October 23, 14
Discipline and punishment is a history of modern day punishing system. Foucault evaluates punishment in its social context and the effect of changing power had on punishment in his article “Discipline and punish”. He begins by discussing punishment before the 18th century, when public execution and bodily retribution were used in most investigations. A crime during this era was looked at as crime against the sovereign body thus justifying the punishment on the criminal’s body as revenge. Punishment was traditional and focused on criminal’s bodies; many locals would attend to witness and even cheer. Torture was acceptable by the act of confession, despite however it was obtained. This was the king’s way of showing power as well as instilling fear in the public to keep them in control. The 18th century showcased many reforms for change in punishment; Foucault discusses how this was not exactly motivated by concern for the well being of the prisoners. Rather, the need for power to function more proficiently. The king’s “fear” system was soon becoming undone by two different stages, first being the common people no longer saw the prisoner as an enemy but began to sympathize with them due to how much they physically suffered. The reformers suggested displays of posters throughout the community to the public warning them of the crimes and sentencing they could face. This was the beginning of a new change from a body harm to a more mind control towards the prisoners “punishment of a less immediately physical kind, a certain discretion in the art of inflicting pain, a combination of more subtle, more subdued sufferings, deprived of their visible display” (Foucault, 302). Dungeons were used as a way to hide the prisoner, used to do bodily harm in order to get out a confession and then be sentenced to public execution. While the prison reversed the principle of the dungeons, it only maintained the ability to enclose rather than deny light and to be concealed. The prison tower main difference was to be constantly seen and supervised, also for prisoners to constantly know and feel that they are been watched without always necessarily being watched by supervisor, it also limited the ability for the prisoners to see out. The individual is constricted in a cell, which the guard sees him from the front, but the walls on both ends restraint contact with other prisoners. “The prisoner becomes the object of information, never a subject in communication” (Foucault, 302). Punishment went from complete invisibility to transparent. It was a way for the king to show execution of power in effective and just manner. This also instilled confidence in the public of their sovereign by seeing the appropriate allocation of their taxes. This movement into modern penal arrangement started the jury system, it began to employ lawyers, judges and guards, which in return was good for the economic because it put out more jobs.
Escobar highlights the part of economists’ addressing growth; through is his case study of Colombia, which exhibits the economization of food that created an idea of hopeful plans, and as consequence further hunger. While those of power were busy planning and discussing there was a lot of time wasted and many people left suffering. To illustrate the construction of knowledge and power in areas in need of development, Escobar discusses how farmers, women, and nature became matters of knowledge and focuses of supremacy under those looking to influence. The way I understand Escobar discussion of the construction of the third world through representation is that term “third world” did not exist until recognized by the more