Discipline normalizes; it fixes the process of training and permanent control. An optimal model will be the one that gives a certain result. Disciplinary normalization consists in trying to get people and their actions to conform this model and norm.
Example of smallpox: they developed a mechanism of security with a double integration: rationalization of chance and probabilities.
On typical practices of security we see a number of elements emerging that are absolutely important for later extension of apparatuses of security: 1) practice of inoculation: supervision of those inoculated: observing the risks of dying from inoculation or from smallpox. Here appears in the text the term on “prevailing disease” which is a kind of disease that unites a country or climate. Integrating individual phenomena within a collective field
2) the disease is accessible to a group, it is then accessible to individuals
3) risk is not the same for all individuals, of all ages, or conditions
CRISIS: phenomena of sudden worsening and increase of the disease. The phenomenom of sudden, circular bolting that can only be checked either by a higher natural mechanism or by and artificial mechanism.
The apparatus that appears with variolisation vaccination consists not in the division of those who are sick and those who are not. It identifies the coefficient of probable morbidity, the normal expectation of population of being affected by the disease.
Foucault thinks we have a system exatly the opposite to the one we have seen with the disciplines. In the disciplenes one started from a norm. Here we have a plotting of the normal and the abnormal, of different curves od normality, and the operation of normality consists in stablishing an interplay between different distributions of normality.
Points out the problem of contagion.
AS A CONCLUSION:
Foucault thinks that the integration of the town within central mechanisms of power, or better, the inversion that made the town the primary problem, even before the problem of the territory, is a phenomenom, a reversal, typical of what took place between the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century. It was a problem to which it really was necessary to respond with new mechanisms of power whose form in no doubt found is what he calls mecanisms of security.
Another problem for him is: circulation, exchange and contact. He links this to the idea of sovereignty. SOOO.. the mechanism of security does nt function on the axis of the sovereign subjects relationship, ensuring the total and as it were passive obedicence of individuals to their sovereign.
In the following pages the author says that population can only be the basis of the state’s wealth and power if it its framed by a regulatory apparatus.
Here appears the term of desire: every individual has one. The sovereign is the person who can say no ti an individuals desire, the problem is how to legitimize this “no” opposed to individuals desire and found it on the will of these same individuals.