User:Foucault123/sandbox

Michel Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power creates a link between obedience and power. In Foucault’s eyes the more obedient an individual is, the more controllable and useful it is. This theory can be applied to a variety of contexts. To apply the concept of disciplinary power to various scenarios Foucault identified three main characteristics of disciplinary power.

Hierarchical observation (1), Normalising judgement (2) and Examination (3). Foucault also incorporates Bentham's Panopticon model by developing the theoretical concept of panopticism as a quality of disciplinary power. He does not only apply it to prisons but also to other aspects of modern society. This article gives an overview of the research that has been done to apply set theory to four essential institutions of today's society: prisons, schools, the workspace and hospitals.

Hierarchical observation
Hierarchical observation in prisons serves the purpose of structuring and controlling crime. Prisoners are meant to be visible to the guards at any time. This permanent observation is possible through a panoptical architecture. In modern prisons, total observation is further expanded through electric devices such as surveillance cameras.

The observation in prisons is hierarchical because multiple people in different positions of power monitor the detainees. The position of power, or rank of a member of the prison staff determines the role each staff member plays within the hierarchy of the prison. Some staff members are in close and frequent contact with detainees, while others do not interact with the prisoners at all. The observations and discourses between staff members constitute norms within a prison that are the fundament for judging detainees and their behavior.

Normalising judgement
The norms formed through hierarchical observation are meant to be established as a status quo within a prison. This normalisation of a norm desired by the prison staff is achieved through judging detainees according to said norm. Violations of rules are punished by guards in ways that can often be determined by the prison staff. Humiliations, solitary confinement, and even minor physical punishments are tools prison guards use to discipline detainees. The tools must be compatible with the rule of law, but guards do have discretionary power. This means that judgement continues for lawbreakers even after court judgement. At the same time rewards are measurements that guards deploy to promote and encourage norm-following behavior. This way criminals are not only controlled and punished, but also ideally make steps towards social rehabilitation for a law-abiding life in freedom after their prison sentence has ended.

Examination
While hierarchical observation aims to achieve control within a prison and normalising judgement attempts to establish norms for the good of both the prison staff and the detainees, examinations combine techniques of hierarchical observation and normalising judgement and add individuality. Examinations focus on each detainee individually instead of trying to normalise a single norm for every inmate in the same way. The behaviour of detainees is carefully documented and then compared to the norm and to other detainees. Examination in prisons means going beyond the mere control of prisoners. Prisoners are objectified and formalised within power relations. An examination in a prison can for example be psychological therapy for a prisoner that expands the possibilities for normalising judgement towards this specific prisoner by gathering personal information about the detainee. That way the prisoner becomes an “object of power” that can help the prison staff for different goals. Guards gain power over the body of an individual that can be used in any possible way.

The special case of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp
The Guantanamo Bay detention camp run by the US-Military is one of the most criticized prisons of the last decades and has caused a lot of controversies on the international stage. The federal government of the United States was accused of breaking international law especially regarding the contestation of the international norm of torture prohibition and other human rights violations that occurred in the prison. The Foucauldian concept of disciplinary power was therefore applied by researchers to further the understanding of the inner workings of the detention center and its role in the war on terror as well as to highlight the differences to regular prisons.

Guantanamo Bay was designed by the Bush administration not first and foremost as punishment for individuals who were guilty of committing crimes but as a way to gain valuable information through the interrogation of detainees. They were regarded as sources of information in the war on terror and therefore were intended to be obedient and useful.

Hierarchical observation at Guantanamo Bay
Guantanamo Bay is run by the US military which is one of the most significant differences between the detention camp and regular US-Prisons. The detainees are intensely and continuously observed and monitored through guards, surveillance cameras and even (at times) with bright lights at all times in the prison cells. This may be comparable to other high security supermax prisons with the differentiation that the observation is aimed at facilitating the interrogation of the detainees as much as possible. Therefore the personnel at Guantanamo Bay is specialised in surveilling and analysing every detainee to adapt the interrogation process to every prisoner.

Normalising judgement at Guantanamo Bay
Other than in regular US-Prisons detainees at Guantanamo Bay were not judged in a legal process and convicted to a sentence by a US-court. Nonetheless within the detention camp normalising judgement is used to control the detainees. At first glance there are a lot of similarities to regular prisons: the prisoners are regularly judged by the administration of the prison in order to obey and “in order to enforce the specific rules governing the prison” Whereas prisoners in regular prisons are protected by the rule of law the military administration does not have to obey by set rules while governing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. That means that the guards have almost free reign on how to punish or reward the detainees which resulted in a at times brutal and inhumane treatment of the prisoners depending who was in charge of administering the detention camp.

Examination
Within the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay the detainees are not only examined and “formalised” through standard record keeping of their behaviour and actions while incarcerated, whole teams are investigating their entire lives and surroundings and even at some points knowing their mental health conditions and other deeply personal information to tailor the interrogation methods to the specific detainee. Since the detention camp was a source of information during the war on terror the individualistic examination and interrogation methods were of the highest importance. For example “an array of physical, psychological, and cultural tactics intended to heighten fear and anxiety among Muslim males, such as death threats aimed at them and their families, nudity, sexual humiliation, and the use of dogs” were used to get information.

The state of exception
The case of Guantanamo Bay is often referred to as being exceptional. The problem of the exception is that some issues in international politics are designated as exceptional, in order to justify exceptional practices. The  campaign and the discourse of emergency of the Bush administration justified the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and the practices that were applied there. Therefore, the discourse on the state of exception applies to prison conditions and to the practices that are perpetuated in those places. Neal studied the Foucauldian discourse analysis and applied Foucault’s methodology and reasoning to the concept of state of exception described in the French author’s Archaeology of knowledge, meaning by this title "the method specific to the analysis of local discursivities”. Re-elaborating Foucault’s writing, Neal affirms that scholars who study the exception discourse should focus on the appearance of the exception, rather than on its irruption, by irruption meaning its sudden and unexpected character. The study of the state of exception started with Carl Schmitt. The approach based on the concept securitisation studied by Schmitt and then Wæver perpetuates the sovereign structure of discourse that reifies a certain idea of sovereignty. The risk of this approach is to connect the concept of security to some kind of urgency and emergency. In this context, security issues could be strategically manipulated and securitized by security elites. There is no safe way to make sure that securitisation will be used for good purposes, because it is hard to define which purposes are intrinsically good and which are not.

Based on the Archaeology of knowledge, the French philosopher offers a new approach, considering the exception as a historical condition of possibility that aims to look at the process that leads to the situation that is referred to as an exception. This approach, as Neal underlines, calls for a pluralisation of horizons to study the whole conditions that characterize the exception. The aim of the archaeology method is to describe exceptionalism not as a transcendental rupture, but rather as an assemblage of practices. In this sense, exception is not to be seen as a once in a while anomaly, but rather as a set of events that, even though in different areas or different moments in time, is the product of a regular political practice. In fact, the example of Guantanamo shows that the U.S. practices towards detainees are not really a singular exception, as there are thousands of U.S. detainees dislocated in less publicized areas of the whole world, like in Iraq and Afghanistan: it is rather a practice of dispersed regularity. As any Foucauldian discourse analysis, also this study of the state of exception has to do with domination and subordination.

School
Discipline in school is the basic ground for its success in academic and extracurricular activities. Without discipline a school cannot maximise its optimal function to achieve its goals and vision. It enables meaningful achievement of learning and also creates an environment for social skills and attitudes to be taught. It teaches self-control, helps train self-discipline and responsible individuals, stimulates tender affection possible by mutual respect between parents, children and teachers.

School discipline in school can function as an educational management area or a policy imperative. Its two main purposes are classified by Skiba, Eckes and Brown into two categories:


 * 1) ensuring the safety of those within the school
 * 2) creating an environment conducive to learning

In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault wrote: “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?”.

“The power to punish is not essentially different from that of curing or educating”.

The society of the teacher-judge, the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the social worker-judge etc. according to Foucault, is a normalising society.

Hierarchical observation
In a school scenario Foucault’s idea of hierarchical observation can be observed. Permanent monitoring and surveillance of the students’ activities by teachers takes place in the classroom as well as on the schoolyard. The common seating arrangement in classrooms with the teacher’s desk being separated in the front facing all student’s tables leads to a panopticon-like observation of all students by the teacher at the same time.

Hierarchical observation in a school scenario can also consist of students monitoring and surveilling students based on Foucault's identification. Students who get appointed to perform minor monitoring and surveillance duties in school life strengthens the general hierarchical observation of students in schools. This form of student-student surveillance can take different forms in different national school systems. For example in Germany this form of surveillance is performed by so called “Konfliktlotsen” who are elected students who went through some form of mediation training and carry a responsibility to end conflicts between other schoolmates. Another example of student-student surveillance is the reporting system in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong schools students are meant to report misbehavior of schoolmates to the  discipline committee. In both shown examples a student-student surveillance is present but still they vary in their approach. While the German example combines the student-student surveillance directly with the act of a judgement, the Hong Kongese  example does not include an act of judgement by the surveilling student himself but therefore always gets higher hierarchical levels involved. The reason for this can be traced back to the cultural differences between the western guilt driven culture and the confucian shame driven culture.

Through this multi-level monitoring of the students by teachers and schoolmates, surveillance becomes an integral part of disciplinary power. The goal of creating a hierarchical observation in a school scenario through the previously explained methods is to strengthen a schools discipline by prohibiting the appearance of unwanted behavior through fear, peer pressure and fast counteracting.

Normalising judgement
In a school scenario normalising judgement can appear through various ways. On the one hand good behavior of students can be judged positively by teachers through praising good behavior or giving rewards. A student’s bad behavior on the other hand can be judged negatively by the teacher through criticism and punishment.

Normalising judgement in a school scenario has the goal of teaching students good  manners and a strong work ethic in order to reduce conflicts and enhance the learning capabilities. The act of normalising judgement itself can be found in any national school system but it can vary in forms of what is measured as good and bad behavior and in forms of punishment. One example for this are the various national standards of school uniforms. In German schools there are no school uniforms. Different clothing styles are not measured as good or bad in Germany and therefore not criticized, while the majority of schools in Hong Kong have a certain school uniform and punish any deviations.

Micro-penalties & rewards
Micro-penal & reward also belongs to the second character ‘normalising judgement’. When there is a norm within school fellows and there are rules to follow, whoever follows the rules and thrives upon it might get rewards, and whoever defies the rules might get punishment. For example, when students perform well on tests or behave well, they will receive tokens that can be used to purchase candy. Students who misbehave can be sent to the principal's office, be forced to stay in after school or to go to some summer class. Most children will obey the rules and their teachers out of fear of having to stay after school and getting punished. Many schools have a “zero-tolerance” policy, where they allow schools to send disobedient children to juvenile courts on their first offence.

Examination
The goal of the examination in school is to introduce students/teachers to the field of documentation. Their discussions and actions will be recorded and submitted to the discipline committee for further consideration. For example, in the Hongkong school system, students are asked to stay in the classroom during recess and lunchtime in order for teachers to review their performance in the previous lessons and give more guidance as well as asking them about their days, their daily lives and so on. The conversation is also related to their punctuality. The activity itself can be interpreted as performing the technologies of domination, including normalising judgement and examination.

Workplace
The workplace is an important part of social life to which the disciplinary power is applicable. Furthermore, power is achieved through various means such as disciplinary techniques, which are applied in different categories in the field of work.

Hierarchical observation and normalising judgement
An example that is frequently used for explaining hierarchy in workplaces or society is the pyramid model. The top represents a minority which holds the power and exercises it over the dominated majority at the bottom of the pyramid. According to the workplace the highest position in a company has the control over all employees. In the professional world since the industrial revolution the service and industrial sector are largely dominant and the hierarchies are set. The minority that holds the hierarchical power decides what tasks the dominated majority must perform and it also supervises its performance. The hierarchical power exercises its domination in order to make it a productive force. The goal is therefore to increase the productivity of workers as much as possible. In order to control this workforce, it sets up discipline and surveillance.

According to Foucault, practices that aim to press the motor movements of humans into thoroughly rationalized behavioral sequences belong to the first group of disciplinary techniques. Foucault recognizes techniques of spatial division, which were initially used mainly in monasteries and workshops. The placement of individuals in a space according to a detailed plan allows for a more optimal control of each individual. In addition, there are practices that are aimed at the control of activities. Activities of all modes, behavior and the connection of the human body to instruments and objects of the production apparatus are temporally rationalized through regimenting control of gestures. Furthermore, Foucault touches on the organisation of developments. This means that the practices to be carried out are broken down into series and these series are broken down again into individual, successive sub-acts, which are taught in monotonous training units. In addition, there is the composition of forces, i.e. the purposeful bringing together or organized combination of the employees to a larger production and functional context. The model for this is the carefully assembled wheels of a machine, which interlock smoothly and in this way enable the effective functioning of the whole apparatus.

To give a concrete example, these disciplinary techniques are seen first of all in the work routines that become standards (normalising judgement). Thus, the workers must respect schedules, timed breaks, have a particular way of behaving such as the way of working, sitting at a desk behind a computer, the working tasks are organised and cut up into monoton routines etc. Their time is indeed timed so as not to waste time. According to the  reward system, a part of Foucault's disciplinary strategies, remuneration in the case of the workspace, is also an element that allows the hierarchical managers to make the workers respect this discipline. This is vital for the workers, which makes them dependent and unable to stop working. They can also earn bonuses, if they are more productive, which pushes them to increase their productivity. To this, however, we must add that Foucault sees disciplinary power as something positive. Disciplinary power can have a positive as well as a creative effect, for example by increasing productivity as mentioned before.

Examination and the panoptic principle
A second group of disciplinary techniques is formed by procedures of control and continuous examination of the trained behaviors. These Disciplines include, first of all, the techniques of hierarchical surveillance. In addition, there are strategies of normative sanction. Finally, there is the technique of testing, which combines the practices of the monitoring hierarchy with those of the normative sanction and contributes to an effectiveness by means of the combination of the two procedures. By combining the aforementioned techniques of control and surveillance, the panoptic principle (Panopticon) intensifies power while making it invisible.

Just like in the panoptic prison, the workers are divided in order to be able to exercise control over them at each stage of production. The workers are divided by their respective skills. Each one performs a specific task. This can be seen, for example, with the scientific management set up in the 1920s by A. J. P. Taylor. In addition, there is a split between the conception of work, carried out by the dominants, and the execution, carried out by the dominated, who do not possess theoretical knowledge.

Those in power monitor the workers to ensure that they are disciplined and therefore efficient and productive. Surveillance is exercised spatially. Individuals are spatially distributed, like in a panopticon, always in the field of visibility of those in power, so that they can be constantly monitored, studied and controlled. Those whose behavior violates the established rules are punished. Thus, when the worker is not efficient or obedient enough, he/she is degraded, even fired from the establishment where he worked and thus loses his vital income. Conscious of being permanently monitored, workers become docile bodies by internalizing norms and executing them under constraint: they end up self-disciplining and self-monitoring.

Spatial distribution can, for example, be seen in the industrial era with the "anatomical-chronological scheme of behavior" under the gaze of the supervisor set up by Taylor. Even today, visual surveillance is present. For example, in the new forms of office space organisation, the open plan, employees are constantly under the gaze of their superiors. However, surveillance has also taken on a new form besides visual surveillance with the new surveillance technologies. Owing to computer technology and data collection, the hierarchy can monitor the level of productivity of employees (employee movements, recording of conversations, software used, files opened, text typed, etc.) In addition, employers are increasingly using biometric information (retina and iris scans, electronic fingerprints, hand geometry, etc.) and more and more companies are using wearable technology like Fitbits to digitally monitor employees.

According to Foucault there is a power-knowledge relation which says power creates its own fields of exercise through knowledge. So these disciplinary techniques intensify the knowledge-power relation, cause steady surveillance and control generate systemic knowledge. In these examples this enables those who are in power to manipulate employees to behave as how they demand. Employees are self-monitoring to comply with standards and would not do anything that would affect their employability. For example, they make sure that their physical appearance and health are in line with those expected, to remain competitive and employable. If the worker does not meet the standards, he or she will not be hired and will not get paid (vital) or if he or she is sick, he or she can no longer work or will be relegated to a less emphasized task or position. This surveillance is not limited to the workspace but also intrudes into the private lives of employees, so that it can be referred to as a form of privatisation of biopower  in the workplace.

The surveillance of workers is not only put in place to ensure the maintenance of discipline but also to study them. The "docile bodies" are in fact also monitored in order to be studied to better control them. Thus, for example, the digital data flows of employees are exploited: by public services, by commercial entities, by security services. Employees are thus a set of numbers, of data that they must remain good enough to be profitable, or else they will be put aside.

Hospital
The hospital is one of the examples for a modern institution with an organisation structure based on the theoretical concept of disciplinary power which was introduced by Michel Foucault. In the historical evolution of the intensity of institutionalized disciplinary power which is described by the author, the hospital system marks a medium developed level between the basic military camp and the panopticon prison as its ultimate form.

The architecture of the modern hospital is manifesting characteristics of panopticism as an effect of institutionalized disciplinary power discussed by Foucault. The different patient rooms of a hospital can also be compared to the cells of a prison and the hallway gives easy access and control of the hospital staff over the inmates of these cells. The holistic structure leads to an institutionalized disciplinary power. It is impossible to talk about the hospital as comparable to a fully developed panopticon prison but as a disciplinary institution which is manifested in its organisation structure and architecture.

Unlike the prison, surveillance in hospitals is not meant to lock the patients down, but to ensure a form of surveillance which usually is in the patients' own interest. This form of disciplinary power has comparable mechanisms in its execution but different purposes towards its object of surveillance. For this reason, it is not meant as a form of punishment of the inmate and does not need the ultimate form of holistic and absolute disciplinary power, although its medical surveillance mechanisms are relatively highly developed to ensure the safety of patients.

Mental Asylums
The mental asylum or psychiatric hospital is a subtype of hospitals and therefore an institution which is based on the same general purpose as the ordinary hospital. An asylum can just have the function of a hospital which ensures the safety and health of the individual, although a locked form of the institution can also have the additional function of guaranteeing protection of the society outside its walls from its possibly dangerous inmates. It has different mechanisms of execution of surveillance and disciplinary power, which can go far beyond the hospital level. The secure psychiatric unit in its ultimate form is comparable to a prison but with a possibly higher form of personal surveillance and panopticism towards the individual than in an ordinary prison.

Critique
Many foucauldian concepts have been criticized by various scholars over the years, this also applies to the concept of disciplinary power. Because the original concept as well as the concept of panopticism prioritises efficiency while disciplining subjects, it is often critizised that the wellbeing of the people who are acted upon is rather disregarded. As a contrast to Foucault’s perspective in (northern) Europe the aspect of the wellbeing of the people became the prominent philosophy of how to manage a prison. This alternative to an on punishment focussing understanding of prisons focuses on rehabilitation instead. In schools for example many of today's scholars agree that the physical and mental well-being of children is more important than having strictly obedient students. Schools are made out to seem like prisons when they have all kinds of punishments and discipline is deemed more important than a healthy mental and physical development of the children. This can also be applied to the workspace where studies show that workers don’t necessarily need pressure and surveillance to be productive, if they are treated respectfully and their well being is prioritised. When looking at hospitals, surveillance alone is not guaranteeing the health and recovery of patients but kind human interaction can also have a large positive impact on a patients recovery.