The historical exegeses are largely superfluous and distract from the points of argumentation.

There are many elaborate dilations of the main propositions which do little more than meander towards the next one(s), as opposed to elucidating their logical-historical connection.

Foucault gives political manifesto content-length propositions that are reasonably insightful, in a basically historical-novelistic theory fiction format. "We are less Greek than we think." --Foucault is more anti-Enlightenment than he realizes and less "Nietzschean" so much as a paraphrastic derivative thinker than he would like to be.

The description of power relations does not necessarily reveal the ideology governing it. In fact, it does much to mythologize an omnipresent non-entity of whom we see and experience only its effects. One suspects there are only effects of power, of ideology; consequences which cannotn be telekeniticized by any localizable 'gaze' but follow materially from human actions.

15. He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a MEANING into them; that is, he believes there is a will in them already (principle of 'belief').
(Twilight of the Idols, "Maxims and Arrows" epigram 15)

As Foucault ought to have known, there is no meaning to power except in the feeling of its increase. The only gaze that is belongs to "the Other". In this sense, Foucault has articulated the narcissistic element of power. On the whole however, he identifies with it since he cannot dissociate power from its celebration: the carnival event of discipline and punish, the panoptical voyeurism of the carceral gaze. Naval gazing social theory par excellence (Knowledge is Power and Power is Ideology, therefore Ideology is Knowledge.) The gaze is a fiction unless the alleged 'observed' sees that he is being watched, there is no subject without the choice presented by the Other; the neurosis of the subject hypersensitive to the Other withstands the hermeneutical uncertainty with horror, inevitably directed at himself, --that there is nothing to see. Foucault's text makes ideology power's Echo, when it is really ideology that echoes Power. Ideology is the ignorance and absence of Power that would be the knowledge required to suspend ideology for authentic choices.

The Birth of the Prison is the death of the social, the death of the Other, the fettering of the individual himself to ideology. One must ask, "Where is ideology?" Foucault offers merely the dazed "everywhere and nowhere," as the gaze without eye, the predicate without subject, Donald Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" which are nothing at all. Discipline and Punish does not address the lexical of 'known knowns' because the language of oppression, of ideology requires a counter affirmation of Power. One assumes power or renounces it, and one must be doubly strong for the latter. Given the current state of events, its disavowal is a gesture into a void: one has no power to renounce if one is not the State itself. "Je suis le etat." Since it has been more difficult to define the "Je", the sovereign, one speaks of exploitation as a structural and institutional function. This impotent anthropomorphism of theory merely compounds the problem of ideology. Exploitation is an action committed man against man, and these actions must be identified with what systems enable these impingements on the sovereignty of other men.

"l'ecrasez l'infamie!"

Foucault does not crush the infamy. He does reveal its ankles slightly however this will not titillate, unless one does not already see the pudeurs of the clearly unclothed emperors of the various reigning ideologies. Ideology abhors clarity. Read Foucault, then forget Foucault.

By examining the rise of prison systems in Western culture, Foucault demonstrates the ways modern nation-states exert their power to dominate their citizens. This is a great book for anyone interested in power formations as well as continental theory.

This is one of Michel Foucault's most accessible books (though still pretty heavy going). If in Madness and Civilization, Foucault analyzed the birth of insane asylums and in The Birth of the Clinic the birth of the hospital, in Discipline and Punish, it's the turn of the prisons. The book starts with a gruesome description of the public drawing and quartering of failed regicide Damiens in 1757. Then he goes on to quote a benign prison system of the 1830s. What changed between the two dates? While other authors would consider the birth of modern imprisonment as a triumph of progressive ideals (in comparison with what went on before), Foucault saw this instead as one aspect of increasing social and political control. While greatly researched, one immediately asks itself what Foucault wanted? Did he care about any improvement in the social conditions of prisoners? Or did he believed we should do with prisons altogether? And in which case, what about dangerous criminals? I think Foucault never wanted to answer these questions. I think it's telling that towards the end of his life (after this book was written) Foucault was a fan of the repressive and theocratic regime of Khomeini in Iran. In this, he was similar to those communist intellectuals in the West who criticized failings in their own countries but overlook much worse abuses (and crimes) in the Soviet Union. Another quibble is that the book is so French-centric (with some analysis of developments in England): he takes the evolution of imprisonment in France as an indication of the whole world.

What is whispered in secret may be shouted from the rooftops, but what is done in secret will be watched.

In Discipline and Punish Michel Foucault develops the idea of the transition of God's omniscience into the state's omniscience, and points to interesting nodes along the way: the invention of the table and the Panopticon being the most compelling and far-reaching.

Foucault's thesis of The Panopticon being a physical result of the Protestant conception of the community replacing the All-Seeing-Eye of God is itself the child of the thinking of Max Weber, Jeremy Bentham, Cardinal Richelieu and Jean Calvin. The results of the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, searching for signs of grace in this life as signs of salvation in the next, brought focus to human efforts as primarily economic. The result of such an ethos was that everyone was watching everybody all the time, and this creates anxiety, and the ultimate result of anxiety is release and rebellion. Enter the Panopticon to isolate the rebellious and a method thought to encourage good behaviour: constant watching.

Combine this with Terry Guillam's film "Brazil" and you'll be permanently fearful. Smile like you mean it.

This book is life changing if you can get past the first 40 pages. Its a bit different and if you can handle the reading even though you may not agree you'll find it amazing. I am so glad I had to use this book for a course or I don't think I would of been able to get past it. However with enough coffee the concepts are profound. I would like to read other works by the same author.

p.s. if you talk about the concepts with others not reading the book with you or who have never read the book. They might find these topics way far out from the norm. They are neither left/right nor radical. Its comes together. The book is also a great history book.

I'd spent years thinking that, of the two key French postmodernist thinkers, Derrida was the serious (if largely wrong) thinker and Foucault was the charlatan. That was based on my angry reaction to "Madness and Civilisation" and "Birth of the Clinic", both of which I found to be riddled with bad history. Looking at the works Derrida produced in the last years of his life-- and looking again at "Discipline and Punish" --I've revised that opinion. Derrida was-- or became --a charlatan. Foucault often needed better attention to historical accuracy-- he does periodize badly, and he's hopeless at anything outside France --but his study of the changes in the philosophy of punishment and social control here in "Discipline and Punish" is excellent. This is a key book for understanding modern theories of social control and examining modern responses to the ideas of "re-education" and surveillance. Foucault, for all his flaws, was a serious thinker, and this is a serious and valuable book.

Great book ever. Period. I love this book, it puts life into perspective and allows to understand society. Read this book, and the rest of his books. Foucault is a genius.

Yes, its a masterpiece. Wonderful material. Thought-provoking.

It's also a monumental struggle to read. How's that? The translator uses every multi-syllabel word there is, and seasons it liberally with nominalizations. The words arent BIG, obscure words, theyre just large words that absorb a lot of space in a sentence. This makes the reading hard work because you have to fill your braincells with all the large words, process them, then try and assemble it all into a simple, cogent thought. The translator or author crams too much stuff into each sentence. Youll swear youve been sentenced to hard labor. But you wont need a dictionary to understand any of it.

I'm always tempted to translate the French-Latin derived English into simple Anglo-Saxon English.

The bottom-line is: Is the book useful? Yes, very. It bundles a lot of history into discreet packages and reveals the method in the madness of criminal justice. But the writing sux.

I plan to buy another copy.

As a benchmark in the fields of sociology, psychology and ostensibly criminal justice Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish, The Birth of The Prison" is not merely a historical treatise on the genesis of the corrections system in the West as much as it is an illumination into the human psyche as to why the need for "discipline" and "punishment" as applied to corrections exists.

Although Foucault provides a "provocative account of how penal institutions and the power to punish has become part of our lives," he also covers with some depth into the perceived failures of the modern prison by showing how the very concern with rehabilitation, for example, encourages and refines criminal behavior.

By way of illustration then, in Part Three "Discipline" under Chapter "Panopticism" Foucault states (p.218): "Generally speaking, it might be said that the disciplines are techniques for assuring the ordering of human multiplicities. It is true that there is nothing exceptional or even characteristic in this: every system of power is presented with the same problem. But the peculiarity of the disciplines is that they try to define in relation to the multiplicities a tactics of power that fulfills three criteria: firstly, to obtain the exercise of power at the lowest possible cost (economically, by the low expenditure it involves, politically, by its discretion, its low exteriorization, its relative invisibility, the little resistance it arouses); secondly, to bring the effects of this social power to their maximum intensity and to extend them as far as possible, without either failure or interval; thirdly, to link this 'economic' growth of power with the output of the apparatuses (educational, military, industrial or medical) within which it is exercised; in short, to increase both the docility and the utility of all the elements of the system."

In the final analysis then, Foucault links the "carceral" mechanisms of society such as commerce, industry, and of course prison which are intended to produce and maintain "normalization" to the element of strategy and necessity of combat.

Foucault's prescience in understanding human nature and the psychology of human relations and interactions surmises that the effect and instrument of complex power relations, bodies and forces subjected by multiple mechanisms of 'incarceration', and objects for discourses in strategy creates the power of normalization in society and continues to formulate our knowledge of how it should be construed and controlled with particular regard to our penal institutions.

An insightful and pioneering work rated at five stars.

JP

I bought the book on a recommendation a year back and tried to read it but failed to concentrate enough as it was a pretty dense book. Recently I picked it up again, this time determined to finish it as it is considered an important work.

I have forced myself and it takes forever to get through a single page. Either the author or the translator did a lousy job. I wonder if the original is easier to decipher. I ended up putting the book down on page 111 (a third into the book). Do not waste your time with this book. Foucault may have been a great philosopher who had an impact on many other scholars but I wouldn't know because i cant understand what he wrote.

HAHAHAHAH LET ME DEMONSTRATE WHAT I MEAN AS I QUOTE FROM THE BOOK (p.23), SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING ON YOUR FIRST TRY:

"Instead of treating the history of penal law and the history of the human sciences as two separate series whose overlapping appears to have had on one or the other, or perhaps on both, a disturbing or useful effect, according to one's point of view, see whether there is not some common matrix or whether they do not both derive from a single process of 'epistemologico-juridical' formation; in short, make the technology of power the very principle both of the humanization of the penal system and the knowledge of man."

NOT AS BAD AS FINNEGAN's WAKE, but it sure comes close.

Once again, Foucault is showing us that everything we know is wrong by tracing the history and evolution of discipline and punishment from the stocks and public executions of the 18th Century to the modern penitentiary system. He argues that despite the good intentions of the modern penal system, it has failed in its noble aims. What's more, on some level, society knows it has failed, but keeps it around anyway because it serves as a method of control which we cannot give up. Overall, this is a fascinating and persuasive book that will change the way anyone thinks about not only prisons, but discipline in society in general. I only give it four stars because I felt the last chapter was not argued on very firm or convincing grounds, nor that the conclusions necessarily derived from the premises he defines. However, you can decide that for yourself. I would most strongly recommend this to those who are interested in cultural studies and literary theory. The idea of the Panopticon in society has become an essential concept for both fields of study. Those interested in revisionist history or just an entertaining, if slightly dense, read should also pick this one up; compared to most philosophers, Foucault writes with a clarity and grace few can match.

I've read this book three times: First time was in undergraduate, second time was in law school, third time was last week. I can honestly say that my understanding of this work has grown with each reading, but that growth in comprehension has come more from my reading of other books either discussing or related to Discipline and Punish.

Specifically, I would recommend Jurgen Habermas's critique of Foucault, although I now forget which book of his contains his critique. I would also recommend Goffman's "Asylums" and Sykes "The Society of the Prison" as works which can illuminate Foucault's oft dense prose.

Foucault's main thesis is that the transistion of society into modernity has resulted in institutions which are increasingly devoted to the control of the "inmate's" time. The instituions use this control of time to develop discipline. Discipline is then used to both reinforce the strength of the instituion and also to expand the reach of institution's into the community.

As other reviewers have noted, this book isn't really about Prisons. Rather, the development of the modern prison represents the pinnacle of the relationship between power and discipline. Foucault leads up to his discussion of the prison by examining developments in other instituions: the work shop, the school and the barracks.

I really would encourage admirers of this work to read Goffman's "Asylums". The two books overlap to a considerable degree, but they both complement one another.

This book is no more about the history of prisons than the fable of the rabbit and hare is about animal competition. Foucault is writing about the power of normalization in western society.

Within five minutes of my residence there are two large Texas state prisons. The offenders incarcerated in these facilities exist in a network of interlocking disciplinary mechanisms, mechanisms that Foucault unveils in this book. The criminal justice system, the prison environment, the educational/training opportunities available during incarceration, parolee supervision, and the limited employment options on release all coordinate to encapsulate the offender's life. The offender's agency is significantly impaired for the balance of his life regardless of his domiciliary.

I live in a master planned, suburban community subject to a detailed and lengthy list of deed restrictions. These deed restrictions dictate the colors that I can paint my house, the height to which my grass can grow, the type of trees that I can plant in the front yard as well as the insistence that I plant three trees in my front yard. My wife and I have had to paint the front door twice in the last four years to comply with homeowner association threats, and we have been chastised for offenses as "severe" as leaving a hose uncoiled for too long in the front yard.

Now I admit that there is a modicum of agency in my decision to live in this specific community; however, just like the offenders incarcerated nearby, I live in a network of interlocking disciplinary mechanisms. I contend that my agency is also significantly impaired. The difference between my life and the offender's life is one of degree, not kind.

This is the message Foucault communicates with both style and substance in this book. He identifies three means by which power works on each of us to coerce compliance with the standards of normality: hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination.

The sad and simple fact is that surveillance is coercive. We might all see the public good in maintaining records of the offenses of the violent, but think for a moment about all of the records kept on you - telephone calls, financial transactions, medical tests and treatment, insurance claims, library check outs, video rentals, credit reports, credit card transactions, property ownership, internet sites, and tax filings. Hierarchical observation is a fact of modern life, and it seems to be steadily increasing.

By normalizing judgment, Foucault is referring to the power inherent in all social expectations. Try applying for a job, a business loan, a home mortgage, or a graduate program, and you will quickly feel the power of normalizing judgments. Woe to the applicant who stands out as different! Rarely do those exercising judgment question their standards, and even more rarely do they make exceptions on an individual basis. The message is loud - conform or else.

The last and perhaps most subtle power of normalization lies in the use of examinations. Even low paying professions (public school teachers, social workers, home day care operators) must attain licensure through examination. In Texas, third graders cannot be promoted to the fourth grade without passing a statewide exam. We endure the dominance of testing because of its presumed objectivity, but we all know that testing is not objective. Bias in design and in test conditions influence outcomes, and the testing continues despite an absence of evidence that it reliably predicts future performance.

I think this book is brilliant and disturbing. It is not always easy to read, but then, what book worth reading is? Foucault is given to dramatic images, and he does little to mitigate the impact of these images on the reader. Perhaps he is really trying to increase this impact. Since he is attempting to counter the powers of normalization, he may need all of the momentum he can get.

This book has been described as Foucault's masterpiece, and for good reason. Through this "genealogy" of history, Foucault shows us how modern society has become penal and coercive in nature; and perhaps more importantly, that all us now live in the midst of an abstract, authoritative public "gaze."

Although the book traverses a lot of historical ground, Foucault's discussion culminates in an analysis of Jeremy Bentham's prison concept. Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism philosophy, believed that individual rights are subordinate to the state. In fact, he went so far as to call them "nonsense on stilts." As long as the government protected its people and treated them decently, he did not believe that the polity could be accused of oppressing its citizen - be they convicts or otherwise. Thus, Bentham was the first philosopher to give the modern penal system its rational underpinnings. Today, we take it as a matter of course that those who do not conform to laws are trucked off to prison. But with this book, Foucault attempts to completely undermine our intuitive sense of what is right, what is coercive, what is rational, and ultimately what is true. Perhaps better than any other author out there, Foucault shows us the subtle madness of Western institutional logic.

Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.

Discipline and Punish is still relevant for today, even though the Panopticon has vanished. For starters, the United States government now possesses the technology to view see and hear anybody on the face of the planet. In fact, just recently the FBI announced that they have the right (invested in them by the state) to monitor any phone conversations they deem a threat to national security. Furthermore, for the same reason, the CIA or the DIA may use high-tech satellite technology to monitor actions anywhere on the face of the planet. Currently, these satellites have the ability to spot and read the date off a dime in the street. These new technological developments have completely altered the meaning "gaze" in the modern context. In a very real way, we are all living in the Panopticon now.

Moreover, Foucault would have never guessed the future of American prison systems. Today, Americans put more people behind bars than in any other country in the world, while public education, job training, and other resources that might potentially help people stay off drugs or out of crime in the first place are under funded. Furthermore, the vast majority of convicts who are released - many having been brutalized in prison - often end up behind bars again in no time, usually for small offenses involving drugs or petty larceny (that is, non-violent crimes involving property). Thirty years ago, when Foucault died, prisons were still run by the state. However, today prisons are increasingly being privatized and run as businesses, with the further benefit of huge government subsidies. The United States now prioritizes prison funding over education and rehabilitation - spending roughly 40 billion a year on operation and construction of new prisons. The prison industry is booming.

Anyway, this book is a must-read classic. It will abhor you, enthrall you, and provide immeasurable food for thought. It drove me to ask questions about the nature of knowledge, history, and the evolution of a persecuting society. Controversial to the teeth, this work will definately activate all your higher faculties and blast you off on all sort of theoretical tangents. Once I started I couldn't put it down. As Foucault said himself, he writes "experience book," and I couldn't agree more. I highly recommend having this experience, if only for the sake of where it will land you.

A final note for those who are interested... Oddly enough, Jeremy Bentham was not buried or incinerated like most people after he died. He willed his body to be preserved and displayed. It was dissected in a medical amphitheater at the Web Street School of anatomy in London, three days after his death. (By the way, this was illegal at the time. Only executed murderers could be dissected according to the law). His organs were then removed, and the original head replaced with a wax one. After being stolen by students as a joke, the real head is now kept in a safe in the College. The body, dressed in Bentham's own clothes, remains stuffed with hay, straw, wool, cotton and lavender to keep moths away. Since he was a founder of University College, Bentham is ensconced inside a glass fronted mahogany case (on casters), set unceremoniously in a busy hallway. He is regularly visited by scholars from all over the world, once went to a beer festival in Germany, and is brought to the table once a year for the annual Bentham Dinner. Amazingly, he was also trundled to the annual Board of Directors meeting for years, who still leave his old chair empty out of respect.

I am not a big fan of Foucault; however, I was fascinated by Crime and Punishment. One of the principal ideas which Foucault discusses in Discipline & Punish is that public executions have constituted as much a method of crime prevention as a public spectacle. I find that his ideas can be easily transposed to explain the public's fascination with media violence, wrestling, boxing and so on.
As the ideas of the enlightenment spread throughout the 19th century executions and torture became less frequent and conducted ever further from the public spotlight while more `humane' methods of killing were also adopted. No longer were prisoners dragged behind horses, crushed on cart wheels or had their limbs severed one by one. The Guillotine, firing squads and poisonous concoctions vastly accelerated the dying process and reduced physical pain. Foucault does not in any way suggest that man is any more or less violent today than he was two centuries ago or 2000 years ago. Nonetheless, he shows that the violence of justice has changed its modus operandi.

The West has seen the longest period of peace in history, economic conditions have improved for the majority and violence (physical and psychological) is not tolerated. At the same time, criminals enjoy more rights privileges and there have been efforts to ensure humane treatment of prisoners. Therefore, taking Foucault into consideration, violence in film is none other than the public's basic, and instinctively human, appetite for violence that always looks for ways of manifesting itself in accordance to society's norms. If the public torture of a man whose bones were crushed or limbs cut off (in such a way that the victim could clearly see what was being done) or a public hanging constituted an popular occasion for spectacle in the 18th century, so then do graphic violent films appeal to people in the same way in the 21st century.
Therefore, in many ways, Foucault's ideas as expressed in Discipline and Punish support the notion that violence in contemporary cinema has a cathartic function.

Foucault learns from history by looking backwards in time until a salient rupture appears, then goes forward detailing all of histories accounts. In Discipline and Punish, he takes us through the early 1800's to a time when the methods of upholding law and order were much more severe. He describes to us certain rituals of torture that were implemented not to uphold justice, but to extract truth. He contends that punishment was directed at the body and the spectacle of torture was the keeper of order. He then has us move past the Middle Ages to a rupture in history where the prison is born. Foucault now contends that punishment is no longer directed at the body; that it is aimed towards the soul. He posits that in our society we no longer have the spectacle of torture to keep us in line--no, a more economical restraint is applied: guilt & responsibility. It is the responsibility of being a model citizen that wills us to abide by the law. It is the fear of guilt that craves us to be `good'. It is the fear of being defined as `bad'; for fear of being suspect is as heavy as the physical chains worn by the malefactor-the ubiquitous invisible-chains; the inculcating chants of the anthems; the responsibility of the citizens to uphold the law and the guilt of not doing so. Foucault also inquires about other institutions-other architectural structures of power networks. One can wonder why the carceral system can be seen in schools, factories, hospitals, and so forth; these environments that we enter, spend a part of our lives in, and then leave to enter another. How many different institutions do you enter and leave in a day? How many hierarchical environments do you exist in the typical 24 hours? How many hierarchical roles do you play? How many different disciplines and regulations do you adhere to? One begins to feel fragmented, even schizophrenic, to the countless performances that we act out. Who are you really? Better yet, when are you? At work? When you are sitting home alone in your room? At any rate, it's a great book, but I wouldn't recommend it for the casual reader.