Prisoner of the ‘Soul’: Imprisonment as Punishment Raisa L. Ty MA Sociology Program, Department of Sociology, University of the Philippines-Diliman Instructor, Department of Social Sciences, University of Eastern Philippines

Abstract Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1979) provides a genealogical investigation of the modern penal system by providing a historical account of the changing discourse on punishment from the “spectacle of torture” and public execution to the “gentle way in punishment” influenced by the eighteenth century reformers of the penitentiary practices. Imprisonment, which was introduced by the reforming jurists, wanted a shift of power from the sovereign to the citizens, “requalifying individuals as...juridical subjects” using signs and representations of social contract between the citizens and the laws of society, which the criminals violate (130). As subsequently applied in prison, punishment then employed “methods of training the body” in the form of habits and ritualized behaviors (130-131). This integrative paper provides an interrogation of penitentiary practices by investigating on the production of docile and obedient bodies. The discourse of resistance existing alongside power is also explored especially among jail inmates who are presumed innocent and still awaiting trial.

Outline Introduction The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary Society Imprisonment as Punishment Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices Conclusion Recommendation

Introduction a genealogical investigation of the modern penal system the changing discourse on punishment from the “spectacle of torture” and public execution to the “gentle way in punishment” the shift of the operation of power from the body, and then to the ‘soul’, in which, that which is “born in sin and subject to punishment” according to Christian theology to that which is “born... out of methods of punishment, supervision and constraint” (29). imprisonment became possible with the rise of disciplinary power by turning the body into “both a productive and subjective body” (26) using instruments of power and the utilization of Panopticon or “a type of location of bodies in space, of distribution of individuals in relation to one another, in hierarchical organization, of disposition of centers and channels of power, of definition of the instruments and modes of intervention of power” (205)

Introduction Rules: “regard punishment as a complex social function” with possible positive outcomes, “regard punishment as a political tactic”, (3) punishment must not be separated with the human sciences, and ; therefore, “make power the very principle both of the humanization of the penal system and of the knowledge of man, and (4) “study the metamorphosis of punitive methods on the basis of a political technology of the body in which might be read a common history of power relations and object relations” (23-24).

Three Ways of Organizing the Power to Punish (1) ancien regime (2) a representational mode (3) modern period of prison (Foucault 1979:130; Ransom 1997:31-32)

The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary Society Subjected body- modern soul (Dumm 1995: 83) Disciplines as “methods...[of] meticulous control of the operations of the body, which assured the constant subjection of its forces and imposed upon them a relation of docility-utility” (Foucault 1979: 137). techniques in the distribution of individuals in a particular place (141-146): enclosure (2) partitioning (3) functional sites, and (4) ranking

The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary Society methods (149-156): time-table of productive activities, temporal elaboration of acts, (3) correlation of the body and the gesture for efficiency and utility, (4) body-object articulation or the “coercive link with the apparatus of production” (153), and finally the (5) exhaustive use of the body in extracting more productive use of time

The ‘Soul’ in the Disciplinary Society Docile bodies are effective and productive bodies. Q: But how are docile bodies produced by disciplinary power? A: They are trained to become “self-regulating subjects” in a Panopticon Three instruments of disciplinary power: hierarchical (2) normalizing judgment, and (3) examination

Imprisonment as Punishment The rise of disciplinary institutions is related to the following: (1) to the rise of a capitalist economy, which favors efficiency and productivity, (2) the juridico-political power of the Enlightenment‟ that did not only introduce liberties but also disciplines (222), and (3) the rise of scientific knowledge that placed individuals under control and observation (227). from a ‘discipline blockade’ in the plague-stricken town to a ‘discipline-mechanism’ of the Panopticon (209)

Imprisonment as Punishment If power in disciplinary institutions within the disciplinary society produced docile bodies by training them to becoming self-regulating subjects in a Panopticon, then can we claim that we have indeed “entered the age of non-corporal punishment?” (101) three principles of the disciplinary prison (236): isolation, work, and the “declaration of carceral independence”

Imprisonment as Punishment If power in disciplinary institutions within the disciplinary society produced docile bodies by training them to becoming self-regulating subjects in a Panopticon, then can we claim that we have indeed “entered the age of non-corporal punishment?” (101) three principles of the disciplinary prison (236): isolation, work, and the “declaration of carceral independence”

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices Background: punishment in the 19th Century Philippines In the Philippines (Bankoff 1996) “each poblacion was required to maintain a jail either within the casa tribunal or in a separate building adjacent to it” (155) prisoners work long hours of the day six times a week. It was only suspended during meals, prayers and sleep (155) in spite of “a lack of administrative structure, uniform regulation and professional staff” (160), the prison became a direct control of the alcalde mayor, the highest colonial government official in the poblacion

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices Case study: a (main) provincial jail with 247 inmates (235 males, 12 females), 12 sentenced Observation from two exposure trips with students Interview with the warden Ethics: informed consent, confidentiality, no harm done to participants

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices relevant data: 6 regular prison guards + 80 ‘job order’ personnel; more than 20 guards on duty per day (including those in court duty) Inmates 247 inmates (235 male, 12 female) top crime charges 93 murder (90 male, 3 female) 34 frustrated murder (34 male) 25 drug trafficking (19 male, 6 female) 14 rape (14 male) PhP50 budget per inmate per day (inmates may get the ingredients and cook the meals themselves), 75 sacks of rice per month (0.5 kg per inmate per day) prolonged trial due to postponement (unavailability of lawyers, judges and/or prosecutors) and long interval of hearings

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices modified disciplinary techniques (1) enclosure- open compound (2) partitioning- cramped cells occupied between 6PM-5AM (3) functional sites- gardening, cooking, prayer, education, and sports (4) ranking- trusted inmate (settled with complainant, filed petition for bail, detained for a long time), elected officers

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices methods of discipline (1) time-table of productive activities- free to roam around the compound (2) temporal elaboration of acts- routine: waking up, headcount, meals, headcount, lock up instruments of disciplinary power (1) hierarchical- trusted inmates, elected officers (2) normalizing judgment- lock up as punishment (3) examination- acceptance by the society

Interrogation of Penitentiary Practices all-encompassing disciplinary mechanism (1) visitation Technique- distributes individuals (away from inmates and closer to family) Method- productive use of time against boredom Instrument- docile bodies (“pampakalma”) (2) relatively free, and free relative to whom? relatively free to roam around the compound and spend most of their waking time outside their cells free relative to locked up inmates “Power is tolerable only if it masks a substantial portion of itself (Ransom 1997:4).”

Conclusion Foucault claimed that power is everywhere and exists throughout history; it only varies in forms and practices. The universal aspect of society, as what Foucault claimed, is the presence of punishment across history. The exercise of power in the form of punishment shifted from that coming from the sovereign to that embedded in disciplinary institutions. Applying his notion of discourse, punishment, as an exercise of power, has not necessarily evolved to become humane with the passage of time. The normalization of prisons that makes subjects unable to break free from their souls’ own cage.

Recommendation Explore how power exists alongside resistance, from the point of view of inmates. Conduct a comparative analysis of penitentiary practices in jails and prisons.

References Bankoff, Greg. 1996. Crime, Society and the State in the Nineteenth Century Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Dumm, Thomas. 1996. Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom. CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. Ransom, John. 1997. Foucault’s Discipline. Durham and London: Duke University Press.