Discipline and Punish

[speed]

To me, it seems Foucault was the last philosopher to truly examine modern life and our present social model, and this is his greatest work. I recently finished it, and have been in a rage of critical thinking since.

Essentially, using the penal system as the allegory,Foucault examines how we've reached our current age of discipline, surveillance, and our willing submission to authorities and the state. Its how the egalitarian and economic nature of the bourgeois state or authorities went about creating such a society over the last 200 years, and our acceptance of this very anti-egalitarian power.

In our new technological world, where every single move can now be tracked by our computers and cell phones; where schools are more concerned about discipline/order and systemized thinking and learning; where our houses are under zoning restrictions by the city as to what we can build or do with our land; where our jobs are under a myriad of rules and restrictions of conduct; where our own government is spying on us and no one minds: Foucault's ideas have become even more important.

I dont really know what question I wish to ask, or what discussion I wish to make...the book is essentially modern society with all of its faults and its development.

I suppose the central question to ask is: how does the individual retain his/her identity in this world? Is it possible?

 

[Korona]

I disagree that the society itself is a prison, or that widespread observation is an impediment to individuality. What does lack individuality is the codification of law. I think that a criminal should be tried by his peers - and sentanced by them too, thus the punishment can fit not only the crime but the individual, the circumstances and the social setting it took place in.
The whole "you have commited crime X and so you recieve punishment Y" is certainly impersonal and I think the root of many of Foucault's concerns. Trial by peers is a pretty effective means to prevent the tyranny of a state.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

Broadly speaking, I tend to think Foucault is correct about the nature of our society and its patterns of socialization.

Not so sure about Foucault's contribution to philosophy - anyone who understands Nietzsche's idea of 'slave morality' already understands the concepts that underlie the notions of the panopticon or internal 'disciplines'. Foucault was (and saw himself as) a historian rather than a philosopher, applying the insight of Nietzsche to the structure of the world we live in.

 

[Omnis_Sathanas]

I suppose the central question to ask is: how does the individual retain his/her identity in this world? Is it possible?

I had a large thread going in another forum a couple of years back about how identity in developed nations is now for most people just a culmination of the media and entertainment sources they've been conditioned by. As in, most people tend to frame things in terms of quotes from TV shows or movies they've seen and this is pretty much where "culture" begins and ends for them. It's a means of social control that is voluntarily accepted by most people and they don't seem to notice or care, or even ever desire to isolate themselves enough to evaluate this phenomenon objectively. Ironically, they consider it a "personal choice" or "freedom".

 

[speed]

Broadly speaking, I tend to think Foucault is correct about the nature of our society and its patterns of socialization.

Not so sure about Foucault's contribution to philosophy - anyone who understands Nietzsche's idea of 'slave morality' already understands the concepts that underlie the notions of the panopticon or internal 'disciplines'. Foucault was (and saw himself as) a historian rather than a philosopher, applying the insight of Nietzsche to the structure of the world we live in.

Well, with a ever-useful undergrad history degree, this may explain my love for his work!