Génard, E., & Rossigneux-Méheust, M. (Éds.). (2023). Routines punitives. Les sanctions du quotidien, XIXe-XXe siècle. CNRS Éditions.
Reviewed by: Anouk Essyad, Département d’histoire contemporaine, Université de Fribourg.
Building upon the classic works on disciplinary institutions by both Erving Goffmann and Michel Foucault, this edited collection revisits the hypothesis that the resemblance between these institutions is not accidental but is part of the wider processes characterizing the disciplinary society. Furthermore, the editors note that within these institutions, punishment constitutes “a generalized mode of regulating social relations behind walls” (p. 9) 1. It is therefore worth paying particular attention to broader social sanctions. The book extends these insights in two ways: Firstly, it makes a cross-case study of numerous institutions such as hospices, barracks, prisons, aged care sites, psychiatric hospitals, convents, and secondary schools. These institutions are located in both democratic and authoritarian contexts, and both in metropolitan Europe and in occupied countries (mainly the French colonies). Secondly, the authors focus their analytical work on the punishments administered behind the walls, “[turning] micro-penalties into a research perspective in their own right” (p. 9). This methodology reveals particular moments or situations where disciplinary power becomes visible.
Before going into these issues in more detail, I would like to emphasize the singularity of this book. It is—as one can sense on reading it—a work that is part of a truly collective process, one that has developed through long-term collaboration. The authors are members or close associates of a research group on disciplinary institutions 2 , and the book stems from three conferences on micro-penalties. Although it takes a history-of-disciplines perspective, following the path paved by Michel Foucault, it also draws on several theoretical approaches, such as the history of everyday life (Alltagsgeschischte), the sociology of deviance, and even the history of administration 3 . The book also assumes a certain exploratory dimension, notably through its structure. It is divided into three parts, and half of each part consists of focus articles. In these short texts, the authors analyze very narrow case studies, from disciplinary boards in schools and hospitals (pp. 137–141) to the rewards system in a psychiatric hospital (pp. 259–264) to the common use of the proverb “you’ll end up on the scaffold,” in nineteenth-century France (pp. 381–385). The structure of the book complements its intended viewpoint: in addition to these focus articles, the main chapters are written by multiple authors, and they all adopt a comparative approach.
The first part of the book deals with the diversity of ways in which punishments are administered or handled within disciplinary institutions, i.e., institutions that administer groups of people in order to correct, amend, punish, educate, care for, and/or make them work. It provides a rich account of how traces of micro-penalties can be found in institutional contexts that do not relate expressly to punishment, such as sites associated with ‘care’. The second part highlights “the limited punitive inventiveness of institutions [and] the circulation of practices” (p. 30), including an insightful analysis of individual solitary confinement as punishment in prisons and psychiatric hospitals. By highlighting common practices of punishment in various institutions, this section illustrates the continuum between care and coercion. The third part deals with the effects of sanctions, both on the institutions themselves and on the individuals within them. For instance, one chapter, “La sanction, un outil de professionalisation. Le cas du personnel psychiatrique et hospitalier (France et Algérie, années 1920 – années 1950),” demonstrates how sanctions have been a driving force in the professionalization of nursing staff. The editors also make a critical observation that permeates the entire book: micro-penalties produce and reproduce social hierarchies, among inmates, among staff, and between inmates and staff.
Since the book does not contain a conclusion, I will briefly reflect on the approach of the book and a few lines of inquiry it opens up. The comparative approach of the book enables one to move away from a meliorative view of disciplinary institutions—in which such institutions are thought to be marked by their gradual humanization. This comparative analysis of several institutions, geographical areas, and historical periods provides a means of “moving from a comparative history to a connected history of sanctioning procedures” (p. 27). The differences observed in the sources reveal the diverse ways in which punishment has been institutionalized. In my opinion, there are two such patterns in particular that are outlined in the book, and which deserve to be explored in greater depth.
The first issue concerns the comparison between repressive institutions existing in authoritarian and/or colonial contexts and those of ‘common law’ existing in democratic contexts. The book implicitly considers them alongside each other and refuses to assume a priori that they differ in their nature or their very essence. This comparative gesture thus allows us to denaturalize the institutions of common law by showing the similarities they share with institutions of political repression in authoritarian or colonial contexts. It thus extends Foucault’s view of the production and repression of popular illegalisms, that is the categorization of certain acts as criminal and therefore subject to repression. He had shown how, in the formative period of capitalism, offences peculiar to the popular classes (such as theft) were criminalized and systematically repressed. In this way, the penal system has helped to build the class domination essential to the capitalist mode of production. In a way, this classification of potentially criminal acts is therefore also arbitrary.
The second significant focus of the book concerns the use of space as a punitive tool and its possible subversion by prisoners. Whether it be confinement in an isolation cell, displacement within an institution itself, or even relegation or transportation to colonial detention camps, forced mobility and/or immobility is a powerful tool for disciplining imprisoned bodies. We can assume that the punitive use of space, negotiated—on different terms—by all the parties involved, contributes to the production and reproduction of social hierarchies. Once again, the links between institutions in a democratic context and those in a colonial setting could be further analyzed from the point of view of the individuals imprisoned. Whether it be these two paths of research briefly discussed here, or the many other analytical approaches explored in various chapters of this fascinating book, it will no doubt provoke further explorations on the use of micro-penalties by disciplinary institutions.
- All the translations are mine. ↩︎
- Le GRID : un séminaire et un groupe de travail », École, armée, prison, asile, hospice, hôpital… : le carnet du groupe de recherche sur les institutions disciplinaires, <https://grid.hypotheses.org/a-propos>, consulté le 05.02.2024. ↩︎
- See for instance Lüdtke Alf, « La domination comme pratique sociale. Traduction d’Alexandra Oeser avec la collaboration de Fabien Jobard », Sociétés contemporaines 99‑100 (3‑4), 2015, pp. 17‑63 ; Becker Howard Saul, Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance, New York, Free Press, 1963 ; Buton François, « L’observation historique du travail administratif », Genèses 72 (3), 2008, pp. 2‑3. ↩︎