the means of correct training

The workshop, the school, the army were subject to a whole micropenality of time (lateness, absences, interruptions of tasks), of activity (inattention, negligence, lack of zeal), of behavior (impoliteness, disobedience), of speech (idle chatter, insolence), of the body (“incorrect” attitudes, irregular gestures, lack of cleanliness), of sexuality (impurity, indecency). At the same time, by way of punishment, a whole series of subtle procedures was used, from light physical punishment to minor deprivations and petty humiliations. It was a question both of making the slightest departure from correct behavior subject to punishment, and of giving a punitive function to the apparently indifferent elements of the disciplinary apparatus: so that, if necessary, everything might serve to punish the slightest thing; each subject find himself caught in a punishable, punishing universality. “By the word punishment, one must understand everything that is capable of making children feel the offense they ahve commited, everything that is capable of humiliating them, of confusing them… a certain coldness, a certain indifference, a question, a humiliation, a removal from office.”
—  The Means of Correct Training - Michel Foucault
For a long time this model oft he camp, or at least its underlying principle, was found in urban development, in the construction of working-class housing estates, hospitals, asylums, prisons, schools: the spatial ‘nesting’ of hierarchized surveillance. The principle was one of 'embedding’ (encastrement). The camp was to the rather shameful art of surveillance what the dark room was to the great science of optics.
—  The Means of Correct Training -  Michel Foucault