The prison’s disciplinary excess over legal detention was present from its birth

Evidence

Now this excess was observed very early on, from the very birth of the prison, either in the form of real practices, or in the form of projects. It did not come later, as a secondary effect. The great carceral machinery was bound up with the’ very functioning of the prison. The sign of this autonomy is very apparent in the ‘useless’ acts of violence perpetrated by warders or in the despotism of an administration that has all the privileges of an enclosed community. Its roots lie elsewhere: precisely in the fact that the prison is required to be ‘useful’, that the deprivation of liberty – that juridical levying on an ideal property – must, from the outset, have exercised a positive technical role, operating transformations on individuals. And, for this operation, the carceral apparatus has recourse to three great schemata: the politico-moral schema of individual isolation and hierarchy; the economic model of force applied to compulsory work; the technico-medical model of cure and normalization. The cell, the workshop, the hospital. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 379

Categorization

• XREF: Connects directly to Foucault’s power/knowledge project and the panopticon thesis central to the reader’s analytical integration with Bentham and Orwell. — connects to: Prison integrated correctional transformation into legal detention from the start — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 357; The prison is totalizing and unceasingly disciplinary, with no exterior — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 362; Reform has been built into the prison since its origin (+3 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that the prison’s disciplinary excess is constitutive, not incidental — that usefulness to the state requires transformation — is a dense, paradigm-level formulation resisting easy summary.

Related

• Prison integrated correctional transformation into legal detention from the start (similarity 0.89)
• The prison’s failure, reform, and discipline form one simultaneous carceral system (similarity 0.87)
• The prison is totalizing and unceasingly disciplinary, with no exterior (similarity 0.86)
• Prisons resemble schools, factories, and hospitals because one disciplinary model unifies them (similarity 0.84)
• Reform has always been proposed as the remedy for the prison’s failure (similarity 0.84)
• Judicial discretion over penalties was transferred to prison administrators (similarity 0.84)
• The rise of the prison institutionalized the power to punish (similarity 0.83)
• Prison reform is an integral part of the prison’s functioning, not its antidote (similarity 0.83)
• The prison’s failures were denounced at its very inception (similarity 0.83)
• The public spectacle of punishment gave way to enclosed hierarchized detention within decades. (similarity 0.83)
• Prison resists reform because it relays a broad network of disciplines and surveillances. (similarity 0.82)
• The prison form preexisted and supplied the model for legal punishment (similarity 0.82)
• Carceral power is naturalized by borrowing the rationality of curing and educating (similarity 0.82)
• The prison’s apparent failure is actually its designed success at producing delinquency (similarity 0.82)
• The carceral regime extracts knowledge that converts punishment into a productive operation. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Reform has been built into the prison since its origin #complicates (0.85)
• The prison’s failure, reform, and discipline form one simultaneous carceral system #expands (0.80) — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 418
• Judicial discretion over penalties was transferred to prison administrators #expands (0.75) — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 377