Prisoner of the ‘Soul’: Imprisonment as Punishment - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Prisoner of the ‘Soul’: Imprisonment as Punishment

Raisa L. Ty

MA Sociology Program, Department of Sociology, University of the Philippines-

Diliman

Instructor, Department of Social Sciences, University of Eastern PhilippinesSlide2

Abstract

Foucault’s

Discipline and Punish (1979) provides a genealogical investigation of the modern penal system by providing a historical account of the changing discourse on punishment from the

“spectacle

of

torture”

and

public execution

to the

“gentle

way in

punishment”

influenced by the eighteenth century reformers of the penitentiary practices. Imprisonment, which was introduced by the reforming jurists, wanted a shift of power from the sovereign to the citizens, “requalifying individuals as...juridical subjects” using signs and representations of social contract between the citizens and the laws of society, which the criminals violate (130). As subsequently applied in prison, punishment then employed “methods of training

the body

” in the form of habits and ritualized

behaviors

(130-131). This integrative paper provides an interrogation of penitentiary practices by investigating on the production of docile and obedient bodies. The discourse of resistance existing alongside power is also explored especially among jail inmates who are presumed innocent and still awaiting trial

.Slide3

Outline

Introduction

The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary

Society

Imprisonment as

Punishment

Interrogation of Penitentiary

Practices

Conclusion

RecommendationSlide4

Introduction

a genealogical investigation

of the modern penal

system

the

changing discourse on punishment

from

the “spectacle of torture”

and public

execution to the “gentle way in

punishment”

the

shift of the operation of

power from

the body, and then to the

‘soul’,

in which

,

that

which is “born in sin and subject to punishment” according to

Christian theology

to that which is “born... out of methods of punishment,

supervision and

constraint” (29

).

imprisonment

became possible with the rise of disciplinary power by

turning the

body into “both a productive and subjective body” (

26)

using instruments of

power and the utilization of

Panopticon

or “a type of location of

bodies in

space, of distribution of individuals in relation to one another,

in hierarchical

organization, of disposition of

centers

and channels of power,

of definition of the instruments and modes of intervention of power” (205

)Slide5

Introduction

Rules:

“regard punishment as a complex social function” with possible

positive outcomes,

“regard punishment as a political tactic”,

(3) punishment must not be separated with the human sciences, and ; therefore, “make power

the very

principle both of the humanization of the penal system and of

the knowledge

of man, and

(4) “study the metamorphosis of punitive methods on the basis of a political technology of the body in which might be read a common history of power relations and

object relations

” (23-24

).Slide6

Three Ways of Organizing the Power to Punish

(1)

ancien

regime

(2) a representational mode

(3) modern period of prison

(Foucault 1979:130; Ransom

1997:31-32

)Slide7

The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary Society

Subjected body- modern soul (

Dumm

1995: 83)

Disciplines as

“methods...[of] meticulous control

of the

operations of the body, which assured the constant subjection of

its forces

and imposed upon them a relation of docility-utility”

(Foucault 1979: 137

).

techniques

in the distribution of individuals in

a particular

place (

141-146):

enclosure

(

2)

partitioning

(

3) f

unctional sites, and

(4) rankingSlide8

The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary Society

methods (149-156

):

time-table

of productive activities,

temporal

elaboration of

acts,

(3

) correlation of the body and the

gesture for efficiency and utility,

(

4) body-object articulation or the “coercive

link with the apparatus of production” (153), and finally the

(

5) e

xhaustive use

of the body in extracting more productive use of

timeSlide9

The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary Society

D

ocile

bodies are effective and productive bodies

.

Q: But how are docile bodies produced by disciplinary power?

A: They are

trained to

become

“self-regulating subjects”

in a

Panopticon

Three instruments of disciplinary power:

hierarchical

(2) normalizing judgment, and

(3) examinationSlide10

Imprisonment as Punishment

The rise of disciplinary institutions is related to the following:

(1) to the rise of a capitalist economy, which favors efficiency and

productivity,

(2) the

juridico

-political power of the Enlightenment‟ that did not only

introduce

liberties but also disciplines (222), and

(3) the rise of scientific knowledge that placed individuals under control and observation

(227).

from

a

‘discipline blockade’

in the plague-stricken town to a

‘discipline-mechanism’

of

the

Panopticon

(209

)Slide11

Imprisonment as Punishment

If

power in disciplinary institutions within the disciplinary society

produced docile bodies by training them to becoming self-regulating

subjects in

a

Panopticon

, then can we claim that we have indeed “entered the age

of non-corporal

punishment

?” (101)

three principles

of the

disciplinary

prison (236):

isolation,

w

ork, and

the

“declaration

of

carceral

independence”Slide12

Imprisonment as Punishment

If

power in disciplinary institutions within the disciplinary society

produced docile bodies by training them to becoming self-regulating

subjects in

a

Panopticon

, then can we claim that we have indeed “entered the age

of non-corporal

punishment

?” (101)

three principles

of the

disciplinary

prison (236):

isolation,

w

ork, and

the

“declaration

of

carceral

independence”Slide13

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices

Background: punishment in the 19

th

Century Philippines

In the

Philippines (

Bankoff

1996)

“

each

poblacion

was required to maintain a jail either within the casa

tribunal or in a separate building adjacent to it” (155

)

prisoners

work long hours of the day six times

a week

. It was only suspended during meals, prayers and sleep

(155)

in

spite of “a lack of administrative

structure, uniform

regulation and professional staff” (160), the prison became a

direct control

of the

alcalde

mayor

, the highest colonial government official in

the

poblacionSlide14

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices

Case study: a (main) provincial jail with 247 inmates (235 males, 12 females), 12 sentenced

Observation from two exposure trips with students

Interview with the warden

Ethics: informed consent, confidentiality, no harm done to participantsSlide15

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices

relevant data:

6 regular prison guards + 80 ‘job order’ personnel; more than 20 guards on duty per day (including those in court duty

)

Inmates

247 inmates (235 male, 12 female)

t

op crime charges

93 murder (90 male, 3 female)

34 frustrated murder (34 male)

25 drug trafficking (19 male, 6 female)

14 rape (14 male)

PhP50 budget per inmate per day (inmates may get the ingredients and cook the meals themselves), 75 sacks of rice per month (0.5 kg per inmate per day

)

prolonged trial due to postponement

(

unavailability of

lawyers,

judges and/or prosecutors) and long interval of hearingsSlide16

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices

modified

disciplinary techniques

(

1) enclosure-

open compound

(2) partitioning- cramped cells occupied between 6PM-5AM

(3) functional sites- gardening, cooking, prayer, education, and sports

(4) ranking- trusted inmate

(settled with

complainant,

filed petition

for bail, detained for a long time

), elected officersSlide17

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices

methods of

discipline

(1) time-table

of productive

activities-

free to roam around the

compound

(2)

temporal elaboration of acts- routine: waking up, headcount, meals, headcount, lock

up

instruments

of disciplinary

power

(1) hierarchical- trusted inmates, elected officers

(2) normalizing judgment- lock up as punishment

(3) examination- acceptance by the

societySlide18

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices

all-encompassing

disciplinary

mechanism

(1) visitation

Technique- distributes individuals (away from inmates and closer to family)

Method- productive use of time against boredom

Instrument- docile bodies (“

pampakalma

”)

(2) relatively free, and free relative to whom?

relatively free to roam around the compound and spend most of

their

waking time outside their cells

free relative to locked up

inmates

“Power is tolerable only if it masks a substantial portion of itself (Ransom 1997:4

).”Slide19

Conclusion

Foucault

claimed that power is everywhere and exists

throughout history

; it only varies in forms and practices. The universal aspect

of society

, as what Foucault claimed, is the presence of punishment

across history

. The exercise of power in the form of punishment shifted from

that coming

from the sovereign to that embedded in disciplinary

institutions. Applying

his notion of discourse, punishment, as

an exercise

of power,

has not

necessarily evolved to become humane with the passage of time.

The normalization of prisons

that makes subjects unable to break free from their

souls’

own cage

.Slide20

Recommendation

Explore how power exists alongside resistance, from the point of view

of inmates.

Conduct a comparative analysis of penitentiary practices in jails and prisons.Slide21

References

Bankoff

,

Greg. 1996.

Crime,

Society

and the

State

in the

Nineteenth

Century Philippines

. Quezon City:

Ateneo

de Manila University

Press.

Dumm

, Thomas. 1996.

Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom

. CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Foucault,

Michel. 1979.

Discipline and

Punish

: The

Birth

of the

Prison

(A. Sheridan

, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books

.

Ransom, John. 1997.

Foucault’s Discipline

. Durham and London: Duke

University Press.