This discussion paper intends to address the difference between witness, on the one hand, and observation, judgement and examination on the other hand. Through the consideration of a social context, these conceptual frameworks will be contrasted in terms of their purpose, the knowledge gain once applied to the social world and social beings as well as the potential implications of their implementation. Conclusions will be drawn from the evidence as to whether these conceptual lenses aid in the understanding of the social world and in turn the nature of the human condition.
Arthur W. Frank’s The Wounded Story Teller and Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish illustrate the opposing situations of witness and observation, judgement and examination, through which the underlying social assumptions that allow for the application of these instruments are also exposed. Frank defines the process of witness as the assuming of “responsibility for telling what happened. The witness offers testimony to a truth that is generally unrecognised or suppressed” (Reference) whereby “testimony calls on its witness to become what none of us are yet, communicative bodies”(Reference). Interpretatively, to witness is to acknowledge otherness in its most natural form, communion, through which one is able to share the experience of emotionally challenging situations so as to lessen the burden of bearing testimony.
Michel Foucault as a part of his extensive exploration of the system of discipline and punishment declares that “the success of disciplinary power derives no doubt from the use of simple instruments; hierarchical observation, normalising judgement and their combination in a procedure that is specific to it, examination” (Reference), hen...
... middle of paper ...
...After considering witness on the one hand, and observation, judgement and examination on the other hand in terms of its purpose, the knowledge gained and the implications of its application it is clear that witness must be the only tool used for the analysis of human beings and as a conceptual framework for human interaction. Witness as a conceptual lens provides a basis which enhances our current understanding of the social world and in turn the nature of the human condition through the recognition of otherness. Observation, judgement and examination, gains merit from its ability to create a sense of belonging from the process of normalisation and judgement by beginning to value difference, however it does not aid our understanding of the social world due to its corrective purpose that eliminates individuality and anomalies within the human condition.
Foucault and Nietzsche challenge the hidden purposes of historians in their search for origins, demonstrating that an accurate understanding of history rectifies one of any beliefs of moral origins. In this paper, I will elaborate what Foucault thinks an accurate understanding of history regarding punishment truly is. I am going to clarify this concept by focusing on the first chapter of Foucault’s book, Discipline and Punish.
The article revolves around the negative implications of the Kingston Penitentiary, a prison designed to provide reform for criminals through intensive labor, the use of the panopticon model, and implementation of harsh disciplinary practices. It represents a social institution which is expected to embody discipline and social control, and exert power over its inmates. However, the article highlights the institution’s inability to take effective disciplinary action against its inmates (Neufeld 1998) In addition, Michael Foucault’s theories are critiqued in relation to the faulty Penitentiary Model. Foucault’s understanding of power and surveillance provided little to no justification for the institution’s downfall. This paper will argue that the Penitentiary model failed due to poor administration, harsh disciplinary practices and the perpetuation of gender inequalities.
Among the books discussed over the duration of the course, the most recurrent theme has been the dominance of power relationships and the construction of institutions driven by power. The framework for these socially ingrained power relationships that has been transformed over time has been laid out by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. According to Foucault, power is everywhere, dispersed in institutions and spread through discourses. The state functions on a number of dispositions which are hierarchical, naturalized and are the modes of power for the power elite. The result of this social and economic control is observed in nations and across nations through the beauty myth, the prison system, the creation of informal systems or the overarching cultural hegemony and attempted reform of the non-western world. The key to the success of this has been through the misrecognition of the constructed systems of power which are instated through very fundamental mediums that they are not questioned. These structures of control by the state are adopted and reproduced from the base of the familiar, through arrangements and dispositions that pose themselves as natural, as they are embodied and programmed in the play of language, in common sense, and in all what is socially taken for granted. In this essay I will examine these above mentioned structures of the power and how these models are used to discipline individuals and states.
The preliminary to fruitful discussion of social matters is that certain obstacles shall be overcome, obstacles residing in our present conceptions of the method of social inquiry. One of the obstructions in the path is the seemingl...
In order to begin the process of learning how these two worldviews can co-exist, one must understand exactly what a wor...
Foucault once stated, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests” (301). By this, he means that our society is full of constant supervision that is not easily seen nor displayed. In his essay, Panopticism, Foucault goes into detail about the different disciplinary societies and how surveillance has become a big part of our lives today. He explains how the disciplinary mechanisms have dramatically changed in comparison to the middle ages. Foucault analyzes in particular the Panopticon, which was a blueprint of a disciplinary institution. The idea of this institution was for inmates to be seen but not to see. As Foucault put it, “he is the object of information, never a subject in communication”(287). The Panopticon became an evolutionary method for enforcing discipline. Today there are different ways of watching people with constant surveillance and complete control without anyone knowing similar to the idea of the Panopticon.
Foucault, Michel. “Discipline and Punish.” Literary Theory: An Anthology-Second Edition. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, Massachusettes: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 549-566.
Human being spend much time observing the world in which they live in. observing the world is something were familiar with is just that we have not considered it as a way of doing formal research. Observation does not just involve vision, it includes interpretation of that same date, it’s not just recording of data from environment we observe, we are active our brains are engaged as well as our eyes and ears. In a social gathering where you don’t know people researcher can adopt participant observation where she has two roles to play that is being an observer and participant. In a hospital a nurse can pretend to be a patient in other to be admitted into the ward to enable her obtain adequate information because informant
Everyone has a worldview with main characteristics that are ever changing. Different sources influence this framework such as parenting, friendship, telecommunication or internet media, educational and religious sectors. Hindson and Caner (2008) propose standardization methods of worldview are measured either by emotions and feelings, socialism, or the truth (Hindson & Caner, 2008, p.499). Recognition of a person’s worldview can be found based on ones answer to several reality questions surrounding God (origin), human nature (identity), reality (meaning/purpose), after life (destiny), values (morality or ethics).
Surveillance is two fold, meaning it can be from peers and from the state. This can be seen with government spying on citizens to a mother listening in on her child’s conversation with a friend. Surveillance comes in many different forms as is seen throughout history. By watching one’s activities from video to listening to a conversation with a wire, there are many mediums of collecting information orally and visually. However, social control, in the form of surveillance, can lead to restricting the flow of truth. When one has the knowledge of being watched, this can lead to a person not acting how they normally would. This idea of being observed can lead to not only people not acting natural, but not showing the truth. Therefore,when one has
3. Foucault argues in the conclusion that discipline is not just about control—it also produces new kinds of knowledge. He cites the rise of psychiatry and clinical medicine as examples. Apply Foucault’s ideas to your everyday life. How has discipline and surveillance produced who you are today and your ability to take action?
...ts the profession to turn some of its attention in this direction. But it does offer a criterion of evaluation of world views, thought and lived. It is a criterion in line with those nineteenth century figures Cantor and Marx: a world view is better than another world view just in case the human population density potential is greater with it than with the other(s).
“Justice must always question itself, just as society can exist only by means of the work it does on itself and on its institutions.” The philosopher Michel Foucault explains the delicate balance of the justice systems with society. We have grown accustom to our way of crime and punishment in the United States. It handles the situations in a way of treating everyone as equals. Hammurabi’s code relies on more of a crime fits the punishment method. The common code, an eye for an eye, shows how seriously strict Hammurabi’s code can be. Should punishment be handled like we do in today’s society, in a humane way, or a brute force method? Without a doubt, history shows that human nature causes us to desire power, and usually ends in criminal actions. Punishment comes from the government and how it is handled. Is the United States implementing their job or do we need to go back to a stricter code?
Kawulich, B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502430
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular