The formation of discipline

When Foucault in Surveiller et punir characterizes the first complex appearance of discipline, he provides a note to remind us that he will: “choose examples from military, medical, educational and industrial institutions. Other exam-ples might have been taken from colonization, slavery and child rearing.” ⁶ In Foucault’s presentation these levels are, however, often treated in unison, just as he switches between general statements on the character of discipline and the more empirical studies without mentioning the immediate analytical extent of these. Finally, the analyses do not occur only in delimited books with one theme but are spread across a multitude of smaller writings, lectures and interviews that each concern their own specific subject.

The following presentation of disciplinary forms through exemplars is limited to the following developments in three areas: the changes that resulted in volunteer militias becoming the standing armies of modern societies; the transition from guilds to modern industrialized production; and finally the shift from medieval apprentices and lecturing to modern schooling and its gradual didactic approach. It is within these three areas that Foucault iden-tifies the infant appearance of a discipline that influences the participating individuals.

The Army . In the early 1500s the army was still a temporary phenomenon.

Regiments were gathered while seasonal and periodic campaigns were taken up when the opportunity arose. In battle, the infantry were grouped into box-like formations, with the strongest and most experienced soldiers toward the periphery, while the weakest and mostly useless troops were found at the center, such that they at least contributed with mass and volume. These tactics suggest that the soldiers were still treated as a homogenous conglomeration, the strength of which arose in the density and weight of the human group.

One thing distinguished the experienced and competent soldier from others and gave the unit strength already before he was mustered into the army, namely that soldier’s attitude, bravery and spirit. According to this military paradigm, the good soldier was a natural – a state of nature the army had to take for granted.

In the second half of the 18th century, however, the competent infantryman was no longer a given but rather something that was produced by the army itself. Foucault thus implies that a process of disciplining and regimentation had become detectible during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648) since drilling was introduced, such that it became possible to correct and improve the indi-vidual soldier. This involved manipulating the indiindi-vidual soldier’s stamina and

6 SP: 143, n. 2/ DP : 314, n. 1.

physical condition, whereby it became possible for him to acquire certain skills and patterns of reaction and provide improved results while following certain desired guidelines. These new developments were utilized to their fullest effect by the military tactics of that time. This new order was presented in its purest form by the military parade; while inspecting such a spectacle a Grand Duke – according to Foucault – is said to have noted with dissatisfaction, “But they are breathing.” ⁷

Drilling, tactics and parade allow one to observe the introduction of dis-cipline into the purview of the army and belligerent relations. As a result, the thoroughly regimented army appeared as an entity that belonged in the ordered institution of the barrack. This was the end of the army as a homo-genous mass of unqualified men, but likewise the rise of the ordered format of the army – a well-oiled machine “whose function was certainly not that of prohibiting anything” but “essentially to obtain a superior performance, a superior production and a superior productivity of the army. The army as pro-duction of deaths, that is what has been perfected or, better, has been assured by this new technique of power,” namely ‘discipline.’ ⁸

Production. In the cooperative manufacture of the 1600s, production had not yet become the object of preoccupation and interest. While the recipients of products and owners were initially interested in what was produced – its quality and properties – the mode of production as such was left to the artisan and his apprentices, who in return were dependent on their given skills and handed down knowledge. During the 18th century, intensive changes in the mode of production were undertaken by dividing the process into various phases and elementary operations. Simultaneously, the basic operations in production were rationalized by examining how they could be performed in the simplest way so that the production process could be reorganized to become as swift as possible.

For Foucault, it is more important that there occurred a simultaneous and thorough manipulation of labor, which was divided and organized according to the demands set by the new production processes. As the new spatial dis-tribution of the labor force was implemented, it sorted people into individual units that were tied to a location and a function. In order to facilitate this, it became necessary to shape labor into individual units, such that they could perform the new demanding functions as best and as quickly as possible. In short, output was improved by improving labor. ⁹

7 “La prison vue par un philosophe français” [1975], DE II: 728; our translation.

8 “Les mailles du pouvoir” [1981], DE IV: 191/“The Meshes of Power” pp. 159–160.

9 “L‘incorporation de l‘hôpital dans la technologie moderne” [1974], DE III: 516; our translation.

However, various efforts were taken to ensure that the employees only did what the production processes required of them. The workforce was therefore subjected to temporal regimentation, which was far more rigorous than the production processes were in themselves. In this sense, the workforce was distributed according to the given opportunities of control in the production process, as well as general activities among labor. Over time, all factors included in production were therefore subjected to discipline and manipulation but also a redistribution, which made them as uniform and productive as possible. In other words, an analysis and reconstruction of productive factors occurred, which would reshape industry into a well-oiled, efficient machine.

At the end of the Classical Age (c.1550–1800), the division of labor in pro-duction was therefore accompanied by a demand for increased discipline from the workforce. According to Foucault, this development resulted in the laborer, just as with the soldier becoming an individual who needed discipline in a number of specific regards.

Teaching . Shortly after Jean-Baptiste Colbert bought the Gobelins Manufactory for Louis XIV in 1662, an edict was formulated containing the regulations for an associated school, where the principles of apprenticeship – according to Foucault – were to be implemented. ¹⁰ No sooner had a contract been signed, the apprentices found themselves in a relationship of mutual dependency with their master, insofar as they became a part of his household. The mutual exchange consisted in the apprentice bringing support and service, while he in return received the esoteric and authoritative knowledge held by the master.

Thus, while they were gradually granted the privileges of the trade, the disciples underwent six years of education until the apprenticeship was completed by a final test, which was to show en bloc that they had acquired sufficient skills.

If an apprentice passed the test with a satisfactory result, he could establish himself as an independent master.

A later edict from 1737 concerning the apprenticeship for tapestry weavers and courses in drawing shows that education was undergoing substantial changes. There were two hours of lessons every weekday, which began with a roll call, and the apprentices were divided into three different classes according to their ability and regular submission of individual work, which allowed the teacher to evaluate their progress and make comparisons. Here the best drawing was rewarded. This specialized training followed utterly different rules than the traditional apprenticeship. According to Foucault, this indicated a general shift in knowledge dissemination. The focus was no longer placed on authori-tative and privileged knowledge that was transferred to a homogenous mass

10 SP: 158/ DP : 156.

but instead on specialized dissemination that took into account the use of time and space in teaching.

Since there was a division of pupils according to ability, it is possible to find precursors to the modern class-based system of teaching already in the 15th century. By introducing an ongoing registration and ranking of the individual participants within the class, this process was accelerated during the 17th century. Little by little, it became possible to form a conception of the individual pupil’s ability at various points in time and thereby adapt the teaching to his level. Student time was divided into sharply distinguished units according to their subjects, while continuous correction was implemented through various grades of reward and punishment for the work performed.

The purpose of such regimentation was to force through a certain prior deter-mined, graduated and yet coherent development in which the later stages of development built upon the former. This established a process of accumulative progress with the aim of achieving a state in which the individual developed certain selected skills to their maximum. Rather than the irregular, qualitative changes that occurred in apprenticeships, this involved the construction of an evolutionary time that resulted in steady, detailed and linear progress toward an ideal state. While education had previously concerned guiding and instructing, the new approaches allowed for the creation of ‘pedagogy’, which in a detailed and individualized sense declared whom you could be at any given time. It related the person to an idealized ‘natural’ development aimed at a goal that was not given in advance. ¹¹ A new detailed form of discipline appeared in the Renaissance and the Classical Age, which slowly but surely changed the relationship between teacher and pupil in a very fundamental way so that it became a very specific process of correction. This was based less and less on the previous ages’ ‘elevation’ (from which a generic French word for pupil, namely élève , is derived) and more on a determined acquisition of select skills through a comprehensive process of social and moral character formation or Bildung . As a result of this the modern school was viewed as an institution that, using comprehensive and minute processes of correction, was responsible for differentiating the disciplined individual, namely the pupil.

Just as the soldier and worker, the pupil was viewed as an individual who had to undergo a treatment of discipline.