> I question whether you read this text in good faith... What is good faith? You're picking a small (although perfectly valid -- re-read Part II for whatever q

> I question whether you read this text in good faith... What is good faith? You're picking a small (although perfectly valid -- re-read Part II for whatever quotes you need on the self-professed motives of penal reformers) objection pulled pretty much at random from my marginalia rather than addressing the more substantive complaints in my original post. And even here your defense is speculative ("perhaps") and offered in a non-committal way that ironically conflicts with Foucault's own viewpoint by subsuming the problem in a moral framework ("travesty") rather than contextualizing it as a power struggle in an amoral Marxist context. So even if your defense is correct then Foucault's sweeping ontological statements are inappropriate and overbearing, which is part of my complaint. If you want to focus on bigger ideas, I've posted four more major complaints in a post above. If you are able to explain what Foucault means without making his position sound absurd and/or contradicting his own writing, you'll have done a better job explaining his ideas than he did.