Buy an essay on M. Foucault and S. Griffin on Fabrication of Human Life

The works of Michel Foucault and Susan Griffin on the issue of human life fabrication make an in-depth observation and investigation of how the multiple social processes influence and modify the way of life of the people, individuals, families, communities, countries and larger societies. The system of interpersonal relations, and the ones between an individual and society did not appear out of nowhere, it was preceded by long and complex processes within the judicial, legislative, economical, political, educational, medical, penitentiary and other spheres of human life. The velocity of the social transformations towards the discipline, productivity, controllability, did not start in the 19th, or 18th or even 17th century. The first step was taken in the period of late Middle Ages, when the judicial practices of investigation of the cases started being practiced, and the Inquisition is, according to Foucault, also among the determinants of the modern disciplinary practices (Foucault 219).
What Michel Foucault pays attention to is the discipline imposed over the society, its members and even on those who are in charge of control. From “the utopia of perfectly governed city” and educational, penitentiary and medical institutions of today, discipline underwent a transformation from being a negative, isolative, enclosing one to being an amplifier stimulating the effectiveness of control, production, education, medication etc. Thus, it turned out to be one of the most essential elements of modern society, an indispensible constituent of any institution, be it private or governmental.
A plug-stricken town was the first model of total surveillance and control over the citizens, with very harsh consequences for those who dared to break the rules and regulations of the quarantine territory. The syndics, intendants and guards were the only who could move within the boundaries of a town with the aim of inspecting separate households, registering their needs, lives and deaths.
Foucault’s approach to the issue is closer to objectivism, the personal attitude and experience is not explicitly demonstrated, however, they might be logically deduced from the secondary sources – emphases, details focused on, characteristics, descriptions, classifications and others. He deals with the historical facts, the same as Susan griffin does, regards them from the standpoint of evolutionary development, presents accurate accounts on what the models propelling discipline were and are.
Unlike “Our Secret,” “Panopticism” incorporates only one line of narration, or rather events. The treatment of the issue turns out to be completely diachronical, first we meet with a certain starting point then proceed, through several intermediary stages, to the system immanent in the modern world. In the medieval epoch, the migration and movements of people and groups of people were quite free and they hardly were undergoing any control. Even if there could occur such a wish to anybody to implement a total surveillance and control over the subjects of a monarch or feudal, there couldn’t be found means for that. What is more, there was not such a need, what feudal wanted was gavel work of his surfs and peasants, and he did not much care about their personal, professional and social life, if there did exist such, of course. The productive relationships did not reach such a level as to cause a demand in high professional or any other disciplinary mechanisms.
Among the exceptions were the lepers, totally excluded and isolated from the society. The control over them was limited only to maximally avoiding any encounters with them and prevent them entering all the public places. The rest, which was not related to their contacts with the healthy people, did not matter, and they had a full freedom in their life outside the society. The other exception is a town suffering an epidemic of plague. The hazard to the lives and security measures induced a virtually Orwellian system of total control and surveillance. A citizen was not allowed to leave his or her house under the threat of the capital punishment. A situation itself, as it were, legalized the meticulous observation, registering and surveillance over the citizens’ lives and property. Named as “the utopia of perfectly governed city,” plague quarantine gave chance to the intendants and other authorities to exercise an unlimited power and even tyranny. Foucault, not being a participant or witness of that practice, provides an interesting explanation of the causes and character of the discipline in a plague stricken town.

buy an essay

There was and objective need, a real excuse for infringing the usual right of population to migrate, change the place of their residence, communicate etc. The subjective will of the authorities worked out the system of maximal isolation of every individual and reducing the intercourse between the residents to a maximally possible level. You could speak only to those in your house and the syndic of your street inspecting each household on a daily basis.
Foucault characterizes that practice as totally repressive, “the meticulous exercise of the right of the sword,” implementing brute force and power against the trespassers (Foucault 106). “Suspended laws, lifted prohibitions, the frenzy of passing time, bodies mingling together without respect, individuals unmasked” – that was the most obvious, visible aspect of the disciplinary measures imposed of the plague-stricken towns (Foucault 104). At this point, there was reached the segmentation of the population, full supervision over each segment, and control over all the aspects of human life.
The development of social relations did not stop but went further, and there was presented and ideal model of control and surveillance. Bentham introduced a new, highly effective, technically plain and simple, but functionally perfect and universal model of Panopticum, an architectural complex allowing total inspection and observation over the prisoners, pupils, workers, sick and others. After the French revolution and the political reforms of the 19th – 20th centuries, the panoptic principle became inculcated in all the official institutions of our society. The main advantage of it lies in minimum efforts and resources, on the one hand, and maximum efficacy on the other. The purpose of disciplinary implementations also metamorphosed – from restrictions and limitations it became leveled at increasing the productivity of the individuals. The security concerns were replaced by economic profitability.
The author of “Panopticism” is not a participant of the events and processes described, as S. Griffin is, he is an external observer, which offers him some essential advantages. M. Foucault gives us insight into the diversity of trends and tendencies of various historical periods that resulted in modern disciplinary systems. The issue is regarded rather from the standpoint of society, group, institution then a separate individual. The letter is only known to be isolated, constantly surveyed, and controlled in the minutest details of his / her activities. What such a person feels we might only guess, for the author does not go into the inner world of a human.
The work of the French philosopher gives, nevertheless, a vivid picture of how the hidden forces of social, economic, judicial and other motivations underlay the reforms and crystallization of the disciplinary institutions.

Works Cited
Bartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky, eds. Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin, 2008. 349.
Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism.” Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. By Michel Foucault. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York, Vintage Books, 1995. 195 – 228.
Griffin, Susan. “Our Secret.” A Chorus of Stones: The private Life of War. By Susan Griffin. New York, NY: Anchor, 1993. 111 – 1984.