Well we finally made it to the end of Discipline and Punish this morning. We worked out that we took 10 months as we officially began around October last year. Although it must also be noted that the beginning of this year saw 3 or 4 months when we got nothing done at all because of teaching and other commitments.

So where did we get to? Well Anne moved from being a mild Foucault-skeptic to this morning during our discussion emphasizing (in no uncertain terms) Foucault’s “brilliance” – and that’s a direct quote! ( I was very proud). This morning we worked through the final two sections of the book: “Illegalities and delinquency” and “The carceral”. Strangely enough we attacked them in reverse order which perhaps disrupted the continuity slightly. We may have been distracted by the arrival of our coffee and cakes. (brioche again for anyone who’s interested). Nevertheless the topsy-turvy discussion proved productive.

In “Illegalities and delinquency” Foucault looks at how the perceived failure of the prison system to actually stamp out delinquent (criminal) behaviours in fact signals the success of discipline. For without delinquent behaviours, the disciplinary operations of surveillance, examination, observation and normalization have nothing to work with. So in this way, the ‘prison succeeded extremely well’ (p. 277). What we also found interesting here was Foucault’s explicit analytical technique, where he shows his willingness to look at the prison system in a new way. He asks, ‘But perhaps one should reverse the problem and ask oneself what is served by the failure of the prison; what is the use of these different phenomena that are continually being criticized?’ (p. 272).

He follows this with “The carceral” where he engages in a fairly comprehensive summary of his arguments to that point, neatly concluding the book with the statement that really this has all just been background and the real work of analysing the power of institutions and the social field is yet to be done. Anne also noted his unusual turns of phrase, some more of that evocative and often poetic language that he uses to describe the disciplinary field. Interesting examples include his descriptions for those who enforced the penitentiary techniques in Mettray prison. They are “technicians of behaviour”, “engineers of conduct” and “orthopaedists of individuality” (p. 294). I like the last one especially – a sly little sense of humour emerging here perhaps? I also liked his naming of the way in which the diffusion of penitentiary techniques to the broader social body produces a “carceral archipelago” (p. 297). And finally he observes the “lyricism of marginality” (p. 301) , a description that emphasises an almost creative, song-like, modulating beauty in the resistive, abnormal practices of delinquency which are at once on the margins yet also absolutely central to the perpetuation of disciplinary operations. For “there is no outside” because the delinquent “is at the very heart of the law” (p. 301)

Next job….to write up our presentation for September 5.