A painting from last term.

Student: Nicole D. Willis

Professor: Mika Karhu

Mixed Media

Written Exercise: Philosophy of the Body

I present argumentation on the philosophy of the body and how it applies to art. I include some references to Michel Focault’s “Discipline and Punish, The Birth of the Prison”.

Analogy:

• As individuals in a modern age, are we freely exercising or rights or is there some element of punishment within our daily lives?
Are we able to access the virtuous opportunities that a modern society
generously offers or do we prefer to withhold these things from ourselves?

• Michel Foucault describes in “Discipline and Punish” how the modern penal system perhaps stresses the value of the rights of the individual by withholding them, rather than glorifying the punishment of criminal activity. In the “spectacle” of execution the executed is somehow redeemed, as the executor becomes the torturer. It had been a scene of violence equally as harrowing as those manifested by perhaps the condemned’s criminal activity; murder, e.g. parricide, regicide.
At this torturous end, is it not an act complete for the executed? Has one (the condemned) not chosen one’s fate? It would seem to suit the satisfaction of the surviving family as well as the condemned themselves, the ultimate example analogy of ‘an eye for an eye’.

• Yet within the modern penal system of the modern day prison, the element of torture does continue to exist in way of rape, sexual deprivation, and corporal punishment. Do these forms of torture prevent the prisoners from actually becoming reformed?

• The deprivation of the rights of the individual the convicted may not serve to be enough to rehabilitate the criminal. Often in prison settings the convicted become educated, find spiritual guidance, express remorse for crimes committed. Are we safe to assume that they will therefore be reformed? Indeed they(the convicted) are physically detained, yet with access to literature and television, one would wonder how many liberties are really being withheld.

• One would hope that the convicted find spirituality whilst serving in penitentiary. Yet by having of peace of mind via spirituality, one is exercising a right to have serenity. Is it not against the point of the penal system to give emotional options rather than to face one’s guilt?

• Is not one continually facing their guilt whilst being detained?

Counter examples:

• Would a penal system work at all if there were no element of torture? Would it only be understood by the convicted the true repercussion of their crime if they experienced the pain that they have caused another? Man may be comparable to other animals that react to their base ideas of truth for the self so therefore may never really understand the injustice of their actions.


• We cannot assume that some whom are criminally deviant act as animals without a preconceived notion as to what fate that their actions might lead them to. Television news reports vividly crime of all kinds. Literature and cinema depict it as it is a popular subject, if not romantically. There is absolutely no excuse for criminal behavior yet some remain in a percentile, which will break the laws, commit violent crimes. What needs to be observed is the psychological make up of the common individual. Any individual could be on either side of the prison bars, incarcerated or warden. There should be an element of compassion for all concerned and not a rabid objectifying of the accused.

• If there were no capital punishment would the level of violent crime increase?

• What makes mankind desensitized to witnessing violence? Is this an important consideration when we plan the up bringing of our children?

• Are there societies, which are less accustom to witnessing violence and what are their levels of violent crime? Is the cycle of violence perpetuated within the history of the penal system?

In the writings of Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish, The Birth of the Prison, Chapter I. The body of the condemned, Foucault quotes the entries of an officer called Bouton, describing that execution act titled as amende honorable upon regicide and parricide Damiens on 2 March 1757. In the presence of parish priest of St. Paul’s at the Church of Paris and spectators (the general public) Damiens is brought to a scaffold where he has flesh torn from various parts of the body with hot pincers, he is then burnt with a mixture of molten lead, resin, wax, sulfur, etc. to then be drawn and quartered, finally to be burnt on the stake.
The parish priest of St. Paul’s of advanced age is recorded to not have appealed to the imploring for his soul by Damiens in the Gazette d’Amsterdam 1 April 1757. All this horrified the spectators, as the execution in its entirety was rather long. The executor found great difficulty in tearing away the pieces of flesh. To the four horses were added an addition of two to attempt the task of drawing, nonetheless, Damiens was not quartered by the drawing, therefore had to have his members partially amputated before they were finally “drawn”. Ultimately with Damiens still alive, the lot of his members and trunk were thrown onto the stake to be consumed by fire for some four hours until it burned to ash.

The chapter goes on to describe how over a span of some 80 years from the date of the amende honorable of Damiens, the penal system in France has advanced towards a comparatively modern prison system and that the tradition of the “spectacle” of execution had died out.
The ordinance of 1670 listed the forms of penalties, including the amende honarble, flogging, breaking of the body on the wheel, burning alive, combinations of strangling and burning, piercing, hanging, etc. There was also non-corporal punishment such as banishment and fines. It is hopeful to convey the record that between the years of 1755-85, that under 10 per cent of the punishments were capital and that banishment (with some addition of torturous punishment) was conclusive with over 50 per cent of the sentences.
Leon Faucher is quoted as to have drawn up a regimented schedule for prisoners at the “House of young prisoners in Paris” in the year 1840. In comparison to any punishment, which included torture
between the years of 1792 to 1799.

However the invention of the Guillotine came out a discussion on the possibility of banning of the death penalty yet assisted in the deaths of about 15,000 people during the years of the French
Revolution.
During some years, the Guillotine was employed before the public against the condemned but in time was brought behind the walls of the prison.
The Guillotine too takes its place as an evolutionary fixture, creating a more humane, execution, that was both speed efficient and painless.

Let us consider now what actual shift from the torture scene of the condemned to the modern prison system means. In my opinion all corporal punishment is inhumane, perhaps should be reserved for only occasions of war and in those situations, it should be used with moderation.

In the chapter “The spectacle of the scaffold”, M. Foucault, one is made to understand that the judicial system, during the years in which torture was used generally, had not served to prove anything more than guiltiness. One was penalized and easily found ‘guilty’ by admonition and accusation of often-unidentified members of the public. Basically the cases against the accused were legally prepared in secret and without a defense attorney, allowing them little rights to argument.

The power of these scenes of violence, the gallows, etc. could easily have inspired a more servile population but it seems that those witnesses to these events would crave this brutal scene rather than accomplish to prevent them. It hardly measures up to a system that instates justice and abidance of the law. Also in the chapter “The spectacle of the scaffold” it is explained how the accused had no way of viewing his accusers, or observing the evidence, so one would have appeared blameworthy until proven guilty.

With the arrival of the Guillotine there is finally concluded the idea that the penal system had been quite inhumane. One cannot know whether the 15,000 deaths due to capital punishment during the French Revolution were unnecessary but we can see that there is some consideration of whether the cause of pain to those 15,000 was needed.

I conclude in my consideration of this “spectacle of the scaffold” that it served a purpose for the people. One cannot prove that this penal system was outside of human nature. Bureaucracies are always in need of re-evaluation and need to be amended to serve the people. If a system does overtly prove to serve a minority, we must seek to understand the objective of that minority. In the words of Jaucourt, quoting an article in his Encyclopedie ; “It is an inexplicable phenomenon that the extension of man’s imagination creates out of the barbarous and the cruel.”, one is to wonder how this can be an “inexplicable phenomenon”? One may conclude that it was well within the reaches of mankind to indulge in this sadistic occurrence, to be barbarous and cruel.

Even fashion was influenced by the Guillotine, with events such as “The Victim’s Ball”, attended by the surviving relatives of the condemned, dressed to expose their necks with hair upswept, to mimic the dead.
However, we must not lose the point that the Guillotine was a step towards a more just capital punishment if it could be called so. At an Assembly debate in 1789, Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin proposed six articles that; “1.Offences of the same kind will be punished by the same kind of penalty.” and, “2.In all cases where the law imposes the death penalty on an accused person, the punishment shall be the same, whatever the nature of the offence of which he is guilty; the criminal shall be decapitated; this will be done solely by means of a simple mechanism.” His intention was to eventually have capital punishment abolished. He in fact is not the inventor of the Guillotine.

By 1791, the articles were approved nationally and the prolonging of death via combined tortures was over. Quoting chapter I. “Generalized punishment” of Part II, “Punishment” Foucault quotes in the “Let penalties be regulated and proportioned to the offences, let the death sentence be passed only on those convicted of murder, and let the tortures that revolt humanity be abolished.”

From my own perspective it appears that man evolves at a rate that is possible for mankind. Therefore the assessment of the practice and the concept of termination of corporal punishment are relatively new. It is through the corporeal that wealth and power are attained. The now obsolete practice of slavery and the present international exploitation of labor are synonymous.

So-called confessions are still being sought by way of torture in “black sites”; nations in which it is legal to torture, arranged by the CIA and M16. A male minor is battered to a condition, which causes his eventual death the following day in Sarasota County, Florida, by nine adult guards at a juvenile detention boot camp. These are disturbing present day tales of detention and torture.

The concept that all penal code contains an element of torture is valid in the present. If we look further into the incidents of torture taking place in the “black sites” and detention camps like that in Guatanamo Bay in Cuba, we may see some parallels to the penal system of the 17th century. Like those condemned they are also unknowledgeable of their accusers, many in Guatanamo have had no charges brought against them.

In the hysteria of the “war against terrorism”, these imprisoned men have been sought out from the countries of Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Kuwait, Spain, Pakistan Russia, United Kingdom, Denmark, Sudan, Ethiopia and Sweden to name a few are being subjected to torture. The majority has not had a case brought to a judicial system in any nation. Take for example an Ethiopian student whose residence was in the U.K., Binyam Mohammed. Quoting “The Observer”, “I am unaware of any evidence against him other than that extracted under torture.” Relayed to the attorney of Mohammed, Stafford Smith.

One cannot help but wonder if all this goes on to bring forth justice or instate liberty. The very suggestion of this appears rather absurd. One does not become a terrorist by way of birth. As for the case of Martin Lee Anderson, a 14 year old youth whom died after an altercation with 9 guards, that went on for approximately half an hour, in Sarasota County, Florida, there hardly seems any excuse except brutality that drove the guards on to continue the violence after Anderson was rendered unconscious. An attendant was present throughout and one cannot help but conclude that an absence of sense would prevent the attendant from speaking out as the assault took place.

Certainly there is news about this kind of occurrence, which I myself cannot read about, as it would not be in my native language, etc. What happens outside of the western world appears rather mysterious and tends to become the affairs of “others”. However this seems an incorrect standpoint. If there is anything such as ‘universal conscious’ then our actions here in our community may affect the actions of others.

I am compelled to look beyond the obvious steps toward civil and humane and try to examine the symbolism in torture. Could it be compared to any rites? These are points that I did not come across in “Discipline and Punish”, M. Foucault. Thankfully the evolution of the judicial system is observed. I would like to understand better the concept of corporal punishment and the role that the body has symbolically to mankind. In some ways I feel that the body is objectified in art and that it can be rather comic and tragic. It appears to me that the mortality of man was not quite understood as one considers executions like that of amende honorable.
There has been some suggestion that class status has afforded some to be cleanly decapitated whilst the poor underwent a combination of tortures to a final end.

I am inclined to believe that there is an element of belief in immortality that accompanies the combination of tortures. I will be in search of information that would reveal such considerations.

Student: Nicole D. Willis

Professor: Erika Ruonakoski

Philosophy

Written Exercise 2:

Alternative 2: Utopia

What would life be like if we lived forever? Consequently, how does our mortality shape our lives?

Analogy:

• If we lived forever, we would neglect to take care of our health and/or the health of the planet. We would lose interest in the prevention of illness, in turn in the prevention of pollution of the environment. If one is immortal, one may loose interest in achieving anything at all as there is no immanent threat of death.

• However, if there is no immanent threat of death, we would have to insure a healthy planet, a clean & resourceful world which could sustain our overcrowding without imploding.

• The necessity of a resourceful earth existing does not guarantee that we could reinstate a safe and secure world.

• Immortality might inspire world leaders to learn to coexist with other nations, enforce free trade and reduce globalization. There will be no “process of elimination” or “survival of the fittest” so poverty would have to cease to exist.
What would life be like, if we lived forever? Consequently, how does our mortality shape our lives?

Naturally this seems at first glance to be a wonderful gift, all people living forever. This would then mean that there would be no illness or disease and that alone would be a great benefit to the so-called “Third World”. All the expense of research and medicine could go to education, reconstruction and redevelopment of impoverished areas and war torn areas in the world and towards what could possibly be the biggest expense, retirement and social security for the elderly. There would also be a larger work force.

However, this utopian dream of living forever would turn into our worst nightmare. Social sectors of the governments of the world would have to represent and support tremendous populations. There would not be enough natural resources such as water, produce and energy. Military research and weapons would have priority over education in terms of investment, which will be sorely needed in a more competitive world. There would be a need to secure the natural resources by each nation. Inevitable threat of war for these resources would detract from our quality of life. There would be a new wave of imperialism to secure the consumer life styles of the developed nations. Education and research for new forms of energy would then be spared, leaving a large number of the world’s population without employment or the ability to compete, without energy and without safety.

Yet this former example does not differ so much from the way the world is today. In a way we are living with the world’s dominant and wealthy nation’s imposition of a shrouded imperialism upon the world’s natural resource rich yet impoverished nations. In any event there is a need to re-examine the dependency that the nations of Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia has developed with the United States and the nations of Europe. Is it not comparable, a life style of living, consuming as though there were no tomorrow, the idea of living forever?


Counter examples:

• We could imagine that we would become more empowered by immortality, demand more from our leaders, demand more from ourselves. Would we be empathetic if we saw no vulnerability in the other?

• Would we value our lives less if they could never be at risk of death? We could imagine a rise in immoral behavior, as we would not have to be concerned with issues such as AIDS or the crime of murder. Would that immorality be acceptable?

• Imagine if we did all live forever. Would it not be necessary for cultural differences to reduce, as our growing concern would be for the state of the planet?
Is there a possibility, however, that the super powers would rise to the need of a secure world? Would a nation such as the United States, come to understand that government supported education could lead to a fuel independent USA? Would a nation such as the US not depend on poverty to curb it’s own overpopulation if there was no chance of them actually dying off? Would the super powers exercise fair trade and not engage in illegal wars for the sake of global safety?

The people of nations such as the United States would have a lot of re-evaluating to do. It would be a more pressing reality that man would out-live the world. There would be more evidence of poverty all around and the poor would become poorer. It would be necessary to conclude that since all men will live that all men will deserve to live a more comparable life. Imagine if all the wealth of the resources that have been siphoned out of the resource rich nations of Africa went back to the working peoples of those nations? Imagine if there were no tax breaks for the rich or SUV’s on the road? Would it not better our planet, which is already straining against a growing population? Certainly it would be the only way to sustain our Earth and not have us possibly out-live it.

Could it be so that the main focus for the super powers, if we were all immortal, would be to find another inhabitable place in the universe? It would only be the wealthiest people of the wealthiest nations that would have access to such a place, with its resources, etc. We would have to reckon with our Utopian dream becoming a nightmare. Those remaining here on Earth would be left in a living hell.


• The argumentation leads us to consider whether there
could ever be such a thing as Utopia?
• Upon consideration, isn’t it a fit conclusion to a good
life, to pass away?
• Should we not live with the same responsibility if we
could live forever?