Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Punishment and The Panopticon

Summary of Meeting #6 - 12/12/2020 9:00 am
In attendance: Lamplight360, Hithertoundreamt, 5050clown

Final to do list:

- Lamplight360 continue edits and lowering word count in economics section

- Hithertoundreamt final spelling, capitalization, stylistic edits

- 5050clown and Lamplight360 final referencing edits to maintain Vancouver style

- ALL - final read-through before submission by Sunday evening (13/12/2020)

12. Edits for Word Count - Economics quote
The Chapter is shaping up really well, thank you @5050clown and @Lamplight360 for the edits! @Lamplight360, I think 5050clown has mentioned this in one of the comments he added to the page in bold, I think the Frank H. Knight quote can link well to the discussion of home economicus in the criminology section. The quote itself is unfortunately too long and leads to an imbalance in the discussion of economics as a discipline.

Maybe one way you could consider summarising it is by saying the "absolutes are: that human actors behave rationally and that decisions made lead to (allocative) efficiency," or some variation of this. Given that the quote is talking about the ideas of 'rationality' and 'efficiency', it might be good to synthesise the quote into these two key ideas to make the paragraph more direct (and help cut down our word count of course!) Hope this helps and let me know your thoughts!

PS. I may be wrong about the type of efficiency Knight is talking about in his quote - ie. it may not be allocative efficiency, I may have misread his words! Like I said, feel free to adapt it to whatever variation you think is appropriate. Thanks! -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This suggestion lines very well with what I mentioned to Lamplight360 in person yesterday. I added the comment today to remind him of my suggestion. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I agree there is much that can be reduced in terms of word count, while still preserving the central thrust of the paragraph. I will continue editing with this in mind and look forward any further suggestions.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

11. Summary of Meeting #5 - 08/12/2020 5:00pm
In attendance: 5050clown, Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360

Progress
Every group member has made progress on their individual contributions, and expanded on their ideas as per discussions during meetings/outside of meetings. Focus until submission date is now to condense and coalesce Chapter.

Formatting and Subtitles
Rearranged paragraphs to give Chapter and sections more structure and a clear flow. Agreed and changed subtitles to reflect the disciplines each section is discussing (now "Criminology and Critical Philosophy on Punishment" and "Economics versus Postmodern Philosophy on The Panopticon").

Hithertoundreamt removed hyperlinks from the "Criminology and Critical Philosophy on Punishment" section to better fit with overall Chapter and make the publication more self-contained.

Discussed that capitalisation and other grammatical features are somewhat inconsistent throughout Chapter, solutions were agreed upon and these will be rectified before the next meeting.

To do list
1. Editing - Agreed to read through whole Chapter, with a particular focus on our individual contributions, to identify redundancies/extra information. This is the main focus until next meeting. Lamplight360 will be focusing on how to better integrate contributions relating to Economics and condensing these paragraphs.

2. Introduction - Hithertoundreamt wrote a preliminary introduction, 5050clown will be adapting and finalising this until next meeting. Discussed that the key aim of the introduction should be to set out all the disciplines being discussed, and how these relate to our case study (ie. how Philosophy (critical/postmodern) conflict with Criminology and Economics (utilitarian) with regards to punishment).

3.Images/Pictures - These will be added to the Chapter during the next meeting.

4. Referencing - Lamplight360 and 5050clown will work on removing repeat referencing before/during next meeting due to Hithertoundreamt's absence during the week caused by travel disruption. All group members will review these during the subsequent meeting.

5. Next meeting - Decided to have the next and final meetings on Saturday and Sunday (12th and 13th December) to finalise Chapter before submission on the 14th.

-- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

10. Final Edits before Submission
I know we are all working on finalising and coalescing our sections at the moment; I thought it would be useful have a list of action points/things we should think about completing before submission. These can be minor but it would be good to be mindful of these once we've finished writing! -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Hyperlinks

 * 1. Hyperlinks - We should either remove hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages or use these consistently throughout the Chapter. This depends on wheteher we think our Chapter should be a 'closed' and comprehensive piece, or if we'd like to offer linkage to relevant articles/ideas etc.  -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1a. I think given the specificity of the topic with which we are dealing, it may be best to remove hyperlinks to preserve a more self-contained publication. I welcome the views of other contributors on this issue, as I feel it's important to address. --Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1b. I agree! I'll remove the hyperlinks in my section to be more consistent with the larger Chapter. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

2. Segmentation and Subtitles

 * 2. Segmentation - We need to decide if we want to format our chapter as an essay, or more like a Wiki article. If the latter, a useful finishing touch would be to agree upon the subtitling (therefore the table of contents) of our wikibook.  --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 2a. That's an excellent point, it's something I noticed as well when going through the Page. Appropriate subtitling would definitely be helpful if we decide to go with the second route. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

3. Sources and Referencing

 * 3. Source repetition - At the end we need to make sure that our sources aren't repeated, that we have one reference no. per source, etc.  --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 3a. Agreed! (I think I may be the primary culprit here!) With regards to sources, I also wanted to add that we should be consistent with the referncing format for Wikipedia. A few of the quotes/definitions we used have specific page numbers in addition to author-date in-text citations. I think to better fit the Vancouver referencing system and have consistency throughout our Chapter, we should review our in-text citations. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 3b. Due to our ability to do so, Lamplight360 and I will meet in person and fix references this weekend. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Grammar

 * 4. Grammatical consistency - We need to come to a consensus on if we should capitalise "Panopticon". Additionally, the internationality of our team means we have discrepancies in some spelling conventions. Perhaps we go back and make sure our spelling is consistent?  --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 4a. I believe the capitalization of Panopticon depends on the context and we can discuss each instance of ambiguity in our more final edits. I certainly agree we need to decide on a spelling format and feel this could also fall under the category of final edits. --Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

9. Source Validity- The Bentham Project
The Panopticon section is shaping up really well! @5050clown I noticed the use of 'The Bentham Project' as a source in your contributions, and I was wondering what you think about how comprehensive this source is in discussing the ideas in the following line:


 * However, this concept, according to Bentham, is not purely architectural, nor confined to prisons. He suggested that an equivalent system of surveillance would have beneficial applications in schools and hospitals.[22]

I think the Webpage offers a good overview of the Panopticon and its basic functions (hence it works for its earlier citation), but is it relevant in terms of a discussion about its wider application? Let me know your thoughts!

-- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I cited two Bentham Project links in separate instances in that paragraph. The leaflet sourced in your quoted section does mention Bentham's opinion on the wider application of his scheme:


 * "the principle could be applied to hospitals and schools, as well as to commercial concerns, and was most famously developed by Bentham as a prison."


 * Do you see this segment as sufficient, or would you prefer I find another source?
 * --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's fair, I think it should be fine given you have a clear reference within the article. Discussion of this idea is also not the focus of the first Panopticon paragraph, and there are other valid sources cited later in the text. Thank you for clarifying! -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

8. Summary of Meeting #4 - 01/12/2020 1:40pm
In attendance: 5050clown, Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360

General Assessments
The Wikibook is currently split into thirds:


 * Hithertoundreamt’s Criminology vs Critical Philosophy (Foucault) (500 words)
 * 5050clown’s Panopticon Case Study introduction (500 words)
 * Lamplight360’s assessment of the economic viability of the Panopticon (250 words)

5050clown’s suggestion: The first section is extremely distinct from the last two, so we should coalesce parts 2 and 3 before integrating the first.

Hithertoundreamt’s assessment on 5050clown’s section:


 * Final paragraph could be tweaked so it is more in relation to truth. Discuss truth in the Bloody Code vs in Bentham’s system perhaps.
 * Compare Bentham’s absolutist moral truth vs Foucault’s more relativist look.

Lamplight360 brought up the tone of the chapter. Agreement amongst everyone that we should adopt an impartial tone akin to Wikipedia. Therefore the conclusion should tie the discussion together, not make any final thesis.

Grand Theory of the Wiki Chapter
Put together by the group on a zoom whiteboard slide.

Main topic: Punishment and the Panopticon

Disciplines involved: Economics, Criminology, Postmodern / Critical Philosophy (using Foucault as a through line)

Postmodernism critiques the methods of criminology, creates conflict with criminology as a discipline.

Postmodernism critiques utilitarianism philosophy, especially the Panopticon, creating conflict with economics.

To do list

 * Lamplight360: Finish adding economics section to panopticon case study (250 words)

Team decided to meet in a cafe over the weekend to work together, as it would be far more beneficial. There, we have set the following goals for each other

--5050clown (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 5050clown: modifying final paragraph as per Hithertoundreamt’s critiques listed above.
 * Lamplight360: Conclude section on panoptiocon (250 words)
 * Hithertoundreamt: Coalesce / create through lines between his paragraph and the Panopticon case study.

7. Jeremy Bentham's Conception of Truth
Jeremy Bentham appears to have differing theories of truth depending on what aspect of his work you look at. The most clear cut example I could find was his theory of law, which despite being called legal positivism, feels more like a constructivist approach to lawmaking (opposing natural law which presupposes universal moral laws - i.e created laws correspond to the moral laws of reality). I thought this would be very helpful for me as I could compare this to the mental wellbeing of prisoners in the panopticon in actuality, which comes from a more psychological (scientific) correspondence understanding of truth.

Despite this, I've heard from Lamplight360 that he has found evidence that (at least as far as utilitarian economics is concerned) Bentham is a pragmatist/positivist. I'm struggling to see how these two aspects can coalesce. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent observation, I think our discussion in the last meeting addressed this well and we've reached a satisfying conclusion. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

6. Criminology/Criminal Justice as a Discipline?
After reading Hithertoundreamt's paragraph, I am left with a of couple questions regarding the group understanding of the disciplines we aim to incorporate. The case for criminology as a discipline seems strong and self-evident. I wonder, however, if Hithertoundreamt could provide some clarification about critical philosophy as a discipline?

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that criminology and criminal justice are both academic disciplines. There are examples of universities offering these topics as distinct courses. Also on a fundamental level they are different areas of research - criminology is more psychological, anthropological and sociological; criminal justice is based in law, public policy etc. I don't think that it's entirely necessary to make this distinction overt in the book - if we give a brief summary of both disciplines that should be sufficient. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the belated reply, I think you are absolutely correct to question how Critical Philosophy factors in and whether it can be considered a discipline, thank you for bringing it up. The way I approached this is by looking at what Philosophy is more broadly, in that it is an activity/discipline focused on the right way of thinking about things. It has applications across disciplines, which is why we often see terms like "philosophy of science" or "philosophy of art", and "epistemology" often as separate and distinguishable terms. I felt that using "philosophy" as a critique of criminology would be too expansive, which is why I think it is important to identify a specific aspect or branch/theory/school of thought within Philosophy.


 * I chose 'Critical Philosophy' as the specific focus mostly for two reasons. Firstly it is something Foucault's work has been identified as actively utilising and therefore seems relevant to a discussion about his work (specifically the ideas mentioned in the section). Secondly, Critical Philosophy more broadly was devised by Kant as a view of philosophy that prioritises criticism rather than the justification of knowledge, which means that it seeks to subject all theories to critical review. I think this view is particularly relevant to what we are trying to do in our Wikibook Chapter, as it helps identify conflict between disciplines. I hope this helps explain my reasoning, but please do let me know if you have any thoughts on this! Thank you!


 * -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

5. The Panopticon: Possible Case Study?
After reading Hithertoundreamt's initial paragraph, and reading some notes I had (including suggestions from other group members) I felt a possible unifying case study coming to the fore. The mention of Foucault in the paragraph reminded me of what I had read about Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian prison system The Panopticon, and Foucault's critique of it in Discipline and Punish. The Panopticon is a perfect unifying case study in my eyes, as it solves an issue in criminal justice via the use of architecture from the lens of economic utilitarianism (utilitarianism also being a philosophical theory). Opposing the panopticon are postmodern philosophers, and psychologists looking at prisoner wellbeing. It is a highly interdisciplinary issue, and beneficially it is (almost) purely theoretical, so we don't have to worry about conflating a discipline with its practice.

I thought that maybe I could introduce this topic, along with conflicts between these two disciplines. This would create a perfect throughline from Hithertoundreamt's section about criminal justice vs philosophy, and Lamplight360's section on what looks to be economics. Then once we have all of our sections done we can merge them together using the case study as an anchoring point.

Would love to hear what you guys think about this, because this really does feel like a perfect synthesis of all of our section ideas. One thing to mention is that US Law might have to be scrapped, and instead we focus on this as a concept. In my eyes this would be better though as it will avoid moving too strongly towards criminal justice in practice. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of the above and would reiterate 5050clown's point about maintaining the theory rather than practice of law, as this would be a good deterrent against inadvertent conflation of case study with discipline.


 * Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As we have discussed, I think this is an excellent observation and definitely helps offer a synthesis between each of our interests, within this unit and in general. When researching Foucault's work and his criticism of criminology, I found quite a few references to Bentham and The Panopticon, as Foucault discusses Bentham's views in parts as well as his model of the Panopticon in parts to help build his analysis. Using these themes as our case study will definitely help create a through-line narrative in our Chapter, so I think this will be an excellent direction forward.


 * --Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Capital Punishment and Interdisciplinary Consensus
As I am looking more into capital punishment as a possible research topic, I am struggling to find disciplinary disagreements on this issue, let alone disagreements in relation to truth. I think because the topic is so controversial, all disciplines will have pro- and con- arguments available (i.e. there is no disciplinary consensus).

The main disciplines that look at capital punishment are philosophy and law theory. As philosophy is a discipline centered around formulating opinions, the consensus over the morality of capital punishment does not exist in this discipline. Similarly, in Law theory, philosophical arguments are used to back up opinions over the issue, of which there is no consensus.

As a result of this roadblock, I have spoken with Lamplight360 and we have decided to both focus on rehabilitative vs retributive justice, with myself focusing on opinions from a behavioural science point of view, whilst Lamplight focuses on the issue from an economic lens. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

3. Summary of Meeting #3 - 24/11/2020 5pm
In Attendance: Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360, 5050clown

Possible research avenues
- 4 sources almost all pointing to war on drugs - Disciplines presented in text: theoretical criminology, public policy, anthropology, law, criminal justice - Race, gender perspectives - Rehabilitation vs retribution in US criminal justice system: mental health, behavioral science, philosophy/ethics - Copyright law in the arts - Difference between law in practice and law as a discipline? - Philosophical ethics vs. law - move away from legislation, instead focus on capital punishment - Medical science and use of psychedelics, medical cannabis - Truth vs. Power? - What are we really asking? Power dynamics or differing conceptions of truth
 * Hithertoundreamt research points:
 * Lamplight360 research points:
 * 5050clown research points:
 * Remaining questions:

Methodology for Writing Wiki Chapter
- Hithertoundreamt's Intro - Lamplight360 retribution vs rehabilitation - 5050clown medical science perspective - Sandbox-like entry - Coalesce - Introduce/conclude - Distill/edit
 * Potential 3-part structure:
 * 4-step plan:

Looking Ahead
- Write own wikibook entry (approach as with sandbox) - Use discussion page for questions that arise while writing - Meet again 1/12/2020 @ 10 am
 * For next meeting:

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Summary of Meeting #2 - 20/11/2020 1pm
In Attendance: Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360

Topic(s)
Discussed two pathways, either looking at disciplines relating to War on Drugs, or returning to theme of Criminal Justice and look at where interdisciplinary issues occur. Another approach could be to look at specific court cases and see what different disciplinary arguments/disagreements arose.

Agreed that it is important to be mindful we are discussing issues in disciplines as opposed to issues in the real world.

Agreed that we are likely to identify at least three different disciplines (eg. law, economics, philosophy etc.), but should start research by looking for at least two.

Issue Preference- Power vs Truth
We were leaning towards choosing power at the start of the meeting, following discussions in the first meeting. We identified how power dynamics can be found in many forms and at different levels.

Following critical discussion (within Meeting #2 and prior to it in conversation with 5050clown), however, there was recognition that power would be more specific to physical features/structures within and surrounding the discipline (eg. who teaches/studies, how coercion/silences can exist, how much weight is given to different disciplines, etc.). With truth we could research belief systems, where logic comes from in different disciplines, and what they use to justify their theories; which was more in line with what all three group members are interested in.

Structure and Approach
Agreed that each of us would approach it by adding in all our ideas to begin with, and we would edit/whittle down to make a cohesive Wikibook chapter. Editing process would be collaborative and iterative.

We agreed to have self-imposed weekly deadlines to make sure we contribute and make progress regularly. Recognising other deadlines for different group members, we agreed we would finish earlier than specified deadline.

Created Wikibook chapter by the end of the meeting.

Discussion and Discussion Page
Agreed to have regular weekly meetings throughout term to make sure each of is updated and making progress and to discuss any questions/problems that arise during the process.

Agreed that this Discussion page will be formatted in chronological order with the latest discussion topic at the top (first entry will be at the bottom, and every subsequent entry above this in chronological order). This will be interspersed with summaries of meeting minutes, as and when they occur, in chronological order, and that a consistent numbering system will be used to help understand the order of entries. Every new stream of thought will be added as a new discussion topic for clarity (the exception being if a member is responding/re-responding directly to another entry)

--Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Summary of Meeting #1 - 16/11/2020 5pm
In Attendance: Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360, 5050clown

Meetings
Alternation between writer of meeting summaries.

General Discussion
Clarification of assessment details

Word count: Best practice may be to write down as many ideas as possible, and then whittle it down at the end.

Issue Preferences
No interest in History from any individual.

Evidence and Truth appear to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. There are lots of sources on Evidence, but it may be more difficult to write something meaningful about Evidence as an issue. Truth is the most cerebral issue - despite there being much interesting philosophical theory behind the idea, we found sources on the application of truth harder to come by in the sandbox.

There was an agreement that Power strikes a good middle ground between Evidence and Truth. Power can lend itself to interesting and rewarding writing, and there are many sources to come by in relation to its application. Additionally, Power felt the most “issue-like” out of the four, and so an essay would come more naturally.

Deciding on a topic
We will each have an individual research session on the concepts of power in our areas of special interest.

Hithertoundreamt mentioned criminal justice. There was an agreement that this would be a good starting point for the following reasons: allows specificity through use of case studies; strong interdisciplinary links: politics, economics, IR, science, humanities, arts, philosophy; the issue of power is highly linked to political systems, including the criminal justice system.

We decided to specify our research onto US Criminal Justice due to a wide range of sources and source types.

Possible starting points: War on Drugs, 70s Tobacco Lobbying.

--5050clown (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)