the two into two individual posts.)

1. pain– suffering and distress in varying degrees of severity takes on a completely different definition in Foucault’s text. in fact, he presents pain as the foundation upon which the “technique” of torture is built. in fact, Foucault points out that in order for an act to be considered torture, it must obey three criteria, all of which pivots around pain. “it must produce a certain degree of pain,…death is a torture [if it] is the occassion and the culmination of a calculated gradation of pain,…and death-torture is the art of maintaining life in pain.” “torture rests on a whole quantitative art of pain.”

2. confession– this disclosure of information, fact or not, is presented by Foucault as the key moment in one’s right to subject another to torture. I felt like it was presented as an interesting concept seeing as the emphasis placed on the confession seems to also function as an outlet of responsiblity for those imposing torture on someone else. “a real victory for the accused…was for the criminal to accept responsibility for his own crime and himself sign what had been skillfully and obscurely constructed by the preliminary investigation…they must if possible judge and condemn themselves.” it is outwardly stated, “the confession, an act of the criminal.”

3. torture– to return to a Foucault favorite, this infliction of severe physical pain as means of punishment is actually given a completely different definition in the text. in fact, it is defined as “…not savage…a regulated practice.” i feel that this definition of the term offers a new perspective on the act. torture is so unbeknownst to our society today that hearing it defined as “not savage” is almost offensive seeing as those being tortured were humans like ourselves.

However, it puts the whole judicial system into perspective, perhaps. as we look down upon people who, hundreds of years ago, practiced torture and say they were barbarous, is it possible that they would look at penal system today and say we are cowards? Would they feel that there has been an evolution or progression in punishment like we see it? maybe two moot points, but a point nonetheless. i just find it to be very interesting that the ultimate point of the judicial system is to produce justice and that, while embracing the differences between Foucault’s time period and our own in terms of punishment, both eras felt and feel as though they were achieving the same outcome: justice; however, going about it in two polar opposite ways: torturous to humane. it is fascinating that two different peoples feel that the exact same outcome can be produced from two completely opposite acts. i digress from my main point being torture.

 confession – The ultimate goal of the penal system is the confession or admittance of guilt for a crime.  In most cases it is held that a confession means the truth has been told and the true guilty party has taken repsonsibility for the crime.  “Through it the accused committed himslef to the procedure; he signed the truth of the preliminary investigation.”  Torture is a way to get preople to fess up although strong enough men may be able to withstand it and maintain silence while weaker men will readily confess to crimes they haven’t committed.

demonstration – The scaffold was used “It was the task of the guilty man to bear openly his condemnation and the truth of the crime he had committed.”  “A successful public execution justified justice, in that it published the truth of the crime in the very body of the man to be executed.” “in torture, pain, confrontation and truth were bound together…”

2. death– the termination of life takes on a completely different meaning in Pillars of Salt. It was not just the act of passing away, but a form of entertainment. in terms of Morgan’s and Rodger’s executions, the said purpose of the public affair was to warn others of the outcome of wrong doing ON YOUR SOUL. however, perhaps the intention of the crowd was to witness something never before experienced. in fact, the text even states, “fully aware of the popular fascination with death. ” the onlookers are also actually referred to as an “audience.”

3. conversion– ultimately a change, i found the contrasting usage of the term, in comparison to that of Foucalt, very interesting. in this text, the interest in conversion was not placed on injust to just, but rather on sinner to non-sinner, wretched to holy. a criminal’s conversion is looked upon in this instance from a much more religious standpoint. “ministers became in- creasingly involved with arousing a more personal, evangelical form of piety.” and “criminal characterization similarly reflected this evangelical fervor, and narrative emphasis shifted from the individual’s desperate distress to his or her confident faith in Christ’s merciful love.”