All prison-model disputes shared the goal of coercive individualization

Evidence

A whole series of different conflicts stemmed from the opposition between these two models: religious (must conversion be the principal element of correction?), medical (does total isolation drive convicts insane?), economic (which method costs less?), architectural and administrative (which form guarantees the best surveillance?). This, no doubt, was why the argument lasted so long. But, at the heart of the debate, and making it possible, was this primary objective of carceral action: coercive individualization, by the termination of any relation that is not supervised by authority or arranged according to hierarchy. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 367

Categorization

  • XREF: Coercive individualization — severing unsupervised lateral relations — is exactly how the telescreen regime isolates Winston: all genuine human ties (Julia) must be destroyed. Directly extends the reader’s panopticon thesis. — connects to: Prisoner behavior control generated a continuous individualizing knowledge — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 202; Coercive punishment requires a power that encloses the punished individual completely — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 208; Psychological isolation rather than physical locks is the main method of coercion (+1 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: This paragraph identifies the unifying principle beneath ostensibly competing reform agendas: regardless of method, carceral power aims at coercive individualization, which explains why the debate could persist for decades.

Broader Connections