In the fourth of the series, what I feel is the very core of the argument is laid out with regards to its relation to sexuality. It proclaims that with this system comes the emergence of a new type of law- "the norm". "The judges of normality are present everywhere the teacher judge, the doctor judge, the educator judge, the "social-worker" judge- all based upon " the universal reign of the normative" where "his body, his gestures, his behaviors, his aptitudes, his achievements" are all observed and analyzed (1620). The standard by which all are measured is based upon the ideals of: the sane man, the law-abiding citizen, the obedient child, and, as will be further explored, the heterosexual marriage or relationship. The ideal of "a norm" also implies an existence of a "delinquent" or an "anomaly". Thus it seems that the "the norm" as shown here, evaluates and controls our daily actions and discourse. .
The two final examples of the argument lend into one another saying that once one is "captured", it allows for a "perpetual observation" which makes resistance to the system almost impossible (1620). Although, this does not say that the structure of the system cannot be altered or defied but it does suggest that change must take place externally, outside the "carceral city". Likewise, it can be said that the prison may resemble these other outside institutions (i.e. schools, hospitals, etc.) not because they look alike, or are similarly constructed or designed but because they fulfill similar functions and are intrinsically alike, in that they control the population. Although it seems Foucault believes that the prison actually controls the laws and the judicial system. Especially in the last words of the selection from the Norton it seems that the point, was to provide a strong historical understanding of the carceral system and its components and operations, rather than insight change.
