The Work of Michel Foucault in Contemporary Criminology - Research Paper Example

HOW THE WORK OF MICHEL FOUCAULT IS RELEVANT TO CONTEMPORARY CRIMINOLOGY Introduction The field of criminology is concerned with methodically studying the causes and motives of crimes. Contemporary criminology involves examining different substantive elements that result to criminal behavior. It also involves factors in our society that encourage the persistence of criminal behavior (Joyce 2006: 27). In order to develop social and political policies and program treatments meant for handling those involved with criminal activities and for those affected the use of theories is very crucial. The work of French poststructuralist Michel Foucault, who was a tutor of History of Systems of Thought at the prominent college de France has been used to shape the modern criminology. Drastic changes in the control of criminal acts and criminal justice have taken place in Britain and United States since thirty years back. According to garland (2001) the augmenting personal freedoms, richness, and mobility during the 1960s, its confidence of being able to rehabilitate criminals has paved way to the current culture which is more anxious and also the ‘tough on crime’ means go along with it (p. 20). The prison population in Britain is increasing at a faster rate than before. The increase in the prison population is accompanied by the increase of private prisons, the industry of private security and surveillance CCTV in the streets. Garland also points out that the number of people in prisons in United States has increased to two million and two executions of criminals are done each week. The works of Michel Foucault, who is considered to be an influential thinker during the 20th century, have proved to be relevant in contemporary criminology. At a broad view, the field of criminology is based on two clear approaches. The first approach mainly focuses on what causes crimes, singles out criminogenic social conditions and examines criminals. The second approach, which is current, deals with analyzing forms of penalty and checking for any faults so as to observe the degree of state encroachment on personal rights and liberty. One of Foucault’s works, Discipline and Punish, which was a book he wrote in 1975, examines punishment in its social context. It changed the way people viewed the prison system. The book clearly reveals how he came about with his main theme of power and domination. In his book, he talks about how prisons came about and clearly reveals its history. He also points out the growing number of prisons despite the fact of them not being successful. The rise in the number of prisons and criminals in United States and Britain proves his point. The book reveals his thoughts on how elite people in the society have power and control over everyone. According to Foucault, prisons subjected people to live their lives according to the disciplines that were imposed by the government. He adds on that there have been no improvements in the society since Renaissance and that the only thing that has developed is the technology that has been employed to enslave the spirits of people in our societies. Technology advancements include the use of CCTVs for surveillance by the state. Today people are trace by means of gathering data- companies of credit cards, telephone. Companies, companies of ISP, banks, social security vehicles and licenses have records that contain a lot of information of individuals. By using information technology, one can be able to obtain a good profile of someone quickly. Before the eighteenth century, public executions and corporal punishment were considered to be the main means of punishment and during criminal investigations the authorities employed torture to get criminals to talk. The act of punishment was considered to be a ceremony in which the involvement of the audience was very crucial. Public executions were believed to restore the authority and dominance held by the king. This tradition called for a social reform on how punishment was to be carried out. According to Foucault’s book (Discipline and Punish) those involved with the reforming process were not driven by the interest of ensuring the well being of the prisoners, instead their concern was to ensure that power functioned more efficiently. The reformers suggested a theater of punishment to be taken up, this involved representation of complex systems and signs to be put out for the public to witness. The punishment was based on the crime that was committed, and this was used as a means of stopping law breaking. According to Foucault, the classical period is the genesis of most of the characteristics of the modern institution such as prisons and structures. He also considered the period to be the birth of control mechanism and human sciences. Human sciences mainly involve psychology, psychiatry criminology, medicine and sociology. Human sciences enable one to be able clearly to describe the behavior of humans based on norms (Hindess,1986:19). Discipline as used in Foucault’s book, is a means of controlling the mobility and activities of the body in a fixed manner. Disciplinary is an example of power that enslaves the body by regulating and partitioning its movements and areas and the specific time in which it is able to move. Foucault traces the genesis of discipline from monasteries and armies. According to him, eighteenth century marked the concept of discipline. Discipline was changed to a means of controlling an entire population and became very popular. Contemporary prisons and also modern states widely used discipline as a means of controlling people. Disciplinary power was demonstrated by Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon. Panopticism, which is a social theory, is clearly cited in Foucault’s book. Panopticon was among the regulatory means of power-knowledge. Foucault viewed knowledge and power to be connected. Having power makes one to be able to gain knowledge. His theory states that: Knowledge is linked to power, not only assumes the authority of truth but has the power to make itself true. All knowledge once applied in the real world has effects and that in that sense at least ‘becomes true.' Knowledge once used to regulate the conduct of others entails constraint, regulation and the discipline of practice. Thus, there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of the field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations (Foucault, 1977: 27). According to Foucault, power could be used as a means to shape one's behavior. Foucault viewed the impacts of power positively and believed that power should not be used to exclude, silence, repress, hide or suppress, instead it should be used to bring forth reality. Panopticon is an architectural design that was first developed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham during the end of the eighteenth century. He developed the designs for prisons, hospitals, asylums for insane people and schools. The design was meant for observing prisoners throughout the day and constantly and for them not to know that they are being watched. The design is made up of tiers of cell where the prisoners were to be positioned. The tiers were built in a circular manner. An observation tower was built at the centre of the circular construction. The tower is meant to be quite tall; a length that will enable anyone observing from the tower is able to see what is happening inside all cells. The tower had masked windows that ensured that the prisoners were clueless regarding whether or not someone was in the tower watching them. The placement of blinds in the tower was recommended so that it would conceal the light in the tower. This was to make prisoners unable to know someone was in the tower. Generally, the psychology of the design was to make prisoners be always clueless and not certain if they were being observed or not. This design has influenced a number of prison structures that imitate the design. Panopticon has been employed in various prison designs making it very popular. Panopticon ensured that crowding, swarming and noisy mass that which were common in confinement places is avoided completely. When each inmate is at their specific cell where the observer is able to see their actions while the prisoner or a person in the cell is unaware of what is happening around him, and the presence of side walls makes it impossible for communication with individual from adjacent cells. The person placed in the cell is considered to be the object of providing information and not a subject in communication. The design used in the arrangement of the cell that is placed opposite the centralized tower makes the person in the cell to be clearly visible, but the side walls ensure that there is the lateral invisibility with others in neighboring cells. Lateral invisibility is certainly of order. When the inmates are sentenced criminals the risk of them being able to plan crimes to commit when they are released and even possibly of them finding ways in which they can escape is eliminated, if they are insane the chance of them bringing harm to one another is removed and if they are children there will be no opportunity of causing destructions, time wastage and copying. The main impact of the design was to create a sense of consciousness and constant visibility that guarantees the spontaneous function of power. The design causes the surveillance to be always seen to be in operation even when it is not continuous in its function. In view of Betham’s principle which states that power should be able to be visible and at the same. Time is unclear in that the ones being observed are not quite sure whether or not someone is watching them. The central tower is visible to the inmates, but they are not certain if they are being watched making them be constantly conscious. Michel Foucault used panopticon as a metaphor to enable him to examine the connection between two aspects. These include: the power-knowledge notion and the systems that were used in social control and those who are disciplined. The panopticon acted as a mirror of philosophy of observation. It is today used in modern states as a basic of policing. According to Foucault, one can be able to obtain power through observation of the people in the society. This view resulted to change of disciplinary power. Movements of individuals are monitored, and events of their activities recorded. The more you observe the more power one is able to gain. The response of the observer will be on the grounds of what he or she has been able to see. The fact that one does not know who is observing them and is not aware of when and how they are being observed makes a particular group of individuals to hold the power and by that those who do not have the power are more likely to be oppressed. The use of CCTV cameras and video cameras on roads and all major public cities in countries such as the United States apply the same principle as that used in panopticon for observation.The populace do not know that they are being watched and do not have a clue on who is watching them. The cameras are used to ensure that people are behaving appropriately and are following the rules and regulations of the state. However, appropriate behavior is not accomplished by total surveillance but is achieved through the panoptic discipline and by making people in the society to comply with internalization of the reality. The surveillance being employed has caused distress among citizens who claim that it is an act of invasion of privacy. The real trouble caused by increased surveillance is not that the rights of people are being repressed with the new social order but rather through observation individuals are being ‘cautiously fabricated in the social order’ (Foucault, 1977: 34). This shows that there is need to for a line to be drawn regarding freedom and security and boundaries should not be crossed. The authorities need to know that they have gone too far with the issue of surveillance. According to Foucault, power in a given society was connected and based on the main type of knowledge at a given time and forms of discourse that were being employed. The feeling of insecurity has resulted to the citizens of Great Britain and America to accept policies and habits that would have been considered greatly repressive thirty years ago. The 18th century was marked by increment in incarceration. Foucault referred to this period as one that had a great increase in confinement (Foucault, 1971: 256). Rehabilitation of convicts, schooling of children, locking up those who are insane and monitoring workers in industries are all considered to be constituents of the carceral society that is emerging. This has seen this complex system to outstretch into our societies. Foucault brings up the issue of the carceral society in his book discipline and punish. He tries to demonstrate how modern prisons function and its shortcomings. Today prisons are considered to be modern discourse used to punish criminals. After the 2nd world war, the rate of prisoners in England and Whales grew considerably, and it continues to increase while crime rates are lessening since 1997. The high number of prisoners causes congestion in prisons. From May 1997, in England and whales, 1036 offences that were formerly not considered as being crimes have been brought up and committing of those crimes will cause someone to be imprisoned. Data from the ministry of justice outlines that the rate of criminals who will be sentenced is predicted to rise to 95,800 by the year 2015 (HMPrisonservices, 2011). This clearly shows how prisons continue to be famous forms of punishing criminals despite their failures. According to Foucault, the function of the carceral system and human science has brought to existence delinquent. A delinquent is someone who is part of a small group of notorious criminals. They are, therefore, separated from the rest of the society so as to be able to control them easily. This concept of a delinquent, who in Foucault’s words, is considered to be abnormal is quite common in modern crime control. According to Garland, the citizen of Great Britain and United States who participate in voting allow politicians to jail an increasing number of offenders, to pose more oppressive laws and to impose more strict controls on behaviors’ that were formerly allowed in respect of one’s freedom rights. This has, therefore, resulted to the development of a ‘criminology of the dangerous other’ and the used of ‘warfare’ and ‘defense’ when referring to crime. Welfare's criminology, with its own interest being social deprivation has been overtaken by modern criminology which emphasizes on choice and control (Hindess 1988:32). Crime control is currently seen as the predicament of penal impediment, management of risk and situational engineering instead of it being seen as a way of individual reform or social justice. Former moral beliefs of ‘assisting, advising and befriending’ have been deserted. Monitoring of human behavior as a means of combating crime by the use of modern electronic technologies has resulted to citizens being constantly monitored and are considered to be potential ‘surveillance objects’ (Garland, 2001: 119). Terrorists attack such as 9/11 which was very tragic and the increment of digital infrastructure of the current society have resulted to the development of great interest in the field of surveillance study. Dataveillance and biometrics are used as a means of combating terrorism and have become a common feature of daily lives and culture of American citizens. The new form of surveillance brings about a more suppressive type of social control. It denies citizens their right of freedom and by watching their moves they do not allow for privacy. Currently in Britain critiques of authoritarianism are focused on the rise of misuse of government power. The government is using its powers to bring forth social repression with the claim of fighting terrorism. Critics stress on the necessity of curtailing such misuse of power by the government and making them abide by human right standards. The blueprint of Britain government to monitor electronic communication of the whole population of Britain on the basis that, monitoring is a very essential tool in their way against terrorism and weighty crimes. The plan received mixed reaction with most people claiming that it does not respect people’s privacy hence repressing their right of freedom. Foucault was a champion for the freedom of every single person in the society and believed that power should not be used to suppress freedom rights. With reference to the statement of Foucault that having power can enable one to gain knowledge, explains the actions of governments in Britain and America. They employ the power that they have for surveillance so that through observation they are able to get knowledge of any threat or serious crimes and by that they can be able to prevent it, though gaining knowledge through observation they are also able gain more power which is also important. Surveillance enables them to be able to have power, enabling them to be able to control the behavior of their citizens. Despite the fact of it interfering with the rights of the people, they would have achieved their goal of being in control. The dangerous characteristic of the current modern life increases our increasing uneasiness with crime control. Crime and society have both changed, and the result of this change has been accomplished by the transformation of the criminology theory together with social policy known as a distinguishable pattern of economic, social, and cultural relations that developed in America and Great Britain while the ‘late modernity’ has resulted to increased insecurities, various risks and control problems (Garland, 2001: 120). They all have important roles on how we respond to crime. In Great Britain and America controlling the less privileged citizen, is now considered to be a priority of the alleged liberal and non-oppressive states. By calumniating the innocent poor people, increment of incarceration rates, exercising compulsory sentencing and execution of criminals often United States contemporary society is certainly much similar to Weber’s ‘Iron Cage’ dealing with rationality rather than open democracy. When the current day policies are compared to policies used during the 1970s it clearly shows that the late modern economic, social, and cultural relations have transformed criminology theory. This includes both risk and surveillance (Garland, 2001: 124), when a large number of criminalized poor are marginalized they are able to make life difficult for others even if they do not have political power and receive very little sympathy from the public. This fact reveals the argument of Foucault that power can be evident on a micro level. Groups of common people in the society can be powerful entities hence influence the lives of others in our societies (Latour 1986:7). Today crime offenders are no longer viewed as people who require to be given support and care; instead they are seen as being unworthy and responsible. Criminal rehabilitation is now considered to be part of the risk and private defense instead of it being inscribed as way of ensuring the public well being and entitlement (Layder 1997: 13). According to Foucault, modern technique of punishment is the same as carceral city. This is because the prisons are closely connected to the whole society with a body of power that dictates the lives of all individuals. It is however proved that Michel Foucault’s analysis has particular problems which are ingrained in his aspects. This is caused by Foucault’s failure to recognize the connection between social settings and the agency. According to Sibeon (2004: 71) Foucault not including a reified theory of agency in examining; a propensity concerning over socialized perception regarding an individual and genetic fatalism and an anti- foundational that reality and one's morals are transformed based on a given culture or condition (Owen 2006: 34). Owen stated that the way Garland used the Foucault’s concept of power needs some altering in particular, this is because it is necessary to acknowledge the relational and emergent notion of power as well as its systemic and also agentic characteristics. Foucault’s analysis used by Garland has a notable tendency of breaking down distinctions that are evident when one compares agency and structure and micro and macro. This tendency leads to ‘central conflation’ (Archer 1995: 19). With reference to Giddensian structuration concept, Michel Foucault does not contrast the aspects of agency or structure instead he compares the two aspects. These two aspects should be looked at as dualism. Garland follows the same footsteps as Foucault by claiming social forces have led to the establishment of modern crime control plan. Post-Foucauldian system and critique regards dualism of structure and does not favor duality. This is because when examining social analysis agency and structure and micro and macro are supposed to be used as dualism that appertains to distinguish, relatively independent phenomena. Example being examining the body of a person as coexisting biologically and socially, because it works to break down to merge whole making the constituents not to be able to be divided. Majority of the works of Michel Foucault include his trials to overcome dualism with the mentality of evading the extreme nature of human race and structuralism. The main issue that brings about uneasiness when it comes to duality arrangements is the fact that, when we involve ourselves with removing dualistic distinction, the chance that agency or structure more importance is not removed. This analysis of Foucault overlooks the function of the agency and focuses on more on social structure. With reference to Foucault’s work the act of punishing and disciplining criminals ‘is the work of the state’ by disciplining and punishing criminals the state is able to gain power. According to him, the state is also responsible for the well-being of prisoners. Garland (2001:120) also supports this view. By having such perception, it shows that he is involved with reification. The unreasoned point of Garland that agency is unable to have ways to make or take actions upon decisions is greatly troublesome. The assertions that Garland used in Michel Foucault concept of power stating that it needs essential ‘modification.' Concept of power that it is used in Foucault analysis is able to be in criminology when used in a selective way. According to him, power is one’s social environment where single individuals and groups function and that the ‘working’ of power are not centralized to either and does not come up from a specific point of the social function and neither does it function from one given point. For him ‘power is everywhere’ (Foucault 1980: 35). The complexity of surveillance and attributes of discipline and knowledge which work for them have come up outside any individual's control. This notion is able to be employed in correction of the systemic perception. With reference to Law’s work (1986: 21) he effectively argued Foucault’s analysis of power, in contrast to the theories concerning structural predictions may be viewed as being an effect instead of a cause of ‘strategic success’ in social interrelationship. Theories of Callon and Latour (1981) have convincing arguments which view power as having no exclusive or major cause, but the crucial success brought about by gaining of power is potentially changeable at all times. The use of Foucault analysis in a more decisive and selective manner, well founded on the analysis of agency-structure, micro-macro and also time space. Power possesses systemic characteristics, and it is, therefore, imperative to realize the relational and emergent elements of power and also to view power as having systemic qualities. For Foucault, one is able to possess or hoard power and that it is ‘an effect, not a cause.' It is evident that the power can be possessed and even though most of the times power is the effect in other times it is a cause (Sibeon, 2004: 136). By using post-Foucauldian techniques in contemporary criminology, it is notably useful to consider the notion that there is a possibility of existence of multiple forms of power. This includes systemic power (it involves power hoarding in social organizations, discourses, and social role) and the agentic power (which involves the capacity of individuals making their own decisions). The two forms of power are also seen as being autonomous disregarding the fact that they can influence one another. The two forms are connected, in a way that agentic power can be got from a systemic source. Contrarily, agentic power is likely to be a quite dependant, emergent form. The two forms of power can be able to interact in modern criminology, it is essential to acknowledge the dialectical connection in both systemic and relational elements of power with relation to the thesis of culture and control. Conclusion By reading Foucault’s books, one is able to get the picture of effects of observation in our societies but he does not give ways on how to handle the conflicts that emerge due to increased surveillance. The work of Michel Foucault is undoubtedly relevant to contemporary criminology. This work has influenced means of crime control immensely. His work also highlights on some of the faults in the penalty system in modern society. Michel Foucault’s analysis is not flawless and has proved to bring forth problems in contemporary criminology in aspects that he did not put into consideration when formulating his analysis. Bibliography Archer, M. 1995. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Callon, M. and Latour, B. 1981. Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so , in K.Knorr-Cetina and A.V.Cicourel (eds.) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. 1980. The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. New York:Pantheon. Garland, D. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Pres Hindess, B. 1986. Actors and social relations , in M.L.Wardell and S.P.Turner (eds.) Sociological Theory in Transition. London: Allen and Unwin. Hindess, B. 1988. Choice, Rationality and Social Theory.London: Unwin Hyman. HM PrisonService.2011.Statement of Purpose. [online] Available at http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/abouttheservices/statementofpurpose/ Joyce. P.2006. Criminal Justice: An introduction to Crime and Criminal Justice System. Devon: William Publishing. Latour, B. 1986.The powers of association , in J.Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge. Layder, D. 1997.Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New Directions: London: UCL Press. Law, J. 1986. On power and its tactics: a view from the sociology of science, Sociological Review, 34 (1): 1-38. Owen, T. 2006. Genetic-social science and the study of human biotechnology, Current Sociology, 54 (6): 897-917. Owen, T.2006. Towards a post-Foucauldian sociology of aging. New York: Nova Science Sibeon, R. 2004. Rethinking Social Theory. London: Sage. Read More