Description
Please read and follow instructions below carefully.
1. Read the following attachment containing what we have so far for my dissertation project. My tutor has given the following feedback for the presentation:
This is a solid presentation that does a good job of outlining much of your project so far. You are articulate and convey what you want to well. You make good use of visual aids (for the most part) and clearly outline your methodology and chapter structure. Importantly, you justify your case study choice and outline clearly how the chapters will be structured.
However, the presentation is let down by a lack of engagement with the literature. You don’t mention a single author or reference a single text. At this stage of the project it is expected that you have made at the minimum a general survey of the literature on your topic and been able to indicate what the key arguments and camps are and who has made them. These are all absent. The literature review slide is confusing, with a disconnected set of boxes that seem to offer a mixture of what you will do and what other authors have said, but without giving any names or approaches beyond the generic idea of ‘Neo-Ottomanism’ – which is never explained or defined. You say later in the presentation that the literature review will be the ‘map that guides your research,’ but you show now evidence here that you have done the groundwork on this literature yet and, as such, your presentation and project have no ‘map’ to guide it. It is unclear what approaches you will be using, whether there will be a theoretical or analytical framework and what approaches you will be arguing in favour or against.
It is unclear whether this is because you haven’t done the reading or because you have but opted not to put it into the presentation. Either way, please come to talk to me asap in the new term so we can make sure you’re staying on the right track.
This was what had been said. Based on feedback I want you to do some research on the bits he has stated. Remember what we are arguing (While the Neo-Ottoman perspective is undeniably influential in the academic discussion, it is not embraced in its entirety. Recognizing the complexity of Turkey’s interactions, the study project adopts a diverse approach to prevent oversimplification. ARGUING Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East under Recep Tayyip Erdogan ‘Neo-Ottoman’? But to a certain extent.) Make it clear what approaches you will be using.
2. After you have done research for the literature review and the dissertation, write up your Literature Review Draft [2000 words] It is the only complete chapter our supervisor is allowed to read so it is really important. So based on what you have planned already and the research you will be doing now we are writing up the literature review chapter.
The purpose the literature review is to: Situate your research in a field
Show your academic credentials
Insert your research within the relevant academic dialogue
Finding what is still to be said about your research question
Key Questions:
Why are you engaging with this literature
Which existing theories are you seeking to test in your study?
What would you expect to find on the basis of existing literature (hypotheses)?
Where do you stand viz-a-viz existing debates?
What is your contribution to the literature?
Suggested structure:
Introduction (200 words)
Part of the literature says x (500 words)
Part of the literature says y (500 words)
Part of the literature says z (500 words)
Conclusion (your contribution) (300 words) For the literature review, I am also going to attach a dissertation that got a high grade so you can also see an example of what a strong literature review looks like.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
POL318 DISSERTATION COVERSHEET
School of Politics and International Relations
1. Students must complete the first section of this coversheet in full.
2. Do NOT use your name anywhere on your coursework.
3. By submitting this coversheet you declare that you have read, understood and complied with
QMUL’s Assessment Regulations, including those on academic misconduct, in full (available via
http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/policy).
Please check this box if you do NOT want your work to be used as an exemplar for future students.
Your work will remain anonymous and will be used for guidance only.
STUDENT NUMBER
MODULE CODE
COURSEWORK TITLE
WORD COUNT
180282586
POL318 Research Project
Realising Abolitionist Alternatives through Active Intolerance:
Michel Foucault and Angela Davis on the Carceral State
9951
FEEDBACK SHEET – MARKERS TO COMPLETE
Addressing
the task
Research
Knowledge &
Understanding
80+
(High
1st)
70-79
(1st)
65-69
(2i)
60-64
(2i)
50-59
(2ii)
40-49
(3rd)
30-39
(Marginal
Fail)
0-29
(Fail)
COMBINED MARKERS’ FEEDBACK
Quality of
Argument
Structure
Communication
& Presentation
Representation
of sources
Realising Abolitionist Alternatives through Active Intolerance:
Michel Foucault and Angela Davis on the Carceral State
A Research Project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Politics and International Relations
Abstract
Prisons and police are commonly seen as necessary to protect society against the ‘dangerous
few’: those violent offenders, such as paedophiles, rapists, and murderers, who pose a threat
to the safety of others. Both reformists (who view prison as corrective and rehabilitative), and
retributivists (who view prison as just punishment for harm caused) share an understanding
that society is reliant on punitive measures to function. Abolitionists in contrast, employ the
concept of the carceral state to challenge this common-sense understanding, rejecting the
view that the need for prisons and police is self-evident. Michel Foucault and Angela Davis
have significantly contributed to our understanding of the carceral state by showing how the
dangerous few is a constructed category used to legitimise the prison and how carceral logic
permeates beyond the institution of the prison. However, there has been little systematic
comparison of the two thinkers. When they are compared, Davis is presented as correcting
the limitations of Foucault due to his emphasis on the power of normalisation rather than the
prison itself, neglect of the role of race in the carceral state, and reluctance to outline
abolitionist alternatives. By situating each thinker in relation to their anti-prison activism and
how they have been informed by incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, I interpret
Foucault and Davis as participating together in collective abolitionist praxis. This contextual
interpretation provides a basis to understand how abolitionist alternatives can be realised
through active intolerance to the carceral state. From this perspective, there can be no
exceptions to the abolition of the carceral state. We need to reject reformism and engage in a
coalitional and generative project of resistance.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Chapter 1: The Carceral State and its Abolition
4
Chapter 2: Michel Foucault: Cultivating Active Intolerance
12
Chapter 3: Angela Davis: Envisaging Abolitionist Alternatives
22
Conclusion
31
Bibliography
33
Introduction
From across the political spectrum, we often hear of the violence and harm caused by the
‘dangerous few’, in which a narrative of being tough-on-crime and intensifying and
expanding carceral powers is part of the common-sense. We encounter this, not only amongst
right-wing populists who would like to see the reinstatement of the death penalty, but also
among those considered progressive who advocate for increased carceral penalties for rape
and domestic violence. However, this emphasis on the dangerous few distracts from
analysing and addressing violent and dehumanising materialisations of the carceral state
itself. Within the prison, the harm of the carceral state includes, among other things, exposure
to violence and trauma, including the normalisation of sexual violence (Chase, 2015), deaths
in custody (Roberts et al, 2020), and addiction (Sharfstein & Saloner, 2021). Beyond the
prison, the harm of the carceral state includes, among other things, the penalisation of poverty
(Wacquant, 2009), strip searching of children in schools in the United Kingdom (UK)
(Gamble & McCallum, 2022; Day & McBean, 2022), and the illegalisation of migrants
(Bradley and De Noronha, 2022).
While reforms have been proposed to minimise harm, these usually lead instead to
expanding and intensifying carceral powers. For example, in 2021, despite acknowledging
women offending is typically “the product of a life of abuse and trauma” and that prisons
increase re-offending (MofJ, 2018: 5), the UK government announced it would be building
500 new prison places in existing women’s prisons to create “opportunity” for women (MofJ
& The Rt Hon Lucy Frazer QC MP, 2021). This included space to allow for family contact,
such as space for children to visit their mothers in prison – despite the means and cost to do
so being unattainable for many, as women in the UK are, on average, held over 63 miles
away from home (Prison Reform Trust, 2021). Rather than addressing the reasons for women
1
being incarcerated, reform increased carceral powers. Despite the widespread harms of the
carceral state and the failures of reform, the call for abolishing the carceral state is often
dismissed with the question: ‘what about the rapists and murderers?’ Given the persistent
belief in the necessity of prison and police, abolitionists are confronted with the problem of
how to challenge this active ignorance of the harm of the carceral state.
In this dissertation I examine what the work of Michel Foucault and Angela Davis
reveals about the carceral state and the possibility of its abolition. By interpreting Foucault
and Davis together, I show how abolitionist alternatives can be realised by cultivating active
intolerance to the carceral state. From this abolitionist perspective, we see how the dangerous
few is a constructed category: whether understood in terms of the delinquent (Foucault) or the
racialised criminal (Davis), the category of the dangerous few is used to legitimise the
carceral state. Moreover, we see how this carceral logic permeates beyond the institution of
the prison to other aspects of society, such as welfare, education, and border control: the
disciplinary society is a mirror to the prison and the prison as a site of warehousing is a
mirror to society. As such, carceral mechanisms are not only for the dangerous few but
imposed on the many and they materialise not only within the prison but in broader society.
For this reason, abolitionism should be anti-reformist and intersectional. There can be no
exceptions to the abolition of the carceral state. We need to engage in a coalitional and
generative project of resistance.
In chapter 1, I outline how the critical concept of the carceral state has been defined
within abolitionist thought, while tracing the influence that Foucault and Davis have each had
on these scholars and activists (Chase, 2015; Dilts, 2017b; Heiner, 2007; Luxon, 2018;
Macey, 1994; Wacquant, 2013). Abolitionists draw attention to how the carceral state has
been normalised as a necessary means of order, extends beyond the institution of the prison,
2
and solidifies structural racism and other compounding forms of oppression. Despite the
pervasive influence of Foucault and Davis on scholars of the carceral state, however, there
has been little systematic comparison of their thought. An exception to this is Amy Allen
(2007), who presents Davis as a corrective to the limitations of Foucault due to his emphasis
on the power of normalisation rather than the prison itself, neglect of the role of race in the
carceral state, and reluctance to outline abolitionist alternatives. While Allen (2007) supports
Davis for outlining abolitionist alternatives, she suggests that this emancipatory vision is
undermined by Davis’s own critique of the racialised nature of the carceral state. In contrast
to Allen’s corrective reading, I propose that we interpret Foucault and Davis as participating
together in collective abolitionist praxis.
Taking Foucault and Davis together as engaged in a collective abolitionist praxis
reveals abolitionism as anti-reformist and intersectional, coalitional, and generative. In
chapters 2 and 3, therefore, I challenge Allen’s corrective reading of Foucault and Davis by
situating their scholarly work in relation to their anti-prison activism and show how their
thought has been shaped by the agency of (formerly) incarcerated people. In chapter 2, I
situate Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 1991) in relation to Foucault’s anti-prison activism,
including his work with the Prison Information Group (GIP). This chapter reveals the
political importance of cultivating what Foucault calls “active intolerance” to prison and the
disciplinary society, which requires looking beyond the individualist lens to an anti-reformist
and coalitional project. In chapter 3, I situate Are Prisons Obsolete? (Davis, 2003) in relation
to Davis’s abolitionist activism, including her work with Critical Resistance and her own
experience with incarceration. This chapter reveals the political importance of envisaging
abolitionist alternatives to the carceral state, which requires an intersectional and generative
approach to both theory and practice. The contextual interpretation developed throughout
chapters 2 and 3 provides a basis to understand how abolitionist alternatives can be realised
3
through active intolerance to the carceral state. This means that there can be no exceptions to
abolitionism: we cannot retain any aspect of the carceral state – even for those constructed as
the dangerous few.
Chapter 1: The Carceral State and its Abolition
In common-sense understandings, contemporary societies rely on punitive measures of
prisons and policing to function. Incarceration and policing are taken for granted as necessary
protection against the dangerous few; prisons are perceived as isolated institutions that keep
those outside prison safe; and the racial and socioeconomic disparities in who is
disproportionately impacted by the carceral state is conflated with criminality. The work of
Foucault and Davis has been fundamental to challenging this common sense. Foucault (19261984) has transformed our understandings of the prison as a natural and isolated institution,
acknowledging the disciplinary society as whole through genealogical critique. Davis (1944-)
is an iconic abolitionist feminist scholar and activist, having been incarcerated herself and
placed on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list. Through a lifetime of activism, she has significantly
influenced the development of the contemporary abolitionist praxis (Fleetwood, 2020).
Despite moving in similar social circles as they theorised and organised against the carceral
state, as far as I am aware, Foucault and Davis never met. This chapter traces how the work
of Foucault and Davis informs the concept of the carceral state, which has been developed
within abolitionist thought to challenge common-sense understandings of prison and policing.
Abolitionist scholarship shows how carceral manifestations have been normalised as
necessary for order, how carceral logic is present not only in the institution of the prison but
throughout society, and how the carceral state solidifies structural racism and other
compounding forms of oppression. In contrast to Amy Allen’s (2007) interpretation of Davis
4
as extending and correcting Foucault’s critique of the carceral state, however, I propose
interpreting them contextually as participating collectively in abolitionist praxis.
The carceral state is not merely a descriptive term: it is a critical theory concept to
diagnose a social pathology and develop a prognosis for how it can be addressed. In other
words, scholars and activists who use the concept consider what is wrong with the carceral
state and how it can be abolished. They aim to reveal how there is an internalised attachment
and reliance on the logic of the carceral state, i.e., the manifestation of carceral logic and the
institutions and practices it permeates, including prison, police, and the penalisation of
poverty (Dow, 2007; Olson, 2004; Scott, 2013). This is evident across modern nation states
such as France and the United States (US), as explored by Foucault and Davis respectively,
as well as others, including the UK. However, it is important to acknowledge historical
specificities in how the carceral state has developed in particular contexts (Day & McBean,
2022). There is a normalisation of the language of the carceral state and incarceration as
societal and governmental tools (Dow, 2007). This is apparent, for example, in how Foucault
(1991) and Davis (2003) discuss the language of delinquent and criminal respectively.
Similarly, when discussing immigration, Mark Dow (2007: 535) explores the language of
prisons, (non)citizen, (illegal) alien, criminal, detainee and other synonyms of incarceration
and criminalisation. In this way, Foucault (1991) and Davis (2003) both analyse the
stigmatising language applied to both individuals and communities, which illustrate the
normalisation and crystallisation of intersecting forms of oppression in the carceral state
(Allen, 2007). As such, the foundation of the carceral state is “stigma, isolation, humiliation,
dehumanisation” and punishment (Dow, 2007: 537).
Following Foucault’s (1991) diagnosis of the carceral archipelago, carceral logic
reflects the structure of prison, in which punishment, security and discipline are internalised
5
beyond the institution of the prison. Thus, prison and carceral logic are co-constitutive. The
carceral state is pervasive and all-encompassing (Alexander, 2010; Davis, 2003; Foucault,
1991). It legitimises and normalises social control, structural discrimination, and the
marginalisation of ethnic minorities (Alexander, 2010; Scott, 2013). It serves to perpetuate
differential power structures. Therefore, it extends beyond prison, consuming all aspects of
society including education (Harney & Moten, 2013), welfare (Wacquant, 2013), and
immigration and citizenship (Beltrán, 2020; Bradley & De Noronha, 2022; Dow, 2007). As
such, contemporary society is “structured by the prison-form” (Dilts, 2017b: 57). Not only is
this evident in openly carceral manifestations such as police, but it is evident in institutions
and practices beyond this such as educational institutions and academic practices (Harney &
Moten, 2013).
The carceral state also permeates into how welfare and poverty are discussed and
addressed. For instance, Loïc Wacquant (2013: 65) draws on the work of Foucault to
illustrates the link between the “paternalist penalisation of poverty” and the pervasive nature
of the carceral state, which has expanded as a means of reasserting state authority. There is a
negative correlation between the decline of the social state and protective welfare with the
increase in punitive measures and the expansion of the carceral state (Wacquant, 2013). This
reveals the extensive and pervasive nature of prison and carceral logic and shows how they
have “reshaped the socio-symbolic landscape and remade the state itself” (Wacquant, 2013:
67). Penalisation and punishment are used as a method of managing poverty as opposed to
addressing the factors that contribute to poverty (Wacquant, 2013). As such, prison is not just
an isolated institution but “a core organ of the state whose selective and aggressive
deployment […] is constitutively injurious to the ideals of democratic citizenship” (Wacquant
2013: 67, 79). This demonstrates that society mirrors carceral logic and vice versa
(Wacquant, 2013).
6
There is, similarly, an underlying carceral logic in understandings and practices of
immigration and citizenship (Beltrán, 2020; Dow, 2007). Cristina Beltrán (2020) shifts the
focus to the pathologies of the borders of contemporary democracy, and how white
democracy utilises immigration and citizenship to perpetuate the logic of exclusions in
society on which it depends (i.e., Herrenvolk democracy). This way, Beltrán (2020: 12)
presents whiteness, which informs the carceral state, as a “political project” with a “dynamic
and historical” form of power invested in racial hierarchies and unequal distribution of
resources. Drawing on Davis, Beltrán (2020) sees whiteness as a social relation that has been
historically normalised and a racialisation that is evident in everyday practices, and as a
system of reasoning upon which the carceral state relies. Similarly, Dow (2007) provides a
detailed discussion which highlights the extension and normalisation of the carceral state into
immigration and detention centres through political rhetoric, construction of identities, and
othering that bifurcates society. This highlights the pervasive and encompassing nature of the
carceral state, in which punishment and incarceration extend from prison into immigration, in
which borders are a form of state violence (Bradley and De Noronha, 2022). Immigration and
borders can, therefore, be seen as a “parallel criminal justice system for noncitizens”, which
demonstrates the pervasive nature of the carceral state in all aspects of society and in a
transnational context (Dow, 2007: 538).
Moreover, it is important when diagnosing the carceral state to acknowledge the role
of active ignorance, according to which people “only see what they want to see and wear
blinders to the rest,” thus, they “deny the occurrence of oppressive acts” (Alexander 2010:
180). One way this occurs is through epistemic silences and absences in the production and
distribution of knowledge (Dilts 2017b). For example, there is an active denial and dismissal
of the racist and capitalist nature of the carceral state, which creates racial and socioeconomic disparities in who it disproportionately impacts. This denial, as Michelle Alexander
7
(2010: 182) explains, is “facilitated by persistent racial segregation” in many aspects of life
such as housing, schools and racialised media imagery. Discourse and rhetoric, including the
social construction of target populations (Schneider and Ingram 1993), is therefore imperative
to the functioning of the carceral state (Alexander 2010; Davis, 2003). This includes the
impact of how concepts, like crime, are defined and interpreted. For example, in the
conflation of the stigma of race and criminality, structural racism and the logic of whiteness
lead to notions that “whiteness mitigates crime, whereas blackness defines the criminal”
(Alexander, 2010: 199). Alexander (2010: 13) thus defines mass incarceration as a “web of
laws, rules, policies and customs that control those labelled criminals both in and out of
prison”. This active ignorance is exemplified in the construction of the dangerous few to
justify the carceral state.
To challenge the carceral state, we must therefore challenge the active ignorance that
allows it to persist. To explore how this is possible, we must refer to the concept of
abolitionism. Abolitionism has a history of varied definitions, interpretations, and
applications (Olson, 2004; Phillips, 1860). In the context of the diagnostic analysis of the
carceral state laid out above, abolition is a generative and ongoing action, a process and
practice with political charge (Harney & Moten, 2013). A key proponent of this argument is
W.E.B. DuBois (1935: 189) who states that abolition cannot simply mean the end to or the
removal of an institution or framework – a “negative” abolition. Rather, abolition is a
beginning of something new, and a reconstruction of social life – an exercise in imagining
otherwise. DuBois (1935) introduces the concept of “abolition democracy”, which is utilised
by many scholars on the carceral state and abolition, including Davis (2005). With this
concept, DuBois (1935) highlights the dangerous nature of language and interpretation, and
the importance of challenging the naturalisation of certain modes of thought, knowledge
8
production, and power. In other words, the normalisation of the carceral state is challenged
by genealogical critique – illustrating its contingent nature (Davis, 2003; Foucault, 1991).
As a generative political practice, abolitionism rethinks the social and political
structures in which we live. We need comprehensive abolition at a societal level, which
encompasses implementation and knowledge production (Davis, 2003). Encouraging and
engaging in a critical dialogue regarding the carceral state is fundamental to abolitionist
futures (Alexander, 2010). Abolitionism is not simply negative, but a “creative project” of
imagining otherwise (Cradle Community, 2021: 206). Abolition challenges the commonsense rhetoric around the problem definition of incarceration: “categorized as a criminal
justice issue as opposed to a racial justice or civil rights issue (or crisis)” (Alexander, 2010:
9). This means the abolition of the carceral state not only encompasses the removal of
carceral institutions but moves away from classifications of prison as rehabilitation or
punishment toward societal level, community, and solidarity-based transformation, which
envisages abolitionist alternatives (Davis, 2003; Davis et al, 2022). Thus, what is needed is
not reformist alternatives that reinterpret carceral logic, but instead, an entirely new system
(Alexander, 2010; Davis, 2003; Gilmore, 2021). Abolitionism therefore includes practices
such as decarceration (Davis, 2003), decriminalisation (Faye, 2021) and trauma-informed
care (Clinks & Birth Companions, 2021).
Abolitionists foreground the experiences and thought of marginalised and silenced
narratives as political subjects and producers of knowledge – those often perceived as objects
to control, punish and eliminate (Mirpuri, 2016). As such, we must foreground the “voices,
experiences, and analyses of those typically absent from such attention (or, rather, present as
only objects)” (Dilts, 2017b: 61). Looking at the abolitionist work of (formerly) incarcerated
people exposes the importance of solidarity in resisting the carceral state. This includes
9
rejecting the false binary of inside and outside prison (Davis, 2003; Dilts, 2017a). Again, it is
imperative to see abolitionism not as an absence or removal, but instead, a form of
implementation through enacting community and solidarity. Therefore, it is crucial to have a
critical analysis that incorporates (formerly) incarcerated people as genealogists and thinkers
in the imagining and development of abolitionist alternatives (Chase, 2015; Davis, 2003;
Dilts, 2017a; Dilts, 2017b).
As we have seen, Foucault and Davis have significantly influenced our understanding
of the carceral state. However, they are rarely systematically compared from an abolitionist
perspective. When they are compared as critical thinkers, Davis tends to be presented as
correcting Foucault. This corrective interpretation is illustrated by Allen (2007: 315) who
suggests that it is “misleading to think of Foucault as a theorist of the prison at all”; that
Foucault neglects the role of race in the carceral state; and is reluctant to outline abolitionist
alternatives. From Allen’s corrective perspective, Davis moves beyond Foucault by focusing
explicitly on the prison, demonstrating how the carceral state solidifies structural racism, and
engaging in the critical theory practice of imagining alternatives. Allen (2007) therefore
claims that Davis (2003) extends Foucault’s (1991) diagnostic analysis, which highlights the
carceral state’s historical contingency, to acknowledge the historical and spatial specificities
of the US carceral state. As such, Davis illustrates the racist pathologies of the US carceral
state – rooted in the history of slavery – and the co-constitutive nature of carceral logic and
racism (Allen, 2007). Nonetheless, Allen (2007: 320-321) adopts a sceptical view, arguing
that Davis’s “vision seems to call for and to depend upon reconciliation at a higher level,
namely, for the political reconciliation of an America that has been and remains deeply
divided and damaged by the crime and trauma of slavery” i.e., Davis’s envisaging of
abolitionist alternatives may be “undercut by her own powerful critical diagnosis of racial
and class subordination”.
10
In taking this corrective reading, however, Allen (2007) foregoes important lessons
we can learn in reading Foucault and Davis contextually, as participating together in a
collective abolitionist praxis. Abolitionist theorising and practice is, therefore, a collaborative
project, beyond the work of particular individuals (Davis et al, 2022). It reveals that
abolitionist alternatives are not utopian, but instead grounded in diagnostic critique and the
cultivation of active intolerance to the carceral state. As we have seen, scholars of the
carceral state highlight the need to engage with and encompass the agency, thought and
experience of (formerly) incarcerated people in the practice of abolition and the creation of
abolitionist alternatives (Chase, 2015; Dilts, 2017a). However, Allen (2007) does not
sufficiently recognise how the agency of (formerly) incarcerated people informs the
development of both Foucault’s and Davis’s political thought. Foucault was involved in
founding the Prison Information Group (GIP) in 1971, which aimed to expose and broaden
knowledge on the living conditions in French prisons. It sought to cultivate active intolerance
to the carceral state by providing a platform for incarcerated people to speak and
acknowledging the need for collective power among (formerly) incarcerated people in
resistance. Davis was involved in founding Critical Resistance in 1997 – an international
grassroots abolitionist organisation, working to undo the society we live in and develop
political strategies to build abolitionist alternatives. By interpreting Foucault and Davis as
participating together in a collective abolitionist praxis, I explore, in chapters 2 and 3, how
the work of Foucault and Davis can be productive for understanding how we might envisage
abolitionist alternatives by cultivating active intolerance to the carceral state.
11
Chapter 2: Michel Foucault: Cultivating Active Intolerance
This chapter challenges Allen’s (2007) corrective approach, which presents Foucault’s
analysis of the carceral state as limited due to his emphasis on the power of normalisation
rather than the prison itself, neglect of the role of race in the carceral state, and reluctance to
outline abolitionist alternatives. By situating Foucault’s thought in line with his experience
and anti-prison activism, this chapter reveals the productive nature of Foucault’s work in
cultivating active intolerance to the carceral state, challenging the political construction of the
delinquent to establish an abolitionism without exceptions. Following Foucault, we can
recognise why abolitionist praxis is anti-reformist and coalitional, with solidarity across
borders and struggles.
Contrary to Allen’s (2007) observation that Foucault is only interested in the prison as
a means of studying the power of normalisation, by looking at Foucault’s political activism
and experience with (formerly) incarcerated people, we see that, although not isolated to
prison, he is explicitly engaged in diagnosing, exposing, and critiquing prison, the delinquent,
and disciplinary society – the carceral state. Discipline and Punish (1991) explores the shift
in how punishment and power are perceived and materialised. It explores power as
productive, as we see with prison, which produces delinquency, and explores normalisation
and surveillance as “great instruments of power” in the production and reproduction of
carceral logic, disciplinary mechanisms in society and the construction of the delinquent
(Foucault, 1991: 184). Foucault (1991) adopts a genealogical approach, exploring the
historical contingencies of prison and broader carceral manifestations in French society.
Foucault (1991) demonstrates the development of prison as a form of discipline alongside the
development of liberal rights – upon which, like other modern nation states, French society is
built. He shows how, for incarceration (deprivation of liberty) to be considered a rational and
12
just mode of punishment for what is considered a crime, prison relies on the notion of
individual liberty and rights (Foucault, 1991). Thus, as Foucault (1991) argues, via the
exploration of the carceral archipelago, prison reflects society, while producing and
reproducing carceral logic in society, underlining a co-constitutive relationship.
In discussing the French context, Foucault (1991) examines how the carceral state
impacts people differentially through the exploration of the notion of crime and the
construction of the delinquent. Incarcerated people, those constructed as delinquent, become
“the object of information, never a subject in communication”, which limits the possibility of
collective mobilisation and subsequent social transformation – atomising individuals
(Foucault 1991: 201). Foucault (1991: 272) critiques carceral logic by exploring how it is
differentially applied – “giving free rein to some, […] putting pressure on others, […]
excluding a particular section, […] making another useful, […] naturalizing certain
individuals [and] profiting from others”. Crime, “the object with which penal practice is
concerned, has profoundly altered” (Foucault, 1991: 17). This demonstrates that crime itself
is not a fixed concept. What is regarded as a crime is, therefore, a social construct (Foucault,
1991). Foucault (1991: 276) acknowledges that “it would be hypocritical or naïve to believe
that the law was made for all in the name of all […] it was made for the few and […] their
application does not concern everybody equally”. This also points us to the construction of
the delinquent as “a systemic typology”, one which exists “before the crime and even outside
it” (Foucault, 1991: 252-253). This way, Foucault (1991: 277) illustrates that instead of
perceiving prison as failing to eliminate crime, “prison has succeeded extremely well in
producing delinquency, […] [and] the delinquent as a pathologized subject”.
Foucault’s (1991: 209) analysis of the delinquent and crime extends to reflect societal
relations, as the panopticon provides “the basic functioning of a society penetrated through
13
and through with disciplinary mechanisms”. Discipline and Punish is influenced by
Foucault’s engagement with the GIP. The GIP was a collective that sought to challenge
active ignorance of the violence of prison and increase awareness of the pervasive and
expansive nature of the carceral state, seeking to empower the incarcerated and formerly
incarcerated and cultivate active intolerance. The GIP (2016) sought to “let what is
intolerable – imposed as it is, by force and by silence – cease to be accepted […] to heighten
our intolerance and make it an active intolerance. Let us become people intolerant of prisons,
the legal system, the hospital system, psychiatric practice, military service etc.” This shows
the interest of the GIP’s resistance beyond the institution of the prison. The GIP collected,
organised around and publicised testimonials, articles, and pamphlets regarding prison
conditions (Brich, 2008). It aimed to be a platform in which incarcerated people could speak,
be heard, and collectively discuss what should be done, it “included prisoners, ex‐prisoners
and prisoners’ families alongside the intellectuals and professionals who founded it” (Brich,
2008: 26). This way, as David Macey (1994: 257) explores, the work of Foucault with the
GIP reflected a political project of the “empowering of others by giving, for instance,
prisoners the voice they were denied” and encouraging collective discourse. It provided a
new means of knowledge production and cultivated active intolerance to the carceral state. It
“formally disbanded [in 1973] and gave way to the Comité d’action des prisonniers (the
Prisoners Action Committee), which was led entirely by formerly incarcerated people and
lasted well into 1980” (Zurn and Dilts, 2021: 606).
The GIP has been critiqued for maintaining a “power asymmetry in the relationship
between those asking the questions and those answering them” (Brich, 2008: 33; McNay,
