From: John Ransom <ransom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Jani Erola wrote:
> David and John
> OK, maybe English title doesn't COMPLETELY miss the point. But still, it
> doesn't represent the idea of the book in the way Foucault originally
> wanted. And it also makes strong limitations in which ways the book shoulg
> or could be undertood.
> First example about the subject that I mean that comes to mind, is the way
> Anthony Giddens uses Foucault in "Constitution of society". If I remember
> right, Giddens is speaking about time and space and how F could be used to
> understand this. Of course giddens doesn't completely misunderstand F.
> Still his (Giddens) point of view is completely based on discipline. At
> least in this case using "surveillance" could have been better choice;
> understanding it through panopticon-modality locates it more clearly
> near to time-space-subject than "discipline" can be located.
> Second good example is how John reacted to my post. He thinks that
> "discipline" is even better way to describe what F. wants to say than
> "surveille(r)". Still almost everything he says about why "discipline"
> should be prefered could be said about surveillence also. Well, maybe not
> Monty Python -thing. I feel that in that very book, call it whatever you
> like, surveillence should be understood as more abstract thing than
> "discipline". The difference is like between cause and effect, discipline
> being the latter, allthough I clearly understand it is not the same thing.
> I think that surveillence has much broader and much more primary meaning
> than discipline in Foucault's text. There has to be surveillence to be
I agree with you. After I wrote that post, I thought the same thing to
myself: that I had overstated my case by preferring 'discipline' to