The Reluctant Postmodernist

Foucault’s Discipline and Punish was a fascinating but slow read for me personally. I have read this book several times for various sociology classes during undergraduate studies, but every time I find myself reading, I get a different essence of the book (this could be from reading the book for different reasons; different classes and assignments). Nevertheless, Foucault’s collective of self described “critical histories of modernity” are essential for an academic understanding of the socio-political institutions of prison, school, and even hospitals.

           

The main agent of historical change, although one could argue there are a multitude, is the state and the way in which they flex their power. The struggle to define and carry out discipline and punishment seemed to hinge on the development of the state as well as the relative power of the given state over its people. In a chronological development, from the 16^th century onward, Foucault highlights that the state not only gains more power but becomes more efficient in doing so. The motivation of the state seems simply for means of control, and once control is established- the maintaining of the control. The state changes in almost a fluid form, as it responds to social changes and social concerns regarding prison reform, school systems, and hospitals. The state, however quietly, was/is able to assert control while appearing progressive.

One notion that stuck in my mind was whether the public had more power than Foucault gives credit to. As I had suggested, another argument for an agent of historical change could have been the responsive public. For example, the move from physical torture to a more mental torture was not only normalized into society, but the former was also designated as unacceptable. Did that change in mentality come from a change in public perception? Or does it account for the cleverness of the state asserting power?

Getting a grasp of Foucault was a daunting task and as I had mentioned, the more you read from him, the more your mind gets jumbled around the essence of his arguments. Foucault was no doubt a brilliant man, but his work always came across as long winded to me. His attention to social prison issues were interesting, especially in the time of such social rot in French-Algerian relations and other violent Arab issues in Europe (Dejellali Ben Ali’s murder). Foucault’s writing obviously was an expression of his reservations against an institutionalized society moving forward.