In chapter 1 of Foucault?s Discipline and Punish, he begins by describing the evolution of
punishment. This evolution has gone from a humiliating public realm, in which prisoners were
tortured, to a more private form, absent of torture. Punishment is now meant to reform prisoners,
and accompanying this reformation is a sense of shamefulness for the prisoner.
One of the chief points that Foucault makes is how the punishment has now moved from the body to
the soul. The horrifying spectacles that once were prevalent forces of punishment, have
transitioned to non-violent forms. Prisoners are not punished by various scientific sources
besides judges, including psychiatrists and doctors. These scientists evaluate if these prisoners
have a state of normalcy or abnormalcy.
In this chapter, the definition of power is also addressed. According to Foucault, power is a
strategy that is present in the relations among people. It is not something that is owned by any
particular individual, rather an instrument built into society.
I find the transition of punishment from public to private to be very interesting. I first
thought of Durkheim?s definition of punishment as public, passionate and organized. The former
torturous punishment would seem to satisfy Durkheim?s description more clearly, however, I cannot
think that there are no underlying factors regarding this ?enlightened? advance from the public
sphere to the private sphere. It seems like they are moving toward an organic solidarity, as the
new form of punishment seeks to reform and repair, much like restituative laws do. However, I
cannot believe that these high powers of government, these men of power have suddenly become more
mature and enlightened. I feel as if there is an underlying reason for these changes in
punishment, and that these new forms, that affect the soul rather than the body, are in fact more
advantageous to those in power.
My questions are if these men of power do in fact gain from this transition from body to soul,
and how do they do so.
Derek Cho
