Historically, the process by which the bourgeoisie became in the course of the eighteenth century the politically dominant class was masked by the establishment of an explicit, coded and formally egalitarian juridical framework, made possible by the organization of a parliamentary, representative regime. But the development and generalization of disciplinary mechanisms constituted the other, dark side of these processes. The general juridical form that guaranteed a system of rights that were egalitarian in principle was supported by these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, by all those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian and asymmetrical that we call the disciplines. [3] :222 The emergence of prison as the form of punishment for every crime grew out of the development of discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Foucault. He looks at the development of highly refined forms of discipline, of discipline concerned with the smallest and most precise aspects of a person's body. Discipline, he suggests, developed a new economy and politics for bodies. Modern institutions required that bodies must be individuated according to their tasks, as well as for training, observation, and control. Therefore, he argues, discipline created a whole new form of individuality for bodies, which enabled them to perform their duty within the new forms of economic, political, and military organizations emerging in the modern age and continuing to today. I received a free hardcover copy of this book through the Goodreads Giveaway program. A review is not a requirement of receiving the book, but it is appreciated. Next, Graeber waltzed in with playful social imagination (i.e. "idealism": the focus on ideas driving history/social change) for the longer history: Debt: The First 5,000 Years. I read this book early on (thank goodness in a reading group) when I had limited critical historical foundations:

How is it proper not to protest when politicians stigmatize petty criminals, responsible, according to them, for all the evils of our daily lives? While the kings of finance live far from the cameras, sheltered from all suspicion, peacefully continuing to disregard the laws that guarantee our living together. Foucault argues that prison did not become the principal form of punishment just because of the humanitarian concerns of reformists. This required "corrective" detention. Idleness became criminalized, as time became increasingly quantified and controlled via surveillance (supervisors, Bentham's Panopticon). A "police-prison-delinquency circuit" formed based on a controlled "delinquency" and generalized policing. This now reminds me of the brutal workhouses to enforce work discipline in The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation. All of the highs and lows of prison life, with heart-warming honesty and anecdotes to make your sides split and your jaw drop in equal measure … Amanda has filled her book full of funny tales that both she and the inmates have had a good giggle at.’ Sunday Express S Magazine This book will open your eyes to the fact that while there are some people in jail who are probably irredeemable, that is not the case for every inmate. No matter what crime a person has committed or why they did so, these men are still people with valid opinions and who deserve a chance to enrich their lives through reading.I will add only a few additional comments to what I’ve already written (below and in the comments sections). It will be enough and more than enough. As the book progresses, you see this initiative becoming big thanks to the ever efficient and ambitious Carol, extended to every public prison in Canada.

But Foucault realizes that 'liberal' politics go hand in hand with this regimentation and unending labour. Work is the most efficient form of social control. Nietzsche also said that ( Foucault is most certainly Nietzschean). Foucault realizes here (and apparently in his other works as well) that basic human drives are now considered taboo and he calls us out on our hypocrisy. Modern times are repressed times. Virtually everything is determined by power. Not only are most of us too well 'disciplined' and 'punished' but we are isolated in our cells of various hues and colours and so pervertedly repressed. I started it. I didn't finish. And unless I one day find myself in a situation with extremely limited mobility and options, with a great deal of time (read: years) on my hands, it's conceivable that I never will. Alford, C. Fred (2000). "What Would It Matter If Everything Foucault Said about Prison Were Wrong? "Discipline and Punish" after Twenty Years". Theory and Society. 25 (1): 134. JSTOR 3108481.

As I read this book I was surprised to read the responses of the inmates to the various books they read. Some of the reactions were insightful and intelligent. Is the world turning into a panopticon in which everyone of us cannot evade the gaze of whoever that is occupying the central point? I find this book to be making a powerful argument, but I do have doubts as to whether surveillance by itself (without corporal violence) could impose discipline ( in other words, whether the observed really interiorizes the system of surveillance). I also doubt as to whether the systems of micro-power really fits into a bigger top-down power hierarchy. In the example of the school for instance, I think that students have certain power over the teachers just as the teachers have over the students. I don't think power is as top-down as Foucault describes. Sahip olmak ve elimizde tutmak istediklerimiz neler? Hangi kaygılar bizi istemediğimiz ne gibi şeyleri yapmaya sürüklüyor? Tüm bunlar üzerine düşünerek, beynimizin en derin dokularına sızan iktidarı üzerimizde işlemez hale getirmeye yaklaşabiliriz belki. Before reading "The Prison Book Club" I was guilty of thinking of book clubs as the milieu of the middle or upper classes. I had never given a thought to the fact that people in prison would want to take part in such a club. Of course I am aware that reading takes place in prison since it is a way for inmates to pass the time. However, I had a hard time picturing inmates of different religions and different races putting aside their prejudices to get together to discuss literature. To me, this idea seemed to be fraught with pitfalls that would ultimately lead to it's failure.