Nietzsche and Foucault

Both Nietzsche and Foucault have similar ideas slightly the genealogy of penalization. On the one hand, Nietzsche argued that the sign hu humannesss displays of penalisation arose out of our primary patriarchal instincts to see the wrongdoer punish in a public room so e very(prenominal)one who wanted to see their hurt (and according to Nietzsche this mob was composed of anyone who didnt hamper their instincts and urges) could do so. Foucault, on the other(a)(a) hand, presents his beak as a genealogy.His genealogy gives us an account of the shift from the old manner of soereign motive towards the advanced method acting of disciplinary queen. In the older constitution of penalisation, the world-beater to execute and punish was held suddenly by the s everyplaceeign, and all public displays of penalty were displays of the sovereigns ability over their compositions.In the modern brass, this queen relation between the articulate and the individual still exists, b ut is do so in a lots much private way. Punishment straightway takes place behind closed doors, heavy(a) rise to the birth of prisons and correctional facilities, exhibiting a more disciplinary spot. In other words, the musical arrangement of penalisation shifted from public displays of the sovereigns power over their subjects to private rehabilitative processes meant to swap the criminal back to normal standards of parliamentary law.In this strain I leave drawulate each of the philosophers ideas more or slight the shift in the method and purpose of penalisation, and I will explore how Nietzsches genealogy of morals could supercharge account for this shift. Foucaults investigation into penalization and the caudex of penalization begins with his exploration into why volume in society con variant to govern norms and how certain institutions correct communitys deviance forth from those norms through exercising their power.He explains that this corrections have been historically carried out in the grade of two different types of power sovereign power and disciplinary power. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault asserts that sovereign power is held by the leader or ruler of the world and the subjects, historically residing in the form of a king or other monarch, and the subjects of much(prenominal) a sovereign are make to abide by their laws and regulations.When a subject breaks a law, their punishment is characterized by organic military group and made to be very public (DP, 7). The execution or punishment itself is somewhat lots carried out by a land-appointed executioner, working as a direct representative of the sovereigns power in magnitude to except dissuade the public witnessing the execution of committing other crimes (DP, 9).Around a hundred years later, there was a shift away from these public displays of power and violence to a more nonindulgent and rehabilitating process. Foucault defines disciplinary power as the powe r to return a wrongdoer to the prescriptive standards of society (DP, 179). As the years go on, power is taken away from a central body and is exhibited through institutions such(prenominal) as schools, prisons, and hospitals where power and knowledge is well-kept through the sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, and psychiatry) earlier than laws.This refreshful form of power is exercised over the individuals soul quite by disciplining their body (DP, 30). In other words, these new houses of power prefer a correctional approach in rules of order to rehabilitate the wrongdoer and cut downhearted on the amount of individuals not adhering to the norms of society (DP, 19).By doing this, disciplinary power and punishment is exercised over subjects through hierarchical observation, correcting individuals base off of an accepted norm (DP, 171, 183), and examination, which is characterized by the merging of observation and normalizing in order to more fully chthonicstand the actions and thought-process of the individual, thereby gaining more power over them (191).Foucault further argues that this shift from sovereign to disciplinary power was instantiated by evolution of power the state held (or wanted to implement) over its subjects. The new sagacity system of punishment that emerged in the archeozoic 19th century, although on its face seems to be a reaction against the old system of linking together punishment with violence and spectacle is in event just a new system of power for the state and a new way of exercising conceal over its subjects.This new system is say to be a more human-centred way of dealing with offenders it is meant to be seen as a cure in fact however, the opposite is true no hourlong is it intended to punish the individual, rather it is mystify up to supervise and observe the individual. This system of disciplinary power is no extended torturing the body, rather it is characterized by the deprivation of round sort of rights and liberties, most often by housing them in some sort of correctional institution.However, for Foucault, this does not move back the harm and injury of corporal punishment for to deprive an individual their rights and freedoms is to inflict a different form of pain. With this current form of punishment, the State has shifted its power into the shadows so to speak.It has distanced itself from grand, black public displays of its power to a more nuanced and covert system of private punishment that no yearner sates the bloodlust of the crowds that used to invite the executions (because as we will see with Nietzsche, people began to muffle their natural instincts around the measure of the slave- religion revolt) but rather focuses its energy on the degradation of the offenders soul.In his Geneology of Morals, Nietzsche presents his view of how pietism (and through that, punishment) has developed over the argument of tale. Retributivists assert that the essential essence of punishme nt is contained in the fair and equitable leave it presents the guilty offenders with.To this, Nietzsche claims that this punishment did not take after from the thought that the crimes of the guilty must be punishin fact, he claims that this sound judgement is a rather late form of human observation and condemnation. Punishment, in Nietzsches mind, came about as the will of the get the hang over the slaves, to enable them to experience and revel in the feeling of condemning someone and creation able to abuse someone down the stairs them.In other words, punishing a wrongdoer was a right of the master to engage in cruelty, something that was viewed as a positive trait. However, these values changed after the consequence of Christian ressentiment which flipped the cruelty exhibited by the masters before from something good to something evil this taught man to be ashamed and to reject his primal instincts (those of the masters) which told him that cruelty and abuse was essential to a happy life.Before this reversal, humans far-famed our cruel instincts Without cruelty there is no festival thus the longest and most ancient part of human history teachesand in punishment there is so much that is festival( Nietzsche, Genealogy , essay 2, section 6). Nietzsche believed that punishment as it was so-called to be practiced in the years of the masters is no longer how it is truly practiced in modern society.This is because if punishment still represented the sovereign power (as Foucault would put it) of those who punished, we would no longer punish. Originally, punishment came about as the direct convention of the will of the powerful (what Foucault called the sovereign). However, in our modern society, a change has taken places and the roles in punishment have been reversed. organism powerful in ancient multiplication was likened to being cruel and happy being powerful nowadays is the ability to suppress those instincts, to reject cruelty and through that, pun ishment. be able to punish is no longer an act of power over those on a lower floor you those who now punish are also frail to be able not to punish.This Christian ideal of ressentiment irrevocably changed who punished and what punishment actually is. Those who are now the punishers take punishment as not being the imposition of their will over those run-downer than them but rather as the support of their idea of justice by relatiative means, by curing the sick, or by preventing further breaches of this justice. Nietzsche asserts that our understanding of punishment in modern times is a contradiction in terms of its beginnings.He believes that the implementation of punishmentthe frame of the will to powernow prefers the morality of the weak, and tells them of the importance of getting retaliation for the crimes committed, or the importance of doing only that which has utility. Therefore the weak arent creating a new institution of punishment, rather they are transforming the old version under their new masters, into something that directly goes against what punishment was ab initio supposed to mean.Taking this idea into the sentiment of Foucault, Nietzsche would say that the change in the signification of punishment from that which gloried in public displays of violence to a penitentiary system which targeted the replacement of the prisoner or to gain some sort of retribution for the criminals offence has less to do with the punished and more to do with the punishers.To Nietzsche, this shift is in accordance with a rejection and suppression of basic human instincts, where the reveling and solemnization of cruelty has been transformed into the idea of retribution or justice.