Abstract: Significant work conducted by Bentham scholars indicates that Benthamite ideas on penal reform were present in the Australian colonies. This has been demonstrated in part through discussions of a number of panoptic-inspired institutions across Australia. Despite this, there have been fewer debates on why the panopticon became a favoured tool for punishment in colonial settings rather than in Britain. This is significant as the first Australian colonies were established for the reception of imperial convicts, which Bentham argued against. Drawing on an analysis of the writings set out in A Picture of the Treasury, this article explores Bentham’s explanation of why the British government thwarted attempts to establish a panopticon penitentiary and his comments on what spurred its popularity in the colonies. It will do this by using as a case study Western Australia, where the panopticon was implemented in key penal institutions in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such use of Western Australia is also significant. It was the first Australian colony to be established as a settler colony, which also signified a turning point in the invasion of Australia, as penal colonies were no longer the default method of colonisation. However, poor economic growth and limited labour led to the introduction of imperial convict labour from 1850 to 1868 in order to increase colonial development. The panoptic-inspired institutions that will underpin this case study are Fremantle Gaol (1831–56), which was the colony’s first purpose-built gaol, the prison for Aboriginal resistance prisoners, known as the Quod (1863–1904); and the radial yard built in New Division within Fremantle Prison (c. 1908–12). Through this analysis, this article seeks to uncover the circumstances that led to the deployment of the panopticon model, the people the institutions sought to reform and the events that resulted in their closure.



Description: Disjunctures: Indigenous Redirections in Political Theory offers a critical, comparative engagement with North American Indigenous and dominant Euro-modern political traditions, and explores the irreconcilable differences between them. These differences disclose political options that cannot be pursued simultaneously or, in a word, disjunctures. For contemporary political societies committed to reconciliation, choices will have to be made. While these disjunctures are explored in the context of Canada, they are nevertheless disclosive of an edifying political otherwise to currently dominant dispensations. Disjunctures argues that dominant Euro-modern traditions model political societies according to notions of justice, and following the determinations of an independent, autonomous people. The associated practices of governance express an ethos of mastery that is fundamentally unreciprocal and unresponsive to other humans, other-than-humans, and ecological contexts. In contrast, Disjunctures argues that Indigenous traditions model political societies as part of a broader ecological context of understanding, and thus give priority to the search for, and maintenance of, harmony. These traditions provide a political model that is nonhierarchical, noncoercive, and primarily focused on the need to sustain and preserve relationships with others, other-than-humans, and the land itself. As such, they require a deep reciprocal responsiveness in governance. Disjunctures explores the consequences that recognizing these irreconcilable political options will have for the political project of reconciliation, arguing that reconciliation must be transformative, of both political structures and subjectivities. Ultimately, Disjunctures argues that Indigenous political traditions disclose an attractive, decolonial path toward which political theory and conduct should be redirected.










top posts today

Archives

stats for wordpress