The Eliass Theory - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Most people believe that punishment is shaped by the rate of crime in society hence it is a response to it, but few have ever stopped to think what really accounts for shifts in penal practices. If you asked most people, they would tell you that punishment is a natural response to crime and even religion teaches about the wages of sin which is death or punishment. Is this the case or are there other factors that contribute to changes in the punishment process? Over the years, punishment has transformed from being a torturous public spectacle to a private affair held in prisons and other recreational facilities (Pratt, 2002). It also has changed from being brutal to more human by inflicting little or no pain to the offender. More importantly, death penalty in most countries especially in the west has been abolished and punishment has become more centralized; it is not left at the mercy of society. All these changes have been attributed to cultural, economic, political or psychic factors by various transformation theorists such as Elias, Foucault, and Emile Durkheim. These theorists have different views in regard to what really accounts for changes in punishment processes but they all agree that punishment is not a response to crime although crime also plays a role in the transformation. These reformations can be attributed to cultural sensibilities. The paper will discuss Elias theory on how modern sensibilities have helped to change modern punishment and also compare his theory to that of Foucault and Durkheim to get an insight as to the reasons behind the transformation. Elias’s theory is based on civilised sensibilities which began from the middle Ages. In this case, civilisation is not used to mean the society making progress but change in behaviour in persons by exercising self-control. According to Pratt (2002) this is achieved through internalisation of restraints, controls and inhibitions on people’s conduct by a centralised state. The sensibilities which refer to society’s way of feeling and differ between and within societies shape the beliefs and values of individuals in that society such that they develop distaste to some behaviours or actions. In earlier ages, punishment was conducted in public sphere and involved acts such as torture, hanging, beheading, body mutilation, as well as leaving bodies in public to rot for weeks (Tonry, 2004). Elias gives an account of how executions were carried out in the 18th century and it is was a sickening affair; an execution march was held and the person executed on the scaffold in public view. As civilized sensibilities continued to spread, the public became sympathetic to the suffering of the criminals hence were hostile to executioners. This led to shame on their part leading to removal of public prosecutions in favour of privacy. The decision makers in penal matters considered themselves as civilised hence the work of reformers was to appeal to their sensibilities and force them to view the acts as inappropriate. As a result, more humane methods of execution such as hanging instead of quartering were adopted. The punishment process was also made a private affair away from public eyes but this did not mean the behaviours were eliminated (Pratt, 2002). Most offences were punished through death penalty but due to sensibilities, capital punishment was limited to a few offences such as murder. Later, death penalty was eliminated or minimised and in its place punishment took the form of imprisonment. In this sense, punishment to the body was prohibited and instead it took the form of mind control. This allowed for private punishment of offenders as opposed to flogging in public which was inhumane. According to Pratt (2002) development of civilised sensibilities resulted in centralisation of punishment. This ensured development of institutions to ensure privacy and was also important in resolving matters on behalf of the community. The state had monopoly in use of force and imposition of legal sanctions to solve disputes. Without formation of the state, the society would be out of control due to lack of an organisation to control and inhibit conduct. For example, the eighth amendment in the US constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This shows changing penal sensibilities. However, decivilizing forces sometimes affect sensibilities leading to re-emergence of conduct of previous eras (Tonry, 2004). This explains some situations where public outrage is manifested by barbaric acts such as mob killing. Michel Foucault’s theory of discipline and punishment indicates that punishment reforms are due to individual constraint by discipline and self-control, but unlike Elias, self-control results from technology of power and not civilised sensibilities (Foucault, 1995). According to Foucault’s view, the nature of punishment reflects the nature of power relations in society. Modern punishment is reflected by the removal of punishment from public realm to privacy and the change in use of the body as an instrument of punishment. Physical force was replaced by correctional punishment while for Elias; it was replaced by use of humane treatment. The public executions were used to show the absolute power of the monarch by taking hold of an offender’s body though it was also used as a means of confession to crimes. Foucault’s theory also explains the changes in public punishment to routine procedures in prison as a corrective measure. Inmates are put under observation by psychiatrists and other human scientists and the results used to determine punishment for future offenders. Through control of mind and souls, offenders learn to exercise self-control unlike in Elias’s theory whereby self-control results from sensibilities (Foucault, 1995). Psychiatrists are therefore, important in transforming the punishment process and knowledge is used to maintain power by the monarch. For Elias the state is necessary for the civilizing process whereas for Foucault, centralisation is rationalisation whereby punishment process is carefully planned for correction and rehabilitation purposes. The theory is criticised for overemphasizing on control while forgetting other factors such as humanitarian motivations in shaping punishment. Durkheim on the other hand, emphasizes on division of labour in society which enhances transition from mechanical to organic solidarity. Punishment by primitive societies was for vengeance due to deviance. Just like Elias, emotional sentiments are important in shaping punishment hence punishment was for restoring moral order, social solidarity, and combating anomie (Durkheim, 1984). Division of labour leads to more individualisation hence rules are required to regulate behaviour and create solidarity. Deviance according to Durkheim is necessary to reinforce collective conscience through punishment. The movement from mechanical to organic solidarity also reflects changes in punishment from repressive to restitutive forms. Contrary to Elias notion of civilised sensibilities as controlling behaviour, respect for individual rights acts as constraints to behaviour for Durkheim. The theory is criticised for ignoring the role of dominant groups in influencing sentiments. Conclusion There has been a remarkable transformation in modern punishment since the middle ages. Punishment of offenders has since ceased to be a public spectacle accompanied with such brutality as torture, hanging, and body mutilation. Punishments are nowadays a private affair confined in prisons. Death sentencing has also been eliminated or confined to few offences such as murder. Instead, punishment takes the form of correction and rehabilitation with no bodily harm to the offenders, but control of mind and soul. For Elias, this transformation is the result of civilised sensibilities that restrain behaviour and despise the suffering of criminals. For Foucault, the changes are due to advancement in knowledge in human behaviour hence power shift from physical punishment of the body to control of human mind and soul leading to self-control and discipline. As for Durkheim, punishment is for maintaining moral order and social solidarity and is shaped by moral outrage. However, all these theories play a vital role in shaping punishment hence should be put into consideration. References Durkheim, E. 1984. The division of labour in society. New York: Free Press Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline and punishment: the birth of the prison. London: Allen Pratt, J. 2002. Punishment and civilization: penal tolerance and intolerance in modern society. London: Sage Tonry, M. 2004. Thinking about crime: sense and sensibility in American penal culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More