There is a distinction in between security and discipline.
Both treat differently what we call “normalization”
What is normalization?
Relationship between law and the norm: there is a normativity intrinsic to any legal imperative ( what the law does is codify a norm.
Discipline normalizes; it fixes the process of training and permanent control. An optimal model will be the one that gives a certain result. Disciplinary normalization consists in trying to get people and their actions to conform this model and norm.
Example of smallpox: they developed a mechanism of security with a double integration: rationalization of chance and probabilities.
On typical practices of security we see a number of elements emerging that are absolutely important for later extension of apparatuses of security: 1) practice of inoculation: supervision of those inoculated: observing the risks of dying from inoculation or from smallpox. Here appears in the text the term on “prevailing disease” which is a kind of disease that unites a country or climate. Integrating individual phenomena within a collective field
2) the disease is accessible to a group, it is then accessible to individuals
3) risk is not the same for all individuals, of all ages, or conditions
CRISIS: phenomena of sudden worsening and increase of the disease. The phenomenom of sudden, circular bolting that can only be checked either by a higher natural mechanism or by and artificial mechanism.
The apparatus that appears with variolisation vaccination consists not in the division of those who are sick and those who are not. It identifies the coefficient of probable morbidity, the normal expectation of population of being affected by the disease.
Foucault thinks we have a system exatly the opposite to the one we have seen with the disciplines. In the disciplenes one started from a norm. Here we have a plotting of the normal and the abnormal, of different curves od normality, and the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document