The description that the article gives to the typical soldiers of early 17th C is critical. It is agreeable that soldier were perceived as physically fit, stout, and agile individuals who were always on the move. This description is true in various contexts despite the disparities. It is critical to consider such provisions in the army contexts. Upon critical interrogation, the ideologies that the author provided incorporate various merits and physiques that a typical soldier should possess.
Nonetheless, it is agreeable that the trend has been changing as seen from the soldiers of 18thC (Michel, 1977). This relates to the aspects of docility, discipline, and modality. It is notable that a soldier should have an ideal figure, strength, and valor. The marching engagements and head-bearing attitudes indicate the rhetoric honor of the body. Actually, erect neck, tout stomach, thick thighs, lengthy arms, and other bodily physiques could be used to identify a potential soldier.
Additionally, the article talks about the docility of the body. This feature allows for the transformation, usability, and subjectivity of the concerned body in order to fit the requirements of the armed forces. Agreeably, it is possible to transform the body as advocated in the article. This indicates why it is possible to improve the agility of any particular soldier in the army context.
Critically, the classical age perceived the body as an object and instrument of power. It is important to note that the docility of the body became a major concern for soldiers of the 18th C. Earlier soldiers were born with the stipulated qualities; conversely, the latter ones had to be manipulated in order to fit the demanded forms (Hughes-Warrington, 2008). This is a critical provision when subjected to scrutiny.
It is important to unveil what was so new in the projects of docility, which rendered the phenomenon quite significant. Critically, earlier authorities subjected the body to constraints, prohibitions, and obligations with several transformations notable later. Despite its docility, the body should not be treated wholesomely.
Treating specific parts and provisions of the body can work better regardless of the condition. The aspects of movements, gestures, attitudes, and rapidity are of some critical concern in this respect. The provisions of control should also be considered in this regard. It is equally agreeable that these provisions demanded the aspects of modality in order to establish and embrace their practicality and applicability.
Concurrently, the disciplinary methods articulated in this article are evident and critical. Numerous disciplinary methods have been witnessed in monasteries, armies, and workshops with regard to their applicability. The 17th and 18th centuries were dominated by the disciplinary aspects in the army context. Subjecting the body to machinery of power rendered it to the aspects of explorations, breakdowns, and rearrangements.
This is a crucial phenomenon with regard to its applicability in this context. Precisely, discipline is a critical provision to the body as stipulated in the article. It is crucial to establish methods of discipline by understanding and articulating their principles.
Critically, there is an art of distribution in the entire disciplinary contexts. For example, discipline employs various techniques in order to advance the distribution of individuals in space. It is crucial to consider this provision meticulously as stated by the author. Critically, it is agreeable that discipline sometimes necessitates enclosure, which its principles are not constant, indispensable, or sufficient in the interdisciplinary context.
Functional sites can actually help in endorsing the aspects of discipline and the docility of the body as indicated by the article (Hughes-Warrington, 2008). It is debatable that the elements of discipline are interchangeable depending on their contexts and applicability. Discipline is an art of status, a method that endorses the transfiguration of arrangements.
Discipline circulates bodies in networks of reactions, a situation providing them with a dynamic position (Michel, 1977). The way the article presents its arguments are critical due to the factual, historical, and precise provisions endorsed by the discussed phenomenon. The educational provisions provided in this context and their significance is of important concern to the discussed topic.
From the article, it is agreeable that disciplines fashion complex spaces that are purposeful, architectural, and hierarchical through the systematization ‘cells’, ‘places’ and ‘ranks’. The information and factors that emerge in the control of activities are significant in this context. The use of timetables serves a significant purpose in this respect.
As evident from the article, it is evident that the use of timetables to control activities was established and embraced by the monastic communities. Consequently, its use broadened considerably. Additionally, there is a temporal elaboration of the acts assumed by soldiers in their endeavors. This is meant to harmonize the entire scenario as described by the write-up. Evidently, disciplinary imposes a substantial relationship amidst gestures and the overall body positioning.
This helps in establishing the aspects of speed and efficiency among the concerned soldiers (Michel, 1977). The body-object articulation and exhaustive use of the body are critical provisions demanded in this context. It is crucial to agree that disciplines endorse the composition of forces and organization of soldiers as articulated in the article.
References
Hughes-Warrington, M. (2008). Fifty Key Thinkers on History. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Michel, F. (1977). “Docile bodies,” Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books