living in the modern world (Garland 1986:848). He advises Foucaults work on power and discipline has attracted various agencies of health and education in developing their political analyses. On the other hand, Garland argues, that the power perception which he develops is a basic one, underpinning and enveloping all challenging explanations. He presents no quantitative or wide ranging evidence to support his classification of modern penal practise. In addition, Paul Patton agrees with Garland and believes Foucault can be criticised for failing to provide the evidence for the strong type of argument he stands for (Cited in Garland, 1986:871). However, Smart believed Foucault could not be criticized for his approach and ideas because he does not intend to present an assumption of social construction. Instead, he tries to expand our theoretical structure by disclosing possible alternative justifications for our present situation that may lead to theoretical creation. However, he does not see them as a replacement (Smart, 1985). Subsequently, Cohen explains, Foucault leaves us within the carceral society without the possibility of its transformation. He believes Foucault, as an author who is expertise at correlating social movements and institutional changes but does not allow enough explanation for the future. Cohen claims that Foucaults penology is in fact too basic and simple. However, Cohen (1985) remarks, Foucault veers between a materialist connection between prison and emerging capitalism and an idealist obsession with the power of ideas but he does agree with the fact that Foucault is more worried with the origins and effects of punishment than with its relations with the economy (Cited in Cavadino Dignan, 2002:69). Consequently, Critiques of Foucault are mainly revolved around his ideas of self-freedom from discipline. It is argued that he did not go in to enough depth in explaining the struggle between individuality and society and Foucault refused to give a reason for the struggle that existed or a goal to be obtained. On the other hand, theorists like Matheisen agreed with Foucault to some extent but varied in other. Matheisen believed the use of technologies like surveillance is an essential element of social control and quite apart from being an unpreventable part of modernity it does not have as well as repressive potential. The constant use of surveillance could be used to increase detection rates but there is no validity that it could be used to harsher penalties for those convicted (Cavadino Dignan, 2002). For all its restrictions, nevertheless, Foucaults method of approaching universal and fundamental social themes through discipline is a great achievement. He does not just write a history of crime and punishment but rather is using historical materials and sociological insights from Marx, Weber and Durkheim to construct his understanding and analysis of the social universe. In conclusion, Discipline and Punish so clearly illuminates and is so significant in understanding the communication between punishment and the disciplinary society. Foucault sees his book as a historical background to various studies of power, normalization and the formation of knowledge in society. Most readers will find Foucaults vision interesting, some will find it emotionally persuasive and yet others will consider its political implications. Therefore, it is evident to believe that Foucaults contribution has certainly transformed the sociology of punishment. Foucaults writing did have a central theme and it proves that his main idea was the struggle of individuals against the power of society. Word count = 1950 Bibliography Cavadino, M and Dignan, J. (2002), The Penal System: An Introduction, Sage Publications Ltd: London, Third Edition. Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin Books: London. Garland, D. (1986), Foucaults Discipline and Punish: An Exposition and Critique, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 847-880. ONeill, J. (1986), The Disciplinary Society: From Weber to Foucault, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 42-60. Smart, B. (1983), Foucault, Marxism and Critique, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd: London. Smart, B, (1985), Michel Foucault, Ellis Horward and Tavistock: London.