Penal reform sought not less punishment but more universal, deeper social control

Evidence

Throughout the eighteenth century, inside and outside the legal apparatus, in both everyday penal practice and the criticism of institutions, one sees the emergence of a new strategy for the exercise of the power to punish. And ‘reform’, in the strict sense, as it was formulated in the theories of law or as it was outlined in the various projects, was the political or philosophical resumption of this strategy, with its primary objectives: to make of the punishment and repression of illegalities a regular function, coextensive with society; not to punish less, but to punish better; to punish with an attenuated severity perhaps, but in order to punish with more universality and necessity; to insert the power to punish more deeply into the social body. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 136

Categorization

• XREF: Directly anticipates the panopticon thesis of later chapters and contrasts with Bentham/Foucault normalization; reform here already framed as extending power, not softening it. — connects to: Reform has always been proposed as the remedy for the prison’s failure — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 408; Reformers reframed punishment as protection rather than vengeance — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 489; European and American punishment was entirely reorganized in less than a century — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 42 (+10 more)
• DEFINE: Defines what ‘reform’ actually meant in the eighteenth century: not leniency but more universal, necessary, socially inserted punishment.

Related

• Reformers reframed punishment as protection rather than vengeance (similarity 0.89)
• Reformers sought to redistribute punitive power throughout the whole social body. (similarity 0.88)
• Penal reform arose from a policy shift, not new humanitarian feeling (similarity 0.88)
• Penal reform succeeded by managing illegalities differentially, not eliminating them (similarity 0.88)
• Penal reform aimed to increase punishment’s effects while lowering its costs. (similarity 0.87)
• The rise of the prison institutionalized the power to punish (similarity 0.85)
• European and American punishment was entirely reorganized in less than a century (similarity 0.85)
• Penal reform shifted punishment from the act to the offender’s character (similarity 0.85)
• Reform-era punishment was future-directed, aimed at prevention (similarity 0.85)
• Reformers shifted punishment’s aim from expiation to prevention (similarity 0.84)
• Modern universal imprisonment was not the reformers’ original design (similarity 0.84)
• The reformed penalty shifted its target from the body to subtler suffering (similarity 0.83)
• The respectful ‘humanity’ of the criminal became the target of correction (similarity 0.82)
• Penal codes keep stable while the substance judged shifts from crime to offender (similarity 0.82)
• Reform punishment shifted example from sovereign display to economic obstacle (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Penal reform arose from a policy shift, not new humanitarian feeling #corroborates (0.90) — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 137
• Punishment shifted from sovereign vengeance to ensuring no crime goes unpunished #corroborates (0.80)
• Subtler punishment masked sovereign power rather than making it more humane #corroborates (0.80)
• The rise of the prison institutionalized the power to punish #expands (0.75) — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 209
• Social control includes winning consent, not just coercive punishment #expands (0.75)