How Does Foucault Make Up The Genealogical Perspective Of Punishment?

Michel Foucault’s analysis of the history of discipline and punishment focuses deeply on a genealogical perspective with regards to how time has progressed disciplinary methods of action. Certain means of discipline are contoured to fit the modern civilian in order to take full effect. Types of punishment used today are significantly different in comparison to that of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. In order to study the ramifications of discipline and punishment, Foucault advises that one must use a genealogical perspective to analyze the evolution. Certain characteristics make up the general genealogical process which allows an unbiased and accurate judgment of history.
The characteristics which make up the genealogical approach to
history allow one to evaluate all elements of past forms of discipline and punishment. Foucault begins by stating that an important characteristic of studying the genealogical history of punishment is the knowledge of details. These details are accrued through multiple resources which may be gained throughout an extended period of time, requiring a second characteristic of patience. Foucault notes that “[genealogy] opposes itself to the use for origins” (Foucault 77) in search for a more holistic truth. Genealogy does not show how a culture has evolved as a map from the beginning of history up until the current date. Rather, it shows how accidents in history have shaped a culture’s truths. Foucault describes the genealogist as an analyst with an objective perspective on history. The common goal of a genealogist is not to grasp the significance of past events, but to evaluate them from a state of detachment which allows a more accurate analysis. The genealogical approach to the observation of history allows one to gain an impartial sapience of past events which have shaped culture up until modern day society. The transition of disciplinary punishment from the sixteenth and seventeenth century to eighteenth and nineteenth century drastically changes in a how the punishment is presented and carried out.
Foucault notes that there are four rules that must be taken into consideration when evaluating the punishment processes. The first rule warns that one should not focus only on the coercive conditions of the act of punishment, but work to see the positive aspects as well. Although the effects of a form of punishment may not be similar in comparison to a modern society’s methods, Foucault stresses the importance of the outcome of the situation. Foucault states that the main point to take away from this is to “regard punishment as a complex social function” (Foucault 170). The second rule requests that one view the type of punishment given as a “political tactic”. Punishment should be seen as a method in order to exercise dominance rather than merely as consequence for past actions. When the punishment is seen as a tactic from the government instead of a severe a brutal consequence from an unknown figure without power, the message that the punishment portrays may become lost in interpretation. When a punishment is given from a specific figure, a community may begin to understand the meaning behind the form of discipline. The third rule says to “make the technology of power the very principle both of the humanization of the penal system and of the knowledge of man” (Foucault 171). When
analyzing these two elements together, one may recognize how they emanate from a the same process called “epistemologico-juridical” arrangement. The fourth and final rule discloses that one should study the transformation of punishment based upon the politics associated with the body. These rules are essential to an unbiased opinion when evaluating the history of punishment in society. When assessing punishment in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, historians began with physiological characteristics that made up the average person during that time period. The appeal of conformity during this time period became a common basis for how society should be controlled. Communities were conducted under Foucault’s interpretation of the three elements of hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination, which were actively used during the seventeenth century.
Hierarchical observation is a type of system used to discipline a community by using power through visibility. An example often associated with hierarchical observation is the military camp. Foucault says, “a central point would be both the source of light illuminating everything, and a locus of convergence for everything that must be known: a perfect eye that nothing would escape and a centre towards which all gazes would be turned…” (Foucault 191). The threat of observation is enough to conform a body of individuals in the hierarchical environment due to the fear which the observation provokes. The second exercise, normalizing judgment, uses a penal technique to inflict individuals to conform to the normal atmosphere. This system used a judicial privilege which consisted of the use of their own laws. One was punished only when the individual deviated from what was considered to be the norm. The norm of society was considered to be apart of a what the community valued based upon their traditions and beliefs. These beliefs may also be known as a part of a community’s unique culture. Finally, the method of examination uses a combination of both hierarchical observation and normalizing judgment in order to discipline. This method emphasizes the importance of knowledge and
demonstrates how those who are in power have greater knowledge than those without power. Examination uses three steps in order to fully exercise power. Invisibility is used similarly to hierarchical observation which allows the case to conform out of fear. Then, the individual is introduced into documentation which allows those in power to “capture and fix” the individual at stake. And finally, the individual becomes a case which can then be studied. This examination is stressed as an exercise of power over the feeble. Examination, normalizing judgment, and hierarchical observation all commonly share the same goal of discipline over a society through various techniques.
In modern society, disciplinary tactics have evolved as time has progressed in order to be more effective and fit to moral standards. For example, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, power was centralized under one specific ruler. However, as humanity progresses, the common people are given more power under a decentralized government in which power is diffused. Today, the United States judicial system uses normalizing judgment to support conformity to laws created by the government. In order to avoid punishment, those without power must abide by the rules given to them. And when one chooses to disobey the rules, consequences may include a fine or even time in prison. Prison may relate to hierarchical observation through the method of using visibility as a sense of power over those without it. The constant watch of a superior is enough to keep control of inmates throughout a prison. Finally, examination may consociate with the United States education system. Students are required to be tested for their knowledge in certain areas of expertise, which ultimately they are graded for and then placed into different areas of competence. Ultimately, those with a higher level of education are given more power over those who do not possess the same skills necessary to control.
Michel Foucault’s genealogical analysis provides a perspective on the evolution of discipline and punishment over several centuries from an objective standpoint. There are several methods required in order to understand the genealogical approach to investigating past forms of punishment. Through genealogical analysis, one may comprehend Foucault’s theories on the use of hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and examination. These methods have evolved into modern day society, where they are often still used in common situations such as the United States judicial system. Michel Foucault’s reasonings to the understanding of the punishment from past to present has brought a new perspective on how humanity has evolved over several centuries.