How To Write A Rhetorical Analysis Foucault

Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison” seeks to identify the origins of Discipline systems and the effects of these processes on society. Foucault focuses on the role of power in establishing societal norms, and the consequences that arise when individuals deviate from those norms. Foucault critiques the enlightenment’s effect on society through an examination of the processes for correcting these deviations. Foucault focuses on prison systems primarily, but also extends his analysis to question the processes of hospitals. He opens the door to question how the prison structure of deviation from norms and forms of correction can apply to other societal situations, especially the psychoanalytical studies. Looking
Foucault expands on the relationship between knowledge and power when he notes that “the formation of knowledge and the increase of power regularly reinforce one another in a circular process” (Foucault 224). This statement creates an inextricable link between power and knowledge since they “reinforce” one another. The “circular” or cyclic nature of this process makes it difficult to separate or break this connection. Essentially, those who have power establish knowledge in society, and those who establish knowledge have power. Knowledge in society informs standards of behavior, and therefore also constitutes categories of behavior that deviate from these standards. Foucault applies his theory to the legal system when he explains that “the juridical systems define juridical subjects according to universal norms, the disciplines characterize, classify, specialize” (Foucault 223). As seen in the preceding quote, these “universal norms” are knowledge already constituted by institutions of power, and the juridical system is an example of one of these institutions using its power in this manner. This system “defines … subjects;” the use of subjects establishes a direct power hierarchy. Within this power hierarchy, the juridical
Children who are categorized as “hyperactive and impulsive… once shunned as bad seeds, are now recognized as having a real neurological problem. Doctors and parents have largely accepted drugs… to temper the traits of classic A.D.H.D., helping youngsters succeed in school and beyond” (Schwarz 1). Hyperactivity and impulsiveness are traits that must be defined in relation to others. A child is “hyper” active because they are more active than what is considered normal, or has “impulsiveness” because they are more impetuous than what is considered normal. The ultimate category attributed to these children is “bad seeds,” which inherently establishes a deviation from what is considered a normal or “good seed” child. In this statement, these traits are “the traits of class A.D.H.D.” Doctors and parents constitute the category of “bad seed”, as a disease in the form of A.D.H.D. By making this category a disease, the power institutions at play, doctors and parents are now able to correct this deviant behavior, through drugs. Teachers also serve as a power institution that promotes these forms of categorization. Susan Parry, a mother of 3, claims “teachers pushed her into having her feisty son Andy evaluated for A.D.H.D.”(Schwarz 9). Once again the use of the word feisty is used as a term of comparison, placing Andy