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
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
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