Foulault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish. New York: Random House Inc.
Our leap from Foucault to modern torture is somewhat problematic or me. I can certainly see the similarities, especially in the barbaric nature of both. Part one Torture takes place in such a different time from our own. The motivating and justifying factors that exist behind the torture of "pre-modern" Europe and the torture of today are literally worlds apart. Foucault consistently discounts the humanization of the penal system. In the torture of today though it may sterilized and attempts are made to rationalise it there is nothing human about it. The leap was so large for me because of all of the historical processes that have contributed to the evolution of torture. I am sure that in class as well as in Foucault the history that revolutionized torture will be addressed. I just have so many questions and so many thing to say.
*How has the enlightenment and the birth of man influenced torture?
*Hasn't the shift from a feudal economy to a capitalist economy seriously shifted belief systems, personal worth and freedom, and the efficiency of production/torture?
As monarchies fell and democracies rose God was decentered from the state and man stepped up.
*How did this influence the penal system and individual rights?
*Did knowledge replace God as a legitimzer of control?
Good point that the world/cultural/historical context is radically different. That's at least a part of the take-away: The "practice" may be similar -- attack on body, emphasis on confession and information extraction, importance of state/sovereign showing it ought not be messed with -- but how we respond to it (especially how we think about limits and such), how it's justified, and the circumstances in which it's employed have shifted.
ReplyDeleteAs for the leap being problematic, well, it IS a leap and should be a provocative juxtaposition so you are right on the mark there.