Michel Foucault's "Disipline and Punish"

[Comrade Jandar]

I began reading the "Disciple and Punish" recently and so far it has been fascinating. However there are few passages that have troubled me.

1. What does Foucault mean when he speaks of the "body" or "political anatomy?"

2. How does he define the "soul?" The clearest definition I could find is this.

"This is the historical reality of this soul, which, unlike the soul represented by Christian theology, is not born in sin and subject to punishment, but is born rather out of methods of punishment, supervision, and constraint."

I know that I will probably develop more questions, but hopefully this can be an on-going thread. Thanks.

[maskerade]

I began reading the "Disciple and Punish" recently and so far it has been fascinating. However there are few passages that have troubled me.

1. What does Foucault mean when he speaks of the "body" or "political anatomy?"

2. How does he define the "soul?" The clearest definition I could find is this.

"This is the historical reality of this soul, which, unlike the soul represented by Christian theology, is not born in sin and subject to punishment, but is born rather out of methods of punishment, supervision, and constraint."

I know that I will probably develop more questions, but hopefully this can be an on-going thread. Thanks.

When Foucault speaks of the body, he is referring to it as a site where power relations work. The 'discipline' is seen in the creation of docile bodies that are constructed according to power-knowledge regimes, that are apparent everywhere. For example, Foucault talks about the creation of soldiers as a political subject, and this is seen in the process which shapes the soldier as exactly that, through control of the body through both space and time. In other words, the body is subjected to power regimes through spatial organization in the form of barracks and through time by having to complete seemingly arbitrary tasks in accordance with strict scheduling. In other words, the political anatomy are the result of disciplining processes that create the subjects of a polity - I believe he talks about the ability to recognize these subjects through the way they carry their bodies.

As for the second question, I think it just means that the soul is a historically situated component of a regime of knowledge, and as such, the knowledge of a soul forms the repressive and punishing practices the second part of the quote refers to. I don't think Foucault would think there is an a priori soul.

Foucault is great to read, but it takes a few rereadings to get a full grasp of his thought. I'm still not too sure about the intricacies of his theory, as some of the more knowledgable posters here will probably point out, but I hope I've helped a bit

[Lucretia]

Yes, per the prior poster, Foucault's understanding of the body is that it is a site of "biopolitics" or a phenomenon whose social significance is comprehensible only within the context of the power relations within which it is enmeshed, and of which it constitutes an important part.

A major theme in Foucault's works is that institutions which otherwise appear to be neutral/apolitical arbiters of science and progress are in fact a part of a system of power which has grown more intimate and therefore in a sense more insidious. And although it has been a while since I read D&P, I recall that this work is an illustration of that theme. The "discipline" in the title, for example, refers not just to coercive control over the body, but also academic/scientific "disciplines" -- such as Taylorism. The argument of the book, I seem to recall, is how with the onset of "modern" political economy/capitalism and liberal republican political regimes, the forms by which bodies were disciplined shifted from a "spectacle" paradigm of gruesome executions whereby power was theatrically and symbolically played out as a performance before an entire population, to one of internalized self-discipline -- a society of the so-called "panopiticon" where power is no longer a sporadically performed spectacle imprinted on a single body, but rather a way of existence imposed on all bodies. The "soul" in this context is a conception of the self which people are charged with keeping pure and maintaining through their own vigilance, with the idea that it is something which cannot be hidden from god in the same way that a person in the panopticon prison cannot escape the gaze of the guards.

[Luís Henrique]

The "discipline" in the title, for example, refers not just to coercive control over the body, but also academic/scientific "disciplines" -- such as Taylorism.

The "discipline" in the title is a (mis)translation of the original French "surveiller", that does not have that double sence (it's meaning is closer to English "overlook"). The original title of the book was "Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la Prison".

Luís Henrique

[Lucretia]

The "discipline" in the title is a (mis)translation of the original French "surveiller", that does not have that double sence (it's meaning is closer to English "overlook"). The original title of the book was "Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la Prison".

Luís Henrique

Yes, I knew the title was a translation from the French, but I thought the double sense of the title was present in French, too. Shows what I know about the French language! Anyhow, the English title works well in light of the theme of the book, the role of knowledge in maintaining an "apparatus" of power, etc.

Thanks for the info!

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, I knew the title was a translation from the French, but I thought the double sense of the title was present in French, too. Shows what I know about the French language! Anyhow, the English title works well in light of the theme of the book, the role of knowledge in maintaining an "apparatus" of power, etc.

Thanks for the info!

Perhaps it is one of this cases in which the translation is superior to the original...

Luís Henrique

[L.A.P.]

I'm currently reading The Archaeology of Knowledge right now. Foucault is the man.

[JustMovement]

By soul he means the "modern subject", the idea of a transcendental "I" that constitutes how we view ourselves, and is fundamental to our identity.

Foucoult shows how this "I", which seems eternal (the idea that people have always viewed their "I"-ness, or soul, the same way) is in reality a construct that has emerged historically.

Not only has it emerged historically, but it was created in a piecemeal fashion, and whatsmore, it was created as a response to the instutionalisation of "deviant" members of society.

So our idea of the ego, or soul, was shaped by the way power dealt with, for example, criminals or the insane. The way we defined and treated crazy people, in essence, then shaped the way we defined and treated ourselves. The regulatory regime of the prison was the proto-type of the modern state. Psychonalysis, which was born in the clinic, shaped how we view the concept of identity in the sane.

[Thirsty Crow]

Perhaps it is one of this cases in which the translation is superior to the original...

Luís Henrique
I don't actually think so.
But keep in mind that this is only a lingustic speculation of sorts. The translator could have easily chosen to go with "surveillance", and I think this would fit with the panopticon theme better since a good part of it is to convey the meaning of the permanent possibility of surveillance (which is exactly the rationale of the panopticon). My impression is that "discipline" doesn't necessarily have that connotation.

Since others have answered OP's question in a very good way, can we digress a bit. What do you think of the relationship between Foucault's theory and Marxism? Would you recommend some works on this topic? (directed to all interested)

[Lucretia]

I don't actually think so.
But keep in mind that this is only a lingustic speculation of sorts. The translator could have easily chosen to go with "surveillance", and I think this would fit with the panopticon theme better since a good part of it is to convey the meaning of the permanent possibility of surveillance (which is exactly the rationale of the panopticon). My impression is that "discipline" doesn't necessarily have that connotation.

Since others have answered OP's question in a very good way, can we digress a bit. What do you think of the relationship between Foucault's theory and Marxism? Would you recommend some works on this topic? (directed to all interested)

Actually this has been written about a lot. There's Marsden's at times brilliant but rather uneven The Nature of Capital, and Jonathan Joseph's article "Foucault and Reality" from Capital and Class #82. There are a couple of books -- one by Steven Best and another by Michele Barrett -- about the subject from a postmodern perspective that unduly rubbishes Marxism. Another good article is Bob Jessop's "Constituting Another Foucault Effect: Foucault on States and Statecraft," which I am sure you can get through a simple google search.

[blake 3:17]

The "discipline" in the title is a (mis)translation of the original French "surveiller", that does not have that double sence (it's meaning is closer to English "overlook"). The original title of the book was "Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la Prison".

Luís Henrique


"Overlook" would be wrong (in common English that means ignore) but, yes, the point is that Foucault is saying that the new form of repressive power is in the ability to watch and spy. This enables us to internalize modes of domination, guilt, and sin/crime.

"Oversee" would be a more accurate translation.

People interested in this would be interested in Deleuze on the society of control: http://www.nadir.org/nadir/archiv/netzkritik/societyofcontrol.html

[Hiero]

By soul he means the "modern subject", the idea of a transcendental "I" that constitutes how we view ourselves, and is fundamental to our identity.

Foucoult shows how this "I", which seems eternal (the idea that people have always viewed their "I"-ness, or soul, the same way) is in reality a construct that has emerged historically.

Not only has it emerged historically, but it was created in a piecemeal fashion, and whatsmore, it was created as a response to the instutionalisation of "deviant" members of society.

So our idea of the ego, or soul, was shaped by the way power dealt with, for example, criminals or the insane. The way we defined and treated crazy people, in essence, then shaped the way we defined and treated ourselves. The regulatory regime of the prison was the proto-type of the modern state. Psychonalysis, which was born in the clinic, shaped how we view the concept of identity in the sane.

That is a good way to put it, I never understood it or had it explained this way. Where did Focoult develep this outlook, is it based on Hegel's master-slave dialectic, or that another thing completely?

Also it is interesting the parrallels' this transcedental I is has to the Other in Lacan. As far as I understand Lacan's I/Other it is non-historical and universal, we don't get any understanding where it comes from other than the 'name of the father'. Here you describe Focault as providing the historical context for the transcendental I, which has more uses than Lacan's Other.

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm over halfway through the book now, so I thought I would bring up some more questions/comments for discussion.

1. Firstly, is Foucault a materialist? Does he see evolution of punishment and discipline as something that was consciously carried out?

2. It seems to me that new methods of punishment and discipline coincided with a greater centralization of the state and this in turn was reflected through other institutions in society, such as prisons, hospitals, and schools. Is this a reasonable assumption?

[L.A.P.]

I'm over halfway through the book now, so I thought I would bring up some more questions/comments for discussion.

1. Firstly, is Foucault a materialist? Does he see evolution of punishment and discipline as something that was consciously carried out?

2. It seems to me that new methods of punishment and discipline coincided with a greater centralization of the state and this in turn was reflected through other institutions in society, such as prisons, hospitals, and schools. Is this a reasonable assumption?

Doesn't #2 answer the question in #1?

[Comrade Jandar]

I guess it kind of does. One more thing. Foucault has used the phrase "surplus power" throughout the text several times. What does he mean by this?

[JustMovement]

That is a good way to put it, I never understood it or had it explained this way. Where did Focoult develep this outlook, is it based on Hegel's master-slave dialectic, or that another thing completely?

Also it is interesting the parrallels' this transcedental I is has to the Other in Lacan. As far as I understand Lacan's I/Other it is non-historical and universal, we don't get any understanding where it comes from other than the 'name of the father'. Here you describe Focault as providing the historical context for the transcendental I, which has more uses than Lacan's Other.

Hi Hiero, I just saw this now. I think that Foucault's genealogical method was derived from Nietzsche. Foucault was upfront about this, stating in a late interview that he was a "nitezscheian".

For an interesting essay that Foucault wrote about Nietzsche and his method, search "Nietzsche Genealogy History" on google and it will be the first result.

As far as Hegel goes, my first instinct would be to say that he would be very against Hegel, who had this progressivist notion of history as the unveiling of the absolute "Idea". Foucault would be against this view (which is quite a marxist one as well) of history as having a direction, an end goal, and instead he would propose that history is arbitrary, muddled, and that the unifying thread is the constant play of power, of people trying to dominate eachother. I suspect though that this is too simplistic, and to be honest I don't know hegel well enough to speak about it.