Geosurveillance

A term used by some of Michel Foucault's allies (although Foucault himself never expressly used the term in any of his works). It is concerning Foucault's use of Jeremy Bentham's work the Panopticon, in his now classic work Discipline and Punish where Foucault uses Bentham's work as a metaphor for modern society's ever increasing dependence and need for disciplinary society and surveillance.It is important to note that the concept of Geosurveillance falls into at least three categories: (1) Groups, such as prison populations and (2) the general or mass population. It is a new system of surveillance for the scientific age and is in general more useful for mass population observation and is not really concerned with class relations as in modern Marxism or bureaucracy and administration as in Max Weber. Geosurveillance can be defined as "the surveillance of geographical activities." Geography, space, time, territories and mass populations (and therefore surveillance) which may be viewed as progress towards efficient administration. In Weber's view point, this presents a benefit for the development of Western capitalism (and ultimately Western subjectivity) and the modern nation state. (3) An interesting analysis which should be served here is the emphasis on the human brain and its interpretation on fear and its relationship to the environment that the brain has viewed as dangerous to its survival (the organisms survival).Also in consideration as a wider version of this is the brain’s area of operations with regards fear, which namely is Dopamine, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Dopamine (it is a hormone) forms as a neurotransmitter and has many functions within the brain such as; motivation. (it also acts an important role in teaching signals to parts of the brain and rewards outcome,cognition, mood, learning.) The Hippocampus forms vital information in regards the brain's spatial encoding, memory, and recognition.Also,Basal Ganglia ,which is involved in part of the brains 'excutive decision making',and among other functional considerations are instrumental conditioning,behavioral strategies,and attentional focus. Much of this material is very much new and unfortunately little understood,and furthermore,an added point at issue here;nor has it found its way into any Sociology text book used by the Social Sciences and alas,the consequences of this has led too this new and very intriguing research area becoming very much neglected and little understood and consequently bypassed by the Social and Behavioural Sciences in its 'investigation' into 'human subjectivity' (western subjectivity) and is probably better suited to an audience who is into thought provoking ideas and wants to be challenged intellectually (to think outside of the general idealogical box,and it probably belongs to the more niche end of the market for challenging generally accepted ideas and orthodox thought,or to add a further point,anyone receptive to new ideas) but not polemically.

The Term Geosurveillance
In explaining the meaning and then therefore the term Geosurveillance and in the process an explanation of this often neglected excellent material(by the Social and Behavioural sciences).A further question must be asked regarding precise definition of other technical issues involving surveillance matters.Questions therefore, should be pondered on accepted notions of surveillance(it should be reiterated that surveillance isn't a given state in human affairs and,to add a further point nor is Geosurveillance a given either,but a technical necessity(or issue) for the ever increasing 'carceral society'). Now, according to Foucault all ideas have a tendency to become normalised no matter what their content. What does he mean? At first, this does not seem to be a straightforward answer but if we look more closely, we find the meaning of what he says straightforwardly enough. He means that once an idea gains accepted practice (and becomes hidden from those who practice it) there is a social process that puts into practice normalisation procedures. Once that procedure is enacted upon, normalisation begins (see Discipline and Punish pp.177-184).A perfectly good example of this is the notion of global totalitarianism which cannot be accomplished in one place,or a single all encompassing territory,but must function within the confines of a global village environment(mass population) in which humans now live, totalitarianisms has to be global to be workable,hence the replacement of the nation state and such others. What is replaced is not entry (gaining access) but absence of exit "which would render the very notion of exit meaningless." So instead of what was meant to reforming and rehabilitate (rather erroneously) the original offender (prison inmate) "Within this new normalization paradigm, progressive efforts, in many American prisons, have turned to improving the quality of program delivery, and experimentation with operational and programmatic modifications directed toward increasing inmate adjustment within safe and humane prisons, while simultaneously reducing the recidivism rate." Prisons have now become effectively 'society's' (power systems and used by the general society's exclusion system,namely the judicial norms and legal requirements which follow) way of reproducing and creating recidivist, in which the recidivist is encouraged to repeats his "crimes" and then goes back into the general population only to re offend. A staggering 67.5% are rearrested within three years. Out of 272,111, 183,675 were rearrested. (See parole later in the article).

Geosurveillance and the General Prison Population
Before we begin this section, a brief word should be given on the data available on the prison system. On the latest available statistics, as of 2008, America has an appalling prison rate per ratio to the general population who are in prison. From 1970-2008 figures for 1970 showed that America had 196,429 in state and federal prisons with a steady increase right up to the present day. Available statistics show there were 330,000 prisoners in America in 1972. This has now gone up to 2,299,116. This is in marked contrast with previous trends, which show a steady stable prison population where the use of incarceration was scarcely used .Suddenly there does seem to be a steady growth in incarceration. The increase of the prison population from the general population has seen a marked increase all around the world, particularly America. Why? Before we explain this point, let us survey the rest of the world, particularly Russia, China, and Europe. The latest available data have China and Russia with 1.5 million and 1.0 million prisoners respectively. These two countries alone account for 25% of the world prison population. Now, if we take into account America (going back to our original point), we have a further 2,299,116 to take into account with a grand total of 4.8 million (remember to take into account that the world prison population is now 9,250,000) in just three countries. They account for 50 % of the world prison population. What is most interesting is that the sheer scale of prison building and incarceration rates does not appear to be declining anytime soon and we are much nearer a dystopian society than many people may think. We now have a prison system dedicated to funnelling and refunnelling people towards incarceration and to create no visible means of escape. No large scale breakout are ever possible within these institutions "Yet the maximum security prison, such as Kingston Penitentiary (KP), also turns out to be a place of uneven but not infrequent refusal, of revolt, and of ingenious escape attempts." Even if there was, where would the prisoner go? It is a system for scientific correction without any available answers, because that would end the criminal experimentation (making people into criminals) and the many human sciences associated with it would end. It is more to do with indeterminate sentencing and the parole system associated with it that you get the high prison population (apparently, at least 88% according to figures published in a report) it has certainly taken on a life of its own. Already mentioned in this section is the ‘large’ worldwide prison. Now, if we look at the general prison population, one notices the general make-up of the population is mainly from the working classes (without exception). Following on from the concept Geosurveillance, where class interest, class relations, and bureaucracy bear no resemblance to an analysis where Geosurveillance is concerned. This is effectively problematic, which is twofold: Almost all criminal are from working class backgrounds, without exception, so it would be unlikely that wealthy individuals and the political elite would spend any time in prison. But for Geosurveillance to work, it has to take its mark from the general population and then transfer this knowledge to the general prison population. "But surveillance is systematic; it is planned and carried out according to a schedule that is rational, not merely random." Remember ‘only’ 9,250,000 are incarcerated around the world and 50% are just in three countries (as already mentioned above). Now the class interest gets to work on this problem. According to modern Marxism, it is more to do with surplus, or unproductive labour within modern capitalism, but that misses the central point. Surveillance within the prison system is acted upon by producing anonymity so it is not their anonymity that is the problem it is their individuality ”Surveillance is bound up with what we call ‘governance.’ This goes far beyond what governments do; the ‘computer state’ is now a dated idea. Governance refers to how society (mass population) is ordered and regulated in manifold ways. Governance controls access, opportunities, chances and even helps to channel choices, often using personal data to determine who gets what. Actuarial practices all too often take over from ethical principles”. As anyone knowing and reading Marx can testify, unemployment only serves to reduce (in times of rapid contraction, stagnation, and low demand) and regulate wages and it does not increase it. This does not eliminate the class problem, a Marxist will say, but the whole point is that the class interest is bound up with the many new scientific concepts, (Evolutionary Social Psychology, Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Theory and Education, Forensic Psychiatry, Forensic Psychology to name only a very few). "The legal system is at the frontier of formal social social responses to advances in scientific understanding of human behaviour." Socially, they function within these paradigm and, when the relationship between the recidivist criminal(professional criminals) is understood between all these 'new sciences' we can review the recidivist criminal in a different light, namely that the surplus labour (or if you would prefer unproductive labour) no matter what its function, is productive to the sciences because the judicial and legal hierarchy with the association it forms within the scientific community serve these criminal recidivist and all of the above named resultant factors need each other. In other words without these 9,250,000 around the world the legal and judicial hierarchy would themselves become ‘unproductive,’ and that would be unpalatable to the 'Geosurveillant society'." As the legal system is inclined to look to the scientific community for guidance in establishing culpability when psychoactive medication is implicated (therefore participating importantly in the modification of folk psychology) it will also do so in cases of traumatic brain injury."

Geosurveillance and The Political Economy Of Penitentiary Punishment
The costs of the incarceration system (But,to give its real name:the Criminal Justice System and its off shoot penitentiary punishment) shows no sign of abating and therefore,no sign of controlling the ever spiralling rate of recidivism either.If one were honest the rate of recidivism, and by implication the costs to the state cannot be so readily controlled.Administrators,have indicated this and by their own admittance (Council of State Governments Justice Centre working in conjunction with Texas law Policy-makers) have conceded this. Also,one would be foolhardy to think otherwise it has already been admitted that if their isn't any change in policy 'we will be building prisons for ever and ever'.

Geosurveillance and the General Population
In a surreal event direct from George Orwell novel 1984 in a city in the UK, Middlesbrough (in the Town centre) now have CCTV with loudspeakers (totalling 158 in all) which can directly communicate with passers by on the street. This serves as a 'deterrent' against the most trivial of offences dropping litter on the street and riding through a pedestrian area on a bike. This is one example of normalising judgement through the concept of 'deterrent' a modern Geosurveillance society and the general population. Although the watchword is safety for the public, what it does do is deliver 'normalisation' of the CCTV system among the general population.

Geosurveillance and Risk Analysis
Risk:From the French word risquer,"meaning endanger,to put at risk,expose to the chance of injury or loss." and then the word analysis meaning:Analysis derived from the Greek;analusis "The breaking up of something complex into its various simple elements." This must be differentiated from,but at the same time associated with Risk Assessment, although risk analysis is primarily concerned with 'surveillance control' and is considered a priority (primarily by the veterinary authorities) among many aspects.

A Brief Explanation Of The Brain and Its Role In Consciousness With Regarding Fear
Humans would like to think that they are free,independent and blessed with non biased ideas that are independent from any conscious biased source.But recent scientific studies have shown otherwise that this very often isn't the case with regarding this matter, however,this still remains highly controversial. What appears in no doubt is the human system of language which effectively leads to the social regulation of human behaviour and punishment.

The Brain and the Biopolitics of Fear
In the first instance it is important to begin with after consulting the given evidence to imagine (if imagine is the correct word) for the sake of simplicity, that, what is about to be written is a ‘given’ (namely the human subject).In his/her own given environment, not as a mass society environment but as a ‘band society’ environment, which would include only between 4-12 people(which has been the experience of the majority of human existence incidentally) and in the brain we(namely humans) form what is termed ‘habit based learning system’ which is found in the area ‘ventral prefrontal cortex’ and ‘dorsolateral striatum’. Which makes things interesting because of the advent of motivational value, (a human defined concept incidentally, not a concept made independently from humans nor there language) although it is conceded that the behaviour is learned, not innate “There is another important mechanism by which the value of actions can be learned, and which turns out to have special importance when considering social actions such as punishment. Clearly, one advantage of social living is that it allows an individual to learn about events that they never themselves experience, simply by observing others. Information gained from observation has considerable value, whether it reflects the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as it can be used to improve one’s own individual future behaviour.” Quite clearly this reflects that punishment is an ‘empirical’ social fact once the necessity of human social interaction has given over to circumstances to the consequences of social living (for a fuller explanation on this, see more on this later on elsewhere in this article). And according to studies punishment is seen as ways to mediate cooperation and according to this neurobiological view of punishment, they (humans) punish altruistically, of course this only goes to prove the point that nothing is a given but has to be made (although in their view based upon ‘empirical’ observational studies there is a constant fixed view from which humans base there actions). However, it is very much acknowledged that information regarding this is still very much poorly understood.” It is less clear, however, how the value of goals is learned through the observation of other individuals choices. The distinction between action learning and value learning in observational contexts is important, and resembles that between motor control and instrumental learning in individual contexts.” Whereas, motor control within the brain has been extensively studied with regards imitation and skill acquisition, it is admitted as much that value learning is less understood, in regards punishment while there is an agreed consensus where regards actions learned are part of behavioural norms.” Actions learned in this way may have the capacity to become behavioural norms, and can be adhered to in a way that incorporates some independence from actual outcomes. This maybe especially important for punishment, as we discuss below, as in theory it allows the propensity to punish to be culturally acquired, and the outcome of punishment to be learned without personal transgression.” On this theory the whole system relies upon a concept of judgement and the normalisation within the cultural environment with regards punishment. The system upon which it is founded is human motivation, learning and action and the reason why humans punish one another is to safeguard there cooperative system which has been set up once a community has been established. This is according to this view a necessity for the survival of the community, thus: "Our current understanding of human motivation draws strongly on an extensively animal literature in experimental psychology. Motivation is characterized by action, either to increase the probability of an outcome (appetitive motivation), or to reduce it (aversive motivation). Thus a reward can be operationally defined as an event that an animal will expend energy to bring about, whereas a punishment is an advent that an animal will expend energy to bring about to reduce or avoid. Note that in this way (and typical in the experimental psychology literature), the term punishment is taken to apply to any aversive event, regardless of its aetiology. However, in social contexts (in social psychology and behavioural economics), a punishment is often assumed to refer more specifically to an aversive event administered by another individual. These sematic distinctions aside, any complete motivational account of punishment needs to consider both the propensity to administer, and the impact of receiving a punishment.” Interestingly, there is no attempt to explain the arrival(or historical context) of the judicial and legal hierarchies arrival to enforce its judicial and legal framework of power and the plethora of sciences that surround the system of human punishment.It is as if there has been a 'contextual splitting',without the normalisation of the contextual splitting involved,and in so doing so this-(the contextual splitting)-the normalisation procedure has been lost.Especially to the cognitive sciences.

Again it must be empthsize that the punishment system is not seen (it is seen rather differently) as a way to get the recidivist to repeat (encouraged to do so) his crimes over and over again so that he can be ‘better punished’ and serve the judicial, scientific and legal hierarchies with their problems of legal justification, in so doing so it has been ignored as an organized attempt at social imprisonment but, is seen as a social reality, a necessity or evolutionary structured to the environment that humans find themselves in, not as an recalcitrant treated individual but as a social being with norms to practice on thus: "These norms include the motivation to altruistically punish according to common standards of fairness, and raises the question as to what, in the brain, underlies the proclivity to do so.” Obviously what gets missing is the basic impediment (in the legal guise) why is there a neurobiological basis to punish and what lies behind the need to punish? Although it is considered ‘wise’ to punish for the sake of group cooperation and the survival of large groups one does get onto shaky ‘empirical’ ground when one considers other evidence in regarding punishment as more as a spectacle which involves psychotic (hordes of evidence is now available on this subject matter, such as, the need to torture, if necessary, but not exclusively, punishment becomes much better against the criminal (and more punitive) so the judicial and legal system become ‘more productive’ it is the punishment which makes better criminals as mentioned above. Which he (the criminal) is encouraged to ‘take on the system’, to become a better recidivist in order to produce better productive punishment systems in the age of the sciences ”until the correct way is instilled as a habit”, and this why the state governs less (which will become more apparent latter on in the article) (“Third, if punishment from selfish reciprocal (goal orientated) action reliable results in eventual long-term payoffs, more proximal states following punishment may be reinforced both through habit-based learning, and through sequential Pavlovian learning. The latter process allows the state immediately following punishment to acquire an appetitive value, which might then independently reinforce other actions (through condition reinforcement"), not more, treatment rather than fostering some kind of social cohesion. Has the system of punishment found a new ally albeit much of it speculative in the sciences." Punishment, in its various forms, is likely to have played a key role in shaping the dynamics of social of social interaction in many species-humans in particular. Although many aspects of our neurobiological model are speculative, punishment is likely to involve the integration of a number of distinct representation, learning and action systems. Whatever the neural mechanism, the affirmation that punishment, including altruistic punishment, substantially promotes cooperation in human societies seems firm. Vital to furthering our knowledge will be an understanding of the behavioural and neurobiological basis of cultural and observational learning and sequential learning and model based learning and planning in the context of other agents. This could be crucial to gaining neurobiological insight into how apparently altruistic behaviours are acquired, as well as shedding light onto more complex aspects of punishment, such as arbitration, policing and the role of hierarchies.” Much new research has been done on this very vexed problem of human self control; (but more importantly human social control and in any case humans, as they are no longer in band society-small groups--but, are in mass society the context that is meant is large social groups) in all aspects of the workings of the brain in regards large social groups, which becomes of a novel interest in regards human social control organization. Elsewhere it will be mentioned and become apparent, although much of it is still in its infancy and is still very controversial. With the advent and invention of fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imagining) neuroscientists have a great deal of information available to them as to what is actually happening in the human brain we

Now we come to the brain the most complex organism in the human body but what is known exactly about how the brain relates and organises fear within its given environment? What is its essence? Most crucially, its material substance. How is information disseminated within its environment in which it finds itself? How then does this information become true? In addition, how does fear within the brain become a social reality within the context of social control? We should not ignore current trends and recent developments and findings in cognitive science (where surprisingly little attention has been utilized in the human sciences/human nature sciences) in which the field has latest new developments in ideas regarding our ‘human nature’ and it has nothing to do with the current trend towards polemical truth. This isn’t our concern here, what does concern us is how the brain derives at particular truths (or social truths) and whether they are ‘real’ regardless of who has or hold these ‘truths,’ which may, or may not have a ‘natural’ nature towards being human.” Opioid dependence disorder is a complex disease. The development of a drug addiction and the tendency to relapse are caused by a combination of both genetic and environment factors.” However, when one takes a look at the cognitive sciences analysis of concepts we find this: "The study of concepts has been central to cognitive science. Both philosophers and psychologists have proposed theories of concepts and concept acquisition; however, the two groups of scholars often find themselves talking at cross-purposes. Discussions between philosophers and psychologists about concepts have sometimes been frustrating and counterproductive because the two fields of inquiry focus on different issues.” This is obviously to do with academic reputation as opposed to finding any real answers and the consequences of this is any findings tend to get over looked or lost despite numerous examples and the result is academic reputations tend to get enhanced as opposed to them suffering, which isn’t such a bad thing, but the only problem is that the final answer lies elsewhere. For an example of this see the latest work in cognitive science workings on the construct of a concept which tends to be drawn into philosophy, a poor choice, and not even an answerable one.” The difficulty of defining concept raises the issue of whether it is useful scientific construct.” The study of conceptual processing will be best served by discovering and describing the relevant mechanisms, rather than arguing about the meaning of lay terms.” So when one looks at the particular issues of ‘knowledge’ and how it is constructed in a given society it is by no means certain that you are going to get any satisfactory answer which should be much easier if, and only if, there is an agreed system of studying this pressing problem! The most important thing is this there is something to work with namely the concept and the writer is quite correct in saying one must study the relevant ‘mechanism’ rather than when the term of the concept becomes ‘normalised’ after the event has happen! Once the concept becomes ‘normalised’ (disseminated under complex knowledge codes) under any event it is too late, the damage is done. No one could or (not successfully) would argue that human knowledge, and what counts as (scientific knowledge) knowledge, as opposed to myth stems from the brain and the ability to transfer this knowledge via human speech and written thought, a whole set of complex tasks have to be completed first before it can be counted as ‘true knowledge.’ In the scientific world such as empirical knowledge, data or evidence serve as the first point of call in regards accountable knowledge. To this effect much work is needed in this field and much fault with the data as much as the working ‘empirical‘ model:” Although a modal approaches to knowledge have dominated cognitive science since the cognitive revolution, researchers increasingly find fault with them. The lack of direct empirical evidence for amodal symbols is also a problem. Conversely, researchers increasingly report that evidence that knowledge is grounded in modality specific systems, and see how these systems could help to implement a fully functional conceptual system. Clearly, much further work is necessary to establish these claims. Not only is further behavioural and neural evidence required, so are computational implementations. A broad cognitive science approach is essential to understanding the conceptual system."

In this particular section, we shall take a look at the most difficult problem facing this inquiry namely the brain and its association with fear. What then, is known about the seat of fear and its role in social control? Remember to also add the hidden answers lie not only in this investigation but also the unknown or more to the point normalisation and what is perceived as normal and true.” Third, the embodiment of power in every aspect one’s life—including identity—makes them difficult to repudiate. They are experienced as reality, making alternatives difficult to conceive of, let alone enact. Resistance can usually only be conceived of in terms of prevailing power relations and is subsequently ‘colonised’ by them. It therefore tends to reinforce existing power relations rather than overthrowing them. In this way, the emancipation for which critical approaches strive becomes illusory, despite the contention of those writers who argue otherwise.” This is then why there is no satisfactory explanation of the prevailing order because of (a)normalisation of the system and (b) the general acceptance (to gain any acceptance of the power system one has to take into account education and learning, not by going to school, but in what has been given to understand by the knowledge system. In order for the knowledge system to function there must be some hidden secrecy for it to function where resistance may act as a partner in this acceptance!), by all that the system is ‘normal’. However, this is only one half of the workings of normalisation, truth, language and discourse. The answer lies not in uncovering power relationships but in the procedure that makes normalisation possible, namely cognition and the cognitive sciences. Moreover, when one looks into experiments carried out on the subject’s normalisation (normalisation hypothesis) one is led to believe that in the social sciences (human nature sciences) there is widespread agreement upon the results. The end product then becomes ‘true’ because the experiment carried out has empirical data to back it up, or if not certainly quantitative and qualitative data which definitely lay claim that it is true! “ This ‘market setting’ has important implications concerning the themes of this paper. The market implies that crime is a “normal” social fact which is assured of historical survival at some positive level regardless of the prevailing economic, political or social system. Crime persists in this model because the interplay between supply and demand forces and the social costs of enforcement imply that that some level of crime will remain socially optimal that is, tolerable. Similarly, recidivism by known offenders is also an implication of the model rather than the exception to it, because offenders are expected to discount the actual risks of apprehension and punishment in deciding to participate in crime.” As already mentioned previously in this section it appears to make no difference to challenge them, but this misses the central point, which this: This isn’t part of an polemic attack and doesn’t need to be done here what is more important is the showing how a given thing works and is part of our remit where much ground can be covered by concentrating on the given task at hand. Namely the brain’s relationship with and producing truth within a civilised industrial world. Furthermore, when discussing the subjective nature his material force (the subjects correlation with recidivism) we are by implication discussing his very being within the system of incarceration, in so much as we must take into account that crime is historically ‘set in stone’ regardless of the social pattern the subject finds himself in. However, of course this is a ridiculous notion to actually believe in any such notion that ‘crime is set in historical stone’ must beggar all belief of any kind of analysis. What is notable about the recidivist criminal is the penance he or she serves and the awaiting ‘parole system’ (more on this later in the article) the person after he serves his sentence. This obviously has more to do with the reserve army of the unemployed where that half of employment ways heavily on surplus labour. Remember, most criminals are uneducated and with little or no prospect of viable work (because of a criminal record) there is a material reason why they repeat the same mistake the prison only serves as the by product of surplus value in which the ‘product’ namely the criminal has become a salient commodity under modern capitalism (this will become more apparent later on elsewhere).

The Biology of Fear
To start the ball rolling on this very difficult subject I would like to look at some basic presupposition on fear and biology.” Genetic factors seem to play a role in the development in anxiety disorders in humans. In familial studies, twin studies and adoption studies show genetic variances of 20 to 40 %. The same was found questionnaire variables such as neuroticism. Fear conditioning ability and predisposition to learn fear responses were extensively studied in animals. In rodents, fear processes or anxiety measured in the open field test or avoidance conditioning have revealed a strong genetic basis explaining most of the interindividual variance. However, the genes responsible for that trait have not yet been identified. The situation is different to antisocial personality disorder and criminal behaviour. Assuming that a deficit in anticipatory fear conditioning is the central symptom from which all consequent social problems follow, all evidence ranging from twin to adoption studies and gene sequencing suggests a moderate to strong genetic variance increases further. Whether this is related to genetic fear conditioning remains to be seen.” Interesting reading but one can see that this ‘Biology of the Biopolitics of fear is rooted in life and scientific experimentation but the question must be asked; at what price is human fear used against them to in order to control them? It is certainly a grey area. There certainly seems to be a concerted effort with regards fear into making humans conform to certain moral practices and without doubt there is much material available in this area. Take for instance an interesting article written in 2005, where the renowned Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker was one of the guest speakers, when describing ‘neuromorality’ as personal responsibility. But, the most interesting point is how can we "salvage the core of responsibility" without such mystical notions? For Pinker, the answer is to shift the focus from the unanswerable question of whether an act was truly "freely chosen" to whether the perpetrator has a normally functioning brain with a normal response to the stimuli of reward and punishment. Thus, responsibility really means deterrability: the capacity to understand that if we harm others, we will suffer the consequences. Pinker asserted that we already use such an approach in practice. Cases in which we do not punish harmful actions because we don't assign moral responsibility to the perpetrator happen to be just the kinds of cases in which punishment cannot deter similar acts: when the harm was accidental, or when the perpetrator is too young or too mentally ill to be deterred by the threat of punishment. Even "abstract justice"--seeking to impose punishment when it's clearly not cost-effective for society and when, as with elderly Nazi war criminals, there's no chance of recidivism--ultimately serves utilitarian ends, since creating exemptions for some crimes would be too inviting to scofflaws.” Notice that the punishment, even with ‘abstract’ justice of Nazi war criminals would not be cost effective to the state because (a) old age and (b) there is simply no chance of recidivism. However, this is not what distributive justice is concerned with it is more to do with social control and not entirely to do with meeting justifiable punishment. Cost would not come into it, it has found a new host in which the shift into many areas, not entirely of its own making can keep the cogs of the surveillance system working. It is not about finding a nirvana but adjusting socially with newfound social practices. “Pinker noted, somewhat ambivalently, that "the thirst for retribution"--punishment as "just deserts" and a way to right the moral balance—may be inherent in human nature, and a legal system that does not satisfy this need may never command enough respect to be effective.” The reader should take note, which has already been mentioned earlier in this section, the human mind has now entered a new phase in which, the ‘social control of the mind ‘is paramount, which is more to do with manipulating (not perverting) information (with regards what goes in it) than readily available information. Which, in turn, adds to the ‘Biopolitics of Fear’. Reason then is at the heart of retributive justice, because man is a moral animal, he has responsibilities to towards others, both as an individual and towards society in general. This is generally accepted as the concept for the law’s concept as a person.” Rationality is the touchstone of responsibility. Only agents capable of rationality can use legal and moral rules as potential reasons for action”. Notice the word ‘agent,’ but that doesn’t tell the full story,’ it seeks what it tries to hide!’ Rules as anyone should know have to be formulated in order who is responsible and who is not. Now we know that rules can only be agreed and formulated upon when a process of normalisation has been established, set in place and put into work as normal (and if necessary, imposed). But to make those rules work (such as the case of agents) an overwhelming complex set of rules (or if you like a legal hierarchy) which establish those set of rules, but it is them, and only them alone who have the secret to those rules. The social and behavioural sciences have failed to identify its ‘form, structure, organisation and most importunately its working in an power/knowledge context and unfortunately what gets produced is sterile reworkings of the same ideas, which offer and challenge nothing. All in the name of ‘empirical’ working knowledge which in all control the productive discourse in the name of ‘truth.’” There are many paths to the evolution of human cooperation, affiliation, large-scale collective identity, and state formation, and the activities that involve the dispersal of public goods constitute just one of those paths. Still, public goods seem to be at the heart of the rationale for state formation. Furthermore, their provisions in the form of state institutions remain to be fully explained.”

“Based on the knowledge produced from these outcomes, the expenditure on public goods follows a particular set of norms and practices to ensure that wastage and inefficiencies are minimized, controlled or even eliminated. From a more critical stance, surveillance, thus, can be viewed as a strategic practice that allows power and the knowledge it creates to further entrench its authority or be rationalized (See Foucault, 1981, Flyvbjerg, 1998). The production of such valid truths creates criteria, indices and other regulatory mechanisms to form threshold levels that are normalized or naturalized and thereby amenable to a larger public in a climate of neoliberal governance. Geosurveillance – or the art of governance through the workings of space – is one such strategic activity used to know those governed (see Joyce, 2003); and often, though not always as I will argue in this paper, operationalized through the use of GIS” .To take the argument even further we only have to look at any prevailing discourse and see the reluctance to challenge any orthodoxy within its chosen field. The result of this is polemicist rhetoric which puts fear into any kind of different or new scholarship. Questions should, could and must be asked and answered (if not to everybody’s satisfaction at least momentarily to give time for reflection at least). What is, and what is the relationship between human fear and biological fear (or natural fear)? How much of fear is natural and how much is it controlled or contrived within the environment which humans find themselves in? Another interesting aspect of all of this is the brain and its relationship much investigation has been revealed in this field which has become fascinating, much of it is more to with the ‘biology of human behaviour’ than to do with real or natural human nature .The problem still being posed at least for the last 100 years (but certainly the last 50) is this; while the civilising process still carries with it a process of ‘normalisation’ acted upon on as being accepted, in which, the military organization, economic process human social organization(power excluded in this for the sake of simplicity),political procedure and organization, the human knowledge system(again without the consideration of any power for the sake of simplicity),the human sciences (which includes the natural sciences, as opposed to the behavioural sciences or human nature sciences which claim knowledge of the human condition).How did it get there? How does it work and become ‘given’ and normal? We shall go through various examples later on in this section which will at least show, maybe not its acceptance, at least its working into which human nature becomes normal at least. This is true of the so called behavioural sciences as well, the human subject is not a given historical certainty in which his or her salient being has been set in stone waiting to be granted their character at birth within their ‘human nature’ especially when all they have to do is wait for historical happens to become ‘subjects’ of differing characters. One is reminded at the character Taylor in Planet of The Apes, in which all along he was right back at earth only to realise had he never left, the answer lies right in the systematic practices of normalisation of judgement with its productive input the plurality of differing power/subjects. Thus, the human subject is not a given, but the product of the various different sciences which produce the so called knowledge/power concept and no amount of sanitized investigation into this problem is going to change that fact. Much new research (see Fear Conditioning) has been undertaken in this field, but the data has been scanty in relation to condition fear and much of it can scarcely be believed in,it is more to do with ‘making people up’ rather than to do with the reality of a medical condition (“Neuroticism clearly has important implications for almost every aspect of human functioning. However, researchers still know relatively little how this trait actually works. How do innate genetic/biological differences give rise to such striking individual differences in stress and dissatisfaction? What maladaptive cognitive processes and behavioural strategies contribute to the obvious misery of neurotic individuals, and can they be eliminated through psychological treatment? These questions will drive the next generation of research on neuroticism.” ) It is going to be very hard to get the ‘belief’ within the particular concept to get any real social understanding. However, while there is admittance as to what extent the role of cognitive and genetic variables play any role, if any, it will remain elusive and will obviously need to be explored.

Summary and Conclusions
In explaining any conclusion and summary at any end of an article one must consider various propositions against any idea that has been accepted and taken for granted and has been entered into the lexicon of any culture or society.It would take a very brave man (or churlish one) after the considered evidence that has been offered,to now go against the presented evidence,albeit very new.Could one ask any historian,with any confidence:What is the reason behind recidivism?How is the criminal class just separated by the great divide of those who are encouraged to 'take on the system'(and in so doing so sow the seeds of their own recidivism),and those who do not,the vast majority of the general population have never been into prison but,almost exclusively,still have Geosurveillance hanging over them in the form of CCTV, where exit is considered not an option and in any case you would be foolish to think otherwise.It would appear that the answer from any historian would be short coming,we would have to look elsewhere,either in the archive,or in the journals of criminology and brain science.And while credulity has been held in dispute(namely Foucault and his allies and his sympathetic readers) far too much evidence is still readily available to counter that claim,regardless of any credulity (gulability) and opinion History cannot be so easily distorted ,but nor for that matter can a narrator(which essentially what an historian is,a constructor,or storyteller of the 'mythical past')give us the clue to humanity's freedom either.Almost certainly prison recidivism has not been driven primarily by a parallel increase in crime,but is more driven by 'policy choice'.