I read this book early on (thank goodness in a reading group) when I had limited critical historical foundations:

This book will open your eyes to the fact that while there are some people in jail who are probably irredeemable, that is not the case for every inmate. No matter what crime a person has committed or why they did so, these men are still people with valid opinions and who deserve a chance to enrich their lives through reading. i) Chomsky: indeed, seems to cite Classical Liberals like Adam Smith more than Marx. Thankfully, Chomsky does cite historical materialists like David F. Noble (ex. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation), so I do not mean there cannot be materialist anarchists as there is much agreement (though often between the lines). ii) Graeber: while Graeber's provocative rhetoric can create a mess (ex. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity), the best of Graeber still seeks a synthesis [from Direct Action: An Ethnography, bold emphases added]: It has always been these kinds of practical, moral questions that have tended to stir anarchist passions: What is direct action? What kind of tactics are beyond the pale and what sort of solidarity do we owe to those who employ them? Or: what is the most democratic way to conduct a meeting? At what point does organization stop being empowering and become stifling and bureaucratic? For analyses of the nature of the commodity form or the mechanics of alienation [i.e. capitalist structures, materialism], most [anarchists] have been content to draw on the written work of Marxist intellectuals (which are usually, themselves, drawn from ideas that originally percolated through a broader worker’s movement in which anarchists were very much involved). Which also means that, for all the bitter and often violent disagreements anarchists have had with Marxists about how to go about making a revolution, there has always been a kind of complementarity here, at least in potentia.An easy step from "anarchism" is to "A People's History", popularized by Zinn's A People's History of the United States. This is a lens of history/social change "from below", to counter the bias of "Great Man theory"/winners writing history (ex. why so much focus on the wealth of elites and not on the living conditions of the masses?). I think anyone who loves a good read will enjoy and be able to relate to this book. It is also interesting to compare my own experiences while reading with those of the prisoners.

Foucault begins by contrasting two forms of penalty: the violent and chaotic public torture of Robert-François Damiens, who was convicted of attempted regicide in the mid-18th century, and the highly regimented daily schedule for inmates from an early-19th-century prison ( Mettray). These examples provide a picture of just how profound the changes in Western penal systems were after less than a century.The structures Foucault chooses to use as his starting positions help highlight his conclusions. In particular, his choice as a perfect prison of the penal institution at Mettray helps personify the carceral system. Within it is included the Prison, the School, the Church, and the work-house (industry) – all of which feature heavily in his argument. The prisons at Neufchatel and Mettray were perfect examples for Foucault, because they, even in their original state, began to show the traits for which Foucault was searching. Moreover, they showed the body of knowledge being developed about the prisoners, the creation of the 'delinquent' class, and the disciplinary careers emerging. the premise of this book sounds inviting; however, the overall writing style is simplistic and underwhelming. Perhaps it would have been more fascinating if this author studied the craft of writing in greater detail. Throughout, we see these men evolve; they become men of great empathy, men with deep insight, men who love reading for the escape. We get brief clippings from their personal journal entries and see how heartbreaking and tragic incarceration is on their lives. We see how hard it is for them to adapt in the world after release. Imagine being enclosed inside walls, with literally no view of the outside, only the sounds of the animals and vehicles beyond the wall enclosing you. And then imagine having to get on with your life in a world that has advanced decades without you. It warms me to read that most of these men continue to read after release, having created their own book clubs, to spread the pleasures and joys of literature. Many of them move on to become invaluable parts of society.

Foucault wants the reader to consider what led to these changes and how Western attitudes shifted so radically. [2] As I read this book I was surprised to read the responses of the inmates to the various books they read. Some of the reactions were insightful and intelligent.

Trusted by ……………

The emergence of prison as the form of punishment for every crime grew out of the development of discipline in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Foucault. He looks at the development of highly refined forms of discipline, of discipline concerned with the smallest and most precise aspects of a person's body. Discipline, he suggests, developed a new economy and politics for bodies. Modern institutions required that bodies must be individuated according to their tasks, as well as for training, observation, and control. Therefore, he argues, discipline created a whole new form of individuality for bodies, which enabled them to perform their duty within the new forms of economic, political, and military organizations emerging in the modern age and continuing to today. Apart from the last quarter, I would have rated the book at 2 stars, a slightly less than average read. Not demanding, neither badly nor well written, nothing interesting, nothing to learn and an author who described herself as having two great sons, a supportive husband and a nice home life, nothing there of interest either. In my opening “comment”, I showed that Foucault had misinterpreted (pp. 41f.) the ancient notion of the “ordeal”, which he takes as “creating” truth, rather than simply “reflecting” it. He simply doesn’t know his history well enough, and his position is foolish. Elinde az da olsa bir birikimi, bir altın bileziği, bir bakır tası, bir cep telefonu olan, onları kaybetmekten, çaldırmaktan korkuyor ister istemez. Korkuya eşlik eden şey, bunlara sahip olmanın hazzı bir yandan da. İşte iktidar, bu haz ve bu korku üzerine temelleniyor. How is it proper not to protest when politicians stigmatize petty criminals, responsible, according to them, for all the evils of our daily lives? While the kings of finance live far from the cameras, sheltered from all suspicion, peacefully continuing to disregard the laws that guarantee our living together.