Hello
Everyone,
I wanted
to start off by saying thank you for an amazing class. The discussions were
great and class even ended with a crucial discussion point brought up by
Professor Stein.
Lets get
started…
Our
seminar began with discussion on Foucault’s piece about the Panopticon and
determining the purpose of such architectural design within an institution (primarily
prisons), as well as assessing the effectiveness. Moving away from visible
forms of torture imposed upon during the medieval ages, to more isolated forms
of torture behind society’s eyes (inside a prison), this makes me wonder what
the thought process of the government was when they created penitentiaries.
David stated that it was a more humanitarian form of punishment. Niko and Aaron
stated that it was a matter of control and taking them out of society, so they
do not reoffend. However, Joe explained his idea that it was a form of
rehabilitation and reform. In relation to Joe’s argument about reform,
Professor Stein introduced the idea of religion and how reformists who built
the penitentiary observed that solitary confinement actually gave prisoners an
opportunity to reflect on their actions to their God and how better to serve
him. I agree with the reformists in that religion plays a role in the
individual’s actions and behaviors while incarcerated. In prison, he/she is
given a copy of the Bible, on top of ample time to ponder and reflect on the
offense committed, as well as all their mistakes in life. As a result, many
find God in prisons and turn to him for forgiveness and an opportunity to start
over. First there may come feelings of regret, anger with self, and etc. What
is he/she to do when so much remorse builds up? One can turn that into more
negativity, build up further rage and lash out. However, others may see this as
an opportunity to start over, find God, and reform oneself working on becoming
a better person. With that said, the first question I pose is: 1) To what
extent do you believe that religion is a driving force and plays a role in
prisons? How is religion used, if used at all?
Regarding
the effectiveness of the panopticon, we were able to collectively agree that visibility
and control within the panopticon is a form of power, in that it has a way of
controlling the individual’s actions, implementing mind games and constant psychological
and mental abuse that every move he/she makes is being monitored. In the
discussion about institutions similar to the panopticon, Niko referred to
public schools and the instant fear that is created for a student when that
voice comes over the loud speaker and calls the student down to the principal’s
office. This is also in correlation to the hierarchy of power. Though the
authority figure is invisible (and behind that mic), from common practice and
the traditions of school procedure, one knows that whoever is on the other side
of the loud speaker is a person of authority and power. It is easy to assume
that because of the fear of always being watched, the guards are the ones in
control and the ones that hold the primary source of power. However, in the
excerpt provided by Professor Stein towards the end of the seminar, Foucault
states a different type of power dynamic. He states that “the major effect of
the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent
visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power… that the inmates
should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the
bearers.” I believe that in a way, this does make sense. When the prisoner
controls his/her actions, this plays a role in effecting the behavior of the
guard and how often he/she may be monitored. This can be supported with the
example of the prisoner picking his skin and trying to separate it from the
bone. Not only is he attempting to validate his existence, he may be trying to
get the attention of the guards. Once he had the guards’ attention, for future
instances, the guards may monitor him more to make sure he is not doing anything
else bad. In other cases, someone may be so fearful of the guards watching and
being punished, that he/she will behave extra good. When the guards see the
good behavior, the focus and supervision from that individual may be shifted
(though chances may be slim). In both instances, the individual may be in
control of how much supervision is placed upon him/her based on their actions. However,
essentially I believe that the government has the ultimate control and power.
Though the prisoner may have control of his/her behavior, there are always
guards that are more lenient or strict than others. With that said, the guards
are also being watched, so his/her behavior and amount of supervision imposed
may be shifted when his/her authority figure creates further rules and
regulations demanding more supervision. With Foucault’s statement, I pose two
additional questions: 2) What do you
believe Foucault means when he states that the inmates are the holder of
power?... Is the purpose of the panopticon really to give the individual power?
If so, why is there so much psychological and mental abuse that the individual
feels being created? 3) Who do you
believe is really in control of the power and why?
A large
portion of the seminar was also dedicated to discussing the purpose of uniformity
and control within the system. Andre mentioned that it is ultimately about
control. If everyone was the same, there is less room for objectivity. There is
a loss of opinion, individuality and identity. Sally extended that statement and
referred to her experience of having to wear uniforms in her private school. It
is a mental thing and the system is collectively telling you, “These are the
rules, they cannot be changed. No, you have no say and you cannot change this.”
In response to these two points, David mentioned that everyone involved is
ultimately oppressed. The oppressors (guards) are also oppressed because they
too are being watched. Everyone is always being watched up until the highest
legislator. There is always that hierarchy of power that plays a role and
everyone is always being controlled. We also touched upon the idea that
uniformity is ultimately a form of categorizing and “othering” the individual. Why
is it easier to abuse the individuals who are in uniform and branded? When the
system has categorize the individual, that allows more room for control and
power. My next question to you is, in relation to David’s point: 4) What do you believe is the purpose of
uniformity if all the individuals involved themselves know that they are being
watched also? Is this really about the power and control anymore?
In
conclusion, as Foucault showed, capitalism controls everything. All
institutions and all individuals involved in institutions are always being
controlled. There is much discrepancy about the purpose of the panopticon. This
design of punishment was no longer used in the mid 19th century. My
last question to you is: 5) Why do you
think that the panopticon form of punishment is no longer used and why is there
a shift in the kinds of incarceration practices for an individual?
17 comments:
Thanks for your insight.
In light of your first question, I was taken aback when professor Stein said that these inmates were given a bible with the intent that they would find religion in their struggles. However, after a bit of thought it began making sense to me. Take a societal outcaste, put him in a cage, give him a bible and plenty of time to think about his crime and odds are he will appeal to some higher authority. A higher authority that promises to forgive him for his actions, strip him of his shame and give him the chance to obtain eternal salvation. Professor Stein also mentioned how religion has been a “seductive” force in prisons over the course of history. It has also been a driving force in relation to other types of oppression. For example, slaves here in America took comfort in religion and prayed for an escape from the abuse that their masters delivered them. There is a distinction to be made here amongst the two forms of oppression that I mentioned; in prisons the “guardian’s” intends to convert people to religion whereas during slavery people found religion on their own. Overall, oppression seems to create a need within the victim to a higher authority, and God is the best choice because God promises to strip you of your woes if you follow his word. They feel powerless and religion gives them power, and new life and promises that they will be forgiven.
The notion of powerlessness here leads me to answer your second question. I think you were on the money with your analysis that the inmates do indeed have power whether through self inflicted harm to simply feel something or an appeal to the guards with an intended result (good behavior vs. acting out). However, I think of this quote by Foucault differently. Foucault is preoccupied with bio-politics (denoting social and political power over life) and this quote directly addresses this power dynamic. The reason why inmates have the power is because they themselves are the foundation of the panopticon. Foucault claims that the purpose of the panopticon is to “induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power…that this apparatus should be a machine for…sustaining a power relation.” Constant vigilance and over the inmate places the inmate in a state of shock. This shock causes them to rethink their every action because no matter what they do or say they are being watched and they never find out who is watching. They are being “broken in” and after some time with zero privacy they act as if they are being watched even when they might not be. It becomes mechanical but this notion leads into the crux of Foucault’s argument. Unlike in Dickens writing, the vigilance Foucault discusses takes away the inmates ability to feel anything. They could not pick their skin for example because they would immediately be caught and disciplined for it. In other words, they have no way to remember what it is to be human. Their power here lies in their powerlessness and a simple revolt will degrade the system. At the point where they are broken in however, it may seem that the chains are not only physical; they have now become psychological. That can be twice as dangerous…
In my opinion, the power rest both with the inmates and whom Foucault calls the guardian. The inmate has power because they can attempt to overthrow the system and disallow any future subjugation. The guardian has more power though. The guardian disallows inmates to revolt by making them feel helpless and powerless. By hiring guards to immediately discipline inmates who get out of line and ban unity amongst them. By resting in the tower where he can see everything but can never be seen. The pursuit of power is the root behind crime and some of the most appalling forms of degradation throughout history. This pursuit of power and control is the reason why uniformity has become a tactic for oppression. Strip everyone of their identity and it makes it easier to make an example out of one of them. For example, give all the inmates’ stripped shirts and numbers for identity purposes and they see themselves in each other. Kill one inmate as an example and the rest follow because, psychologically, they feel victimized and scared. Uniformity is about nothing more than control.
Lastly, the panopticon in essence is not used today but the disciplinary tactics are alive and well. Inmates serve time in solitary confinement for being rowdy or overly aggressive. People who are said to be “mentally unstable” are placed in “crazy homes” where they are secluded and drugged constantly at the discretion of the supervisors. The panopticon is alive and well but it simply does not live in full the way it did years ago. The scenery may have changed but the lasting affects lie with all the untold stories of societal outcaste.
Thanks for the post, Michelle!
In regards to your first question, I agree with Andre's point on how religion may give inmates "power." In such an unpredictable and volatile environment, religion may act as a coping mechanism. For example, believing "it's all part of God's plan," having the ability to repent, and the rationalizing one's actions (I once watched a documentary where a convicted serial murderer found religion and argued that killing someone is no greater of a sin than stealing a cracker, in God's eyes).
Paradoxically, religion may also, in these circumstances, be giving the institution power by combing the prisoner into a non-combative, docile individual. Like you say, Michelle, religion may be said to serve the purpose of reforming and making individuals into "better people." While this may be true of what an inmate thinks, this also sounds like it would be the perspective and hope of those who run these institutions. I think there is often a purposed disconnect in proposed theory (self-help, guidance) and practice (enforcing control).
Not exactly relevant (not sure if my answer was either), but I thought this was an interesting article to read, too: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3003839/Lags-go-Muslim-for-better-food.html
Second, I think both groups (inmates and institution figures) have power, but the power of the institution is contingent on the power (or lack thereof) of the inmates. Foucault talks of Bentham’s principle of power, which hinges on being “visible” and “unverifiable.” The power always physically seen (i.e. the tower), but the presence of another human watching your actions is unknown, inducing a feeling of hypervigilance.
Inmates are rendered powerless by a lack of privacy and this unverifiability. How do inmates then have power? Well I guess, existentially at least, they are in control of their own actions. Even if so psychologically controlled and unaware, it is their actions that lead to the proliferation of the institution’s power. I get the feeling that the panopticon’s architectural construction is as much of a controlling factor as the humans that govern the building.
Leading into question three/four and your thoughts on Sally’s uniform, I would say that total institutions rely on such measures to eliminate any personal identity. Plus, it makes clear the separation of who’s in power and who is not. Erving Goffman, a sociologist, explored this idea in his book “Asylums.” Although his studies were limited to mental hospitals, he came up with the term “mortification of self.” He argues (and I would agree) that the self deteriorates so much (through control and degradation) that it eventually becomes defined by the institution itself. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment is another good experiment to look at regarding the power of roles and the demarcation of who is the prisoner and who is not.
Lastly, I would say that the panopitcon is still used, although in a somewhat different way. Solitary confinement is still routinely used as a punishment in prisons. Psychological abuse is still present. Control still plays a big role in these institutions. I do hope that through continued research and by learning from other nations, we can devise more humane and rehabilitative methods of imprisonment. As we saw in our readings, though, public pressure is strong and the balance of retribution and rehabilitation is tough.
Hi all and many thanks to Michelle for her post. I am on my way to San Francisco for the week, but before I leave, I wanted to ask Professor Stein a quick question and share with you two book titles that keep coming to mind as I read these posts.
My question is for Professor Stein: Would you repeat here the last Foucault quotation and the question you posed to the class about it? I don't have it in my notes. Thanks!
Also, here are the two books that I keep thinking about as I read your comments:
Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl (http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-Frankl/dp/080701429X)
The Drowned and the Saved by Primo Levi (http://www.amazon.com/Drowned-Saved-Primo-Levi/dp/067972186X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352644026&sr=1-1&keywords=primo+levi+the+grey+zone)
Both are books that reflect on what happened to people/prisoners in the Holocaust/Shoah.
Man's Search for Meaning is a great one, I'm glad you mentioned it! Really captures the psychological strength and coping skills that are necessary to survive in such a controlled environment, and also how one comes to make sense of the uncertain and unpredictable predicament they're in. This could relate to the use of religion in prisons.
It's a bit of a different dynamic in Frankl's as these are innocent people who are locked up, but the effects of imprisonment are pretty universal.
Here you are Professor Waterston:
Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers (Foucault, 1977, p. 4)
Foucault, M. (1977), Disicpline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. NY: Vintage.
Hello Verons,
First off I want to thank the professor's and classmates for the incredible class we had on Thursday! (Great post Michelle)
As Andre and Joe mentioned, religion does serve as a coping mechanism for individuals within prison. There are many examples of individuals who have channeled, as Michelle suggests, their frustrations into rebuilding their lives and starting over. There is a ton of literature to support the notion as to why religion can be used a driving force. With that in mind, I want to explore and attempt to evaluate why religion plays a role in prisons based on how it used. Serving time in prison tends to lead to two overarching consequences individuals. First, these individuals tend to feel isolated and stigmatized. In other words, they feel stripped of a sense of belonging not just to their friends and families but also to their communities, states, and nations. For this reason, religion enables individuals to belong to a community without feelings of stigmatization or judgment, in turn. This sense of belonging may create a purpose or sense of direction whereas joyful reading or physical activities to not fill that void. As traced throughout history, individuals are most moved by symbols and utopian ideologies, which many religions incorporate and rely whether intentionally or not. Second, religion serves as a pacifier in some cases. For example, since a common point for the class tends to be Biblical reference, there are many stories within the Bible where a specific law is laid out and individuals are asked to follow that law. Individuals who deviate or disobey the law are often punished. The belief that some punishment is needed to foster moral sense needs to be embraced for individuals to accept the teachings. So what does this all mean? Individuals embrace punishment within their current lives even if the laws and rules may have been unjustly applied.
To me, this seems to create a feeling of complacency within prison until their time is served. For example, after Malcolm X converted to the Nation of Islam while serving time, he became much more disciplined and eager to do everything in his power to finish his time in jail. Certainly, I acknowledge that my examples are not true in all cases, but it would be interesting to create a psychological study comparing inmates that embrace their religion and the reasons as to why. Religion will continue to play a role in a number of different ways in prisons.
Foucault’s claim that inmates hold the power reminds me of Occupy Wall Street. Contrary to the media characterization in the news, the Occupiers hold the most power. The current systems in place and infatuation with order facilitated through government require a certain level of complacency. In order to achieve this goal, NYPD, along with other law enforcement agents, are working to take steps—court orders, threats, and beatings—to prevent individuals from unifying and sharing their suffering through media. Although many of the individuals who hold power within the different legal, economic, and political systems appear to have full control with no accountability, these same individuals would not have power with a restless and unified coalition. With this in mind, the Occupiers have the ability to complete reshape the landscape; however, attempts to absorb and redirect this enormous force are being taken to prevent that from control. This analogy mirrors the claim that Foucault asserts for inmates. Surely the size and force of the inmates is not comparable to Occupy Wall Street, but the ability for individuals to organize and exert power is. During previous decades, individuals within jails came together in attempts to create unions, better working environments, and similar positive benefits within jail, which in turn forced the hierarchy to take steps to prevent this from occurring. The psychological and mental abuse that individuals fear is a result of the system and environment created regardless of whether individuals have the power to change the situation or not.
(continued)
In regard to the third question, corporations, capitalistic governments, and wealthy males are more often than not in control of all aspect of society. I know this may seem a little to blunt; however, there needs to be more courage to call out the truth than there currently is. Still, you may say well how does this affect the prison system and who has control. Unfortunately, especially within the United States, the need for material and aspiration for money has been woven into the culture and most institutions. Correspondingly, corporations and the governments they fund favor policies that will discourage unification and prevent reevaluation. For example, why isn’t their change within the juvenile justice system within New York State? 171 million dollars is spent to employee 2,200 individuals who supervise 750 kids. First, private corporations have utilized the prison system for gains. This has led to the failure for politicians to reevaluate policy and foster debate and dialogue. Second, certain vulnerable populations threaten current hierarchies. So, a way to absorb this fear is to create and use resource to stigmatize and control certain populations. For these reasons, along with many more, prisons are an extension of the current economic and social hierarchies that in place. Although the individuals running prisons may shift and certain small changes may occur, those funding, shaping, and advocating for policies behind closed doors stays the same.
The purpose of uniformity is to prevent individuals from having a choice even though they are being watched. Moreover, as mentioned in the previous comments, a sense of identity is restricted. In addition, competition and creativity for stifled. Individuals will not think of innovates ways to dress or act is there is no choice to do so. Issues leading to reimagining conditions within prisons won’t occur if there is not an option to allow small ventures to succeed, such as designing clothes. All in all, uniformity creates a barrier among the officials on the ground watching inmates and the inmates. To put differently, an illusions is created that the inmates and the guards are in fact on different levels. However, they share a commonality: they are both being controlled—whether they know it or not—by other hierarchies. They internalized the uniform associated with guards and the small power as a source of legitimacy in the difference rather than ever trying to realizing whether they are in the same positions as the inmate only to a less degree.
Like Joe, I have to disagree with the claim that panopitcon is no longer used. In many ways, the objective and means of panopitcon appear to be integral to many systems currently used, e.g., policing within communities, policing online, and government control in foreign countries. There appears to be the belief as technology and interdependence increases that someone is always watching over your shoulder. So, while actually physical structure used in prisons with panopitcon may have changed, the goals and means appear to be alive and well—as Foucault alludes to in the end of his except in which he points out hospital and school and prisons have all become the same.
1) I believe that religion can have a very large role, or a very minor role, when it comes to the conceptualization of rehabilitation or reform. I believe that two paths can be taken; either the offender accepts religion (whichever it may be) or rejects it. However, I think this becomes more of a coping mechanism than an actual acceptance of a belief. The reason I say this, is because, as we mentioned, the trauma and conditions of a prison, such as a panopticon, can strip away all explanation or reasoning for why or if we event exist. Religion becomes a way we can justify what we are going through, especially in times of great hardship. This may be used as a way to gain converts, because of the vulnerability of the prisoner, and that, in some sense, is unethical, because it is taking advantage of the situation the prisoner finds him/herself in.
2) When thinking about this, a thought came to mind. Do we know what power is if we have it since we are born, or does it only become apparent when we lose that power, when we start searching for it. The reason this thought came to mind because of the psychological impact of that transition. At one point, the prisoner/offender had some sort of authority – they killed someone, they robbed someone, etc. They had some sort of power. Yet, in the prison, that power is lost, and the reason that they are so greatly affected is because they are no in pursuit of regaining what they have lost – thus pealing of the skin. The power and oppression held over them is only relevant because they know what that power is, what is means, what it represents; freedom.
3) Uniforms, or uniformity, create a paradigm in which works within the confines of bilateral control. What this means is that there is a hierarchy, a vertical design in which one agent is above another. However, while there are agents above and below, there are those who are your equal. You are not only oppressed or act as an oppressor by yourself, you have those beside you that share in that experience, and this can have a normalizing effect. If thousands are like me and share my experience, perhaps my experience is not so cruel – it might be the natural order of things. This applies to everyone, the slave and the master, for as the slave understand the dichotomy, there are countless slaves that share the experience of oppression, thus the though may incur that slavery is a natural part of the world, and thus this is my place. The same is for the master. The master may one day empathize, but so many like him/her have slaves, and have had slaves for generations, the conclusion that this is natural is not so unbelievable. So, it is a form of control, where we can understand how a place in the hierarchy does not give a desire to move up, but to accept and conform where you are in that hierarchy.
4) The transition or evolution of incarceration practices in the United States, in my opinion, have occurred for various reasons, but one is the hyper consciousness of how we feel about ourselves as a society, not about the welfare of the prisoners. What is humane? Are prisons humane and yet complete their purpose? Can we live with ourselves? These question may have shaped how we think of ourselves, and we can’t have prisons treat humans like animals, they need to be civil and fair – although that often times is still not the case. Not even close.
Hi Michelle,
In response to your first question my belief is that in earlier times, religion was used, in many institutions, as a special force which could drive a person to repent and reform. However, in our present times, I believe religion is used by both prison officials and prisoners to obtain certain results or what Foucault might call “control” on particular situations. What I mean by this is that prison officials may still hold the belief that religion and the bible hold a special form of illumination and/or information which could help certain violent individuals to repent or rather, behave in more respectful manner. The same goes for certain prisoners who might believe that religion holds some kind of special powers and/or circumstances that can help them obtain better treatment or special privileges.
However on the other hand, after reading about the riots in Attica and other prisons in America, in our more recent past, I am more inclined to believe that religion in our times is something that most prison officials would rather stay clear off, just as many other institutions in our society do. The reason being that religion is one of those topics which inspires and causes many passionate discussions and feelings that are in many instances, by many people and for many reasons, misinterpreted and can cause friction and/or conflicts.
But going back to your comment about religion being used as a way of reforming inmates, I will argue that the intention behind institutions handing a man a bible, when he will have nothing else to read or see for many years, was obviously intended to make that individual a believer of a presences which will forever be watching everything he does, just as a presence in the institution will be watching him.
2- In response to your second question, for this particular part of our discussion my interpretation of the phrase, “that the inmate should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers,” is that the inmates would be caught up in a situation in which if they handle themselves properly, they can control how much discipline is inflicted upon them. To me this meant that obviously the inmates would be controlled but under that system of control they could, with their behavior, determine if they would be left alone to serve out their sentences in peace or if they would be controlled further or deprived of more things, such as food or other necessities or if they would be punished further, possibly maybe even physically.
I believe that with the progress and evolvement of a more civilized society and civil rights, it became obvious that certain forms of punishments and incarceration did not work. I think that a more educated and advanced society led to the understanding that these types of punishments were more conducive to violence and mental deterioration which can be more detrimental and cause more criminal behavior. I believe that in a progressive and enlightened society we must realize that this form of punishment cannot in anyway, reform or rehabilitate individuals.
Hi Michelle,
In response to your first question my belief is that in earlier times, religion was used, in many institutions, as a special force which could drive a person to repent and reform. However, in our present times, I believe religion is used by both prison officials and prisoners to obtain certain results or what Foucault might call “control” on particular situations. What I mean by this is that prison officials may still hold the belief that religion and the bible hold a special form of illumination and/or information which could help certain violent individuals to repent or rather, behave in more respectful manner. The same goes for certain prisoners who might believe that religion holds some kind of special powers and/or circumstances that can help them obtain better treatment or special privileges.
However on the other hand, after reading about the riots in Attica and other prisons in America, in our more recent past, I am more inclined to believe that religion in our times is something that most prison officials would rather stay clear off, just as many other institutions in our society do. The reason being that religion is one of those topics which inspires and causes many passionate discussions and feelings that are in many instances, by many people and for many reasons, misinterpreted and can cause friction and/or conflicts.
But going back to your comment about religion being used as a way of reforming inmates, I will argue that the intention behind institutions handing a man a bible, when he will have nothing else to read or see for many years, was obviously intended to make that individual a believer of a presences which will forever be watching everything he does, just as a presence in the institution will be watching him.
2- In response to your second question, for this particular part of our discussion my interpretation of the phrase, “that the inmate should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers,” is that the inmates would be caught up in a situation in which if they handle themselves properly, they can control how much discipline is inflicted upon them. To me this meant that obviously the inmates would be controlled but under that system of control they could, with their behavior, determine if they would be left alone to serve out their sentences in peace or if they would be controlled further or deprived of more things, such as food or other necessities or if they would be punished further, possibly maybe even physically.
I believe that with the progress and evolvement of a more civilized society and civil rights, it became obvious that certain forms of punishments and incarceration did not work. I think that a more educated and advanced society led to the understanding that these types of punishments were more conducive to violence and mental deterioration which can be more detrimental and cause more criminal behavior. I believe that in a progressive and enlightened society we must realize that this form of punishment cannot in anyway, reform or rehabilitate individuals.
I think that while incarcerated, inmates have very little choices in how to spend their time. Many prisoners begin to read mass amounts of texts in all genres. In the panopticon the only literature they had available was the bible so that is what they read, over and over. And if you read something thoroughly and often you would probably start to associate with it. In other modern prisons where inmates have more freedom to move around, attending religious practices gives people a community to belong to while bettering themselves.
I feel as though the prisoners could have the power but the panopticon is in place to make it difficult for them to realize that. The physical structure of the panopticon is set to isolate and create mental instability in its prisoners so that they do not understand their potential power. In this situation I think the guards have the power because they can either give the inmates the attention they so badly crave or they can compound the problem and ignore them completely. They are the ones who really control how bad they inmates mental torture is, even if they are not aware they possess this power.
Uniformity is used to create different levels of oppression yet keep everyone on their level equal. All the inmates are created equal and are controlled by the corrections officers who they themselves are all on the same level and again being controlled by hire-ups. If everyone is equal within their little level they are less likely to reach or aspire to move up a tier and create a disturbance.
I think once people (society) noticed the detrimental and irreversible damage that occurs to people who are placed in this environment they realized that although not physical harming the inmates it is not the “humanitarian” approach that was brought up in class. With the advancement of sciences and media, I think the general public is more exposed and aware of the situation.
This is a superb blog. Thank you, Michelle, for organizing and presenting so many of the thoughts that floated around the classroom. Like the Panopticon, this conversation is an octopus with many arms.
What I have enjoyed so much in the conversation is the tension between the idea that the prisoner is powerless and the idea that the prisoner, in some profound way, is all powerful.
In Foucaultian terms, the prisoner becomes a “disciplinary individual”, a hollow repository for the desires and demands of the oppressing force. In other words, as Andre and Joe so eloquently described, the constant surveillance from an invisible source is ultimately internalized so that the prisoner (or factory worker, or mental patient, or student) comes to police herself. She is so stripped of humanity that all that remains are the dictates of her oppressors. She no longer has to be watched, as Aaron suggested in class, because now she always follows orders, even when none are explicitly given!
Sally, Minerva, and Joe picked up on how religion is one tool that the powerful can use to maintain their power. Marx said that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". In Foucaultian terms, religion serves the ends of the powerful by seducing and narcotizing the people. They follow God instead of joining with their peers to overthrow the human powers that imprison them.
Professor Waterston added that Foucault was offering a critique of capitalism, where the ultimate goal is to serve the marketplace. So, whenever you are talking about an abstract “power” in Foucault, you are talking about the way that the prison, or the military, or health care, or education, become industrial complexes that must be preserved to fuel a market economy even though the masses will be oppressed by them. If you do not have students, patients, prisoners, soldiers who die, etc. your economy tanks. Someone MUST stay powerless. Nico reminds us that the guards are as oppressed as the prisoners, the teachers as the students, the factory workers as their supervisors on the line. Very few (the 1%?) escape that fate, according to Foucault.
I am fascinated by the idea that many of you presented that the prisoners have the ultimate power. At first, I admit, I did not get what you meant. Foucault is really talking about how prisoners are stripped of power. But those activists among you, Sally primarily, brings up the idea that all the tricks of the oppressor can be turned on their heads. She cites the example of Malcolm X, whose religion empowered rather than narcotized him. Not everyone is beaten down. What, I wonder, does it takes to transcend the dead end job, the ghetto, the need to be beautiful, or rich, the traps and trappings of capitalism?
Thank you, Michelle, for the wonderful post. I have much regret for missing out on last week’s amazing class discussions, and I hope that I could remedy my absence by contributing to the blog discussion.
Let me first briefly touch on the question regarding the role of religion in imprisonment. I believe it was, and still is, being used as a tool to manipulate inmates’ mental and behavioral patterns. In other words, the kind of fear and respect one might have for God is often being converted into an extension of correctional discipline. However, I do want to shift the center of my blog post away from the role of religion, and toward the issue of professionalization of the correctional system. The modern day correctional institution is an elaborate product of a number of emerging professions. These newly emerged professions, career opportunities that are largely depended on the studies of prisoners, including, but are not limited to psychiatry and certain sects of social anthropology, is a powerful yet invisible force that pushes the expansion of the correctional system. The rapidly expanding correctional system, however, is not the first instance where small portion of the population are being branded as “abnormal” or “criminal”, and thus justify the way they are unjustly treated, namely the severely restricted freedom and degraded personhoods. Prostitutes and the mentally ill were once the primary targets of the growing trends of professionalization in what we called today the criminal justice system. There were numerous self-proclaimed professionals popping up from all corners of the world and began to label people as criminal, insane, abnormal, or dangerous. The goal of these massive classifications was to evoke fears among the populace so they could justify their careers and the institutional persecutions against those socioeconomically marginalized individuals.
Examples of this kind can be seen from works of Positive Craniologist such as Caesar Lombroso, who devote a great amount of efforts to sorting out people’s moral characters. Although Lombroso’s work is now refuted by most of modern audience, however, during the zenith of his career, Lombroso’s theories had created a great deal of harmful impacts on the lives certain groups of individuals. Branded with these undesirable classifications, some socioeconomic groups, like prostitutes, the poor, and the ill ones, found themselves becoming legitimate test subjects of the theories put forwarded by “professionals” like Lombroso. They were forced into asylums, treatment centers, and as of today, prisons, because presumably something is wrong with them. We, the society, on the other hand, are perfectly comfortable with placing them under horrible treatments, such as the notorious solidary confinement, because we are convinced by these new “professionals” that their theories, be it the panoption or positive criminology, are the appropriate methods to handle the “abnormal ones.”
1. Religion is a huge driving force in the role of prison, as Andre eloquently explained “Take a societal outcaste, put him in a cage, give him a bible and plenty of time to think about his crime and odds are he will appeal to some higher authority”. When one has no placed to turn and is in his lowest of lows, it would give an individual comfort in turning to someone. Since the individual’s options are limited to the guards or the other prisoners assuming that individual is not in solitary confinement. Individuals turn to religion as that someone. I believe that any religion can be chosen ex. Scientology and the result would be that religion plays a huge role in prison. The idea that an individual is part of a divine plan is comforting to the individual and as Andre explained “A higher authority that promises to forgive him for his actions strip him of his shame and give him the chance to obtain eternal salvation”. There are several high profile individuals who converted while during their prison sentence for example, Malcolm X and Stanley Tookie Williams. It is not to say that individuals who converted is worse off, however the issue is as Andre put “religion gives them power, and new life and promises that they will be forgiven.” To add to it I also agree with joseph that it is a coping mechanism. Religion has played such a huge role in prisons that there are prison chapels throughout the world, with space either set aside for them or built for them
2./3 I agree with Andre on Michelle’s assessment of Foucault as well as Andre’s assessment of Foucault quote because they both intertwined, however I don’t believe the panopticon was to give the individual power. I believe as Andre explained the prisoners are the epicenter or the foundation to power, I don’t believe that they themselves have any power, one analogy that I can think of is the treatment of animals, animals themselves hold no power at all however we need animals for consumption, ex chicken nuggets. In turn we create farm factories that control the populations of animals so we can always have that steak, bacon and chicken. It applies in a vague sense to the prisoners, they have no power however the guards need them as well as the higher ups need them to keep their collective power and hold over the prisoners. There is no prison without the prisoners and there are industries that profit off of prisoners with private prisons. On that note I agree with Joseph on his argument “the power of the institution is contingent on the power (or lack thereof) of the inmates”. This power structure has always been there from when the Brits used the tower of London as a prison in the 1200s to now, the difference is that we are just more aware of it if you look through the perspective of a prisoner.
So sorry to miss this class, especially as Foucault has been so influential in my corner of the literary criticism world: the Victorian novel.
Sylvie brings up such an important observation when she mentions how the emergence of modern notions of discipline and power (which Foucault uses the panopticon to express)coincides with the rise of professionalism (where all of a sudden we have experts who work as specialists in distinctly defined fields). This is utterly true historically -- modern discipline and professionalism are both mid-19th century phenomena -- but also so important in understanding Foucault's idea of power which is not some heavy handed centralized System, but rather the dissemination in many areas of a normativizing power. One area in which this power operates is fiction and there is a very interesting argument that the modern novel and its self-aware (often intensely so) first-person narrator is the very example of the self-policing modern subject about which Foucault writes.
One of the more famous books in my field that makes this argument is D. A. Miller's THE NOVEL AND THE POLICE (1988). He has a fantastic summary of Foucault's argument about discipline. Here it is: "
[Michel Foucault's idea of discipline includes] 1) an ideal of unseen but all-seeing surveillance, which, though partly realized in several, often interconnected institutions, is identified with none; 2) a regime of the norm, in which normalizing perceptions, prescriptions, and sanctions are diffused in discourses and practices throughout the social fabric; and 3) various technologies of the self and sexuality, which administer the subject's own contribution to the intensive and continuous "pastoral" care that liberal society proposes to take of each and every one of its charges. To label all this "the police" thus anticipates moving the question of policing out of the streets, as it were, into the closet -- I mean, into the private and domestic sphere on which the very identity of the liberal subject depends."
I really wish I had made it into class last week--I've been obsessed with Foucault since I first read "Panopticon" during Freshman year.
The interesting thing about religion and incarceration is that religion itself can be a double edged sword—a tool that both helps and hurts those isolated in prison. While prisoners use religion as a moral ballast, it actually reinforces traditional Western, Christian values, instituting a type of code that goes beyond the realm of law, and into that of morality. Whether this is good or bad, I don’t know. Being raised in a Christian household, I’ve always been inspired by the testimonies of those who
“found God” within the prison walls. But I’ve now become very wary. I can’t exactly articulate my thoughts on the matter, but this is what I’m being led to believe. There is nothing wrong with wanting to repent. I should be promoted, in fact. But it should not be used as a means to further demonize prisoners as hopelessly corrupt, as a means to justify further isolation and alienation.
As others have said, I believe the panopticon is meant to give the illusion that we, the individual, have some means of control. So we can feel like we are not totally dominated by a system where we are, in fact, powerless. This, in turn, promotes conformity and less resistance. If prisoners (or even individuals) feel like they have some sort of basic freedom, we are more likely to accept the system as it is, rather to fight back. It is a very interesting argument—one that not only applies to prisons, but society at large.
Post a Comment