Seriously bored: Schopenhauer on solitary confinement, by David Bather Woods
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179378667888Keywords:
Schopenhauer, boredom, solitary confinement, penitentiaryAbstract
Primary textual evidence confirms that Schopenhauer was aware of the widespread adoption of solitary confinement in the American penitentiary system, and some of its harmful effects. He understands its harmfulness in terms of boredom, a phenomenon which he is known to have given extensive thought and analysis. In this paper I interpret Schopenhauer’s account of boredom and its relation to solitary confinement. I defend Schopenhauer against the objection that cases of confinement only serve to illustrate the general inadequacy of his explanation of boredom in terms of a lack of things to will. This defence arrives at the conclusion that, on the contrary, someone might well suffer from a lack of things to will as a direct result of being confined; and that boredom understood as the deprivation of willing, a phenomenon I suggest may be called conative deprivation, makes an illuminating contribution to our theoretical understanding of the harmfulness of solitary confinement.
Downloads
References
BLAKE, William. A Sentence Worse than Death. Solitary Watch [online], March 11, 2013. Disponível em: http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/11/voices-from-solitary-a-sentence-worse-than-death. Acesso em: 05 set. 2018.
DICKENS, Charles. American Notes. London: Penguin, 2000.
FOUCAULT, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. London: Penguin, 1991.
GRASSIAN, Stuart. Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, v. 22, 2006, p. 325–83.
GUENTHER, Lisa. Solitary Confinement: Social Death and Its Afterlives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
HANEY, Craig. Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement. Crime and Deliquency, v. 49, no. 1, 2003, p. 124–56.
HANEY, Craig. “Madness” and Penal Confinement: Some Observations on Mental Illness and Prison Pain’. Punishment and Society, v. 19, no. 3, 2017, p. 310–26.
HANEY, Craig. Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 2018, p. 285–310.
HERON, Woodburn. The Pathology of Boredom. Scientific American, v. 196, 1957, p. 52–6.
JANAWAY, Christopher. Necessity, Responsibility and Character: Schopenhauer on Freedom of the Will. Kantian Review, v. 17, no. 3, 2012, p. 431–57.
PEVSNER, Nicholas. A History of Building Types. London: Thames & Hudson, 1976.
QUAY, Herbert C. Psychopathic Personality as Pathological Stimulation-Seeking. American Journal of Psychiatry, v. 122, no. 2, 1965, p. 180–3.
REGINSTER, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. London: Harvard University Press, 2006.
REGINSTER, Bernard. Nietzsche’s New Happiness: Longing, Boredom, and the Elusiveness of Fulfillment. Philosophic Exchange, v. 37, no. 1, 2007, p. 17–40.
ROTHMAN, David J. “Perfecting the Prison: United States, 1789-186”. In: The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society. edited by Norval Morris and David J. Rothman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 100–16.
SCOTT, G. D.; GENDREAU Paul. Psychiatric Implications of Sensory Deprivation in a Maximum Security Prison. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, v. 14, 1969, p. 337–41.
SELLIN, Thorsten. The Origin of the “Pennsylvania System of Prison Discipline. The Prison Journal, v. 50, 1970, p. 13–21.
SHALEV, Sharon. Supermax: Controlling Risk Through Solitary Confinement. London: Routledge, 2009.
SHALEV, Sharon. Solitary Confinement and Supermax Prisons: A Human Rights and Ethical Analysis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, v. 11, no. 2, 2011, p. 151–83.
SHAPSHAY, Sandra. “Schopenhauer’s Early Fourfold Root and the Ghost of Kantian Freedom”. In: Schopenhauer’s Fourfold Root. Edited by Jonathan Head and Dennis Vanden Auweele. London: Routledge, 2017. p. 80–98.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Sämtliche Werke. Edited by Wolfgang Freiherr von Löhneysen. Vols. 1–5. Stuttgart: Suhrkamp, 1986.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. “Prize Essay on the Basis of Morals”. In: The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics. Edited and translated by Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. “Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will”. In: The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics. Edited and translated by Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation, Vols. 1–2. Edited and translated by Judith Norman, Alastair Welchman and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010 (vol. 1), 2018 (vol. 2).
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Parerga and Paralipomena, V. 1. Edited and translated by Sabine Roehr and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Parerga and Paralipomena, V. 2. Edited and translated by Adrian Del Caro and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
SUEDFELD, Peter. The Benefits of Boredom: Sensory Deprivation Reconsidered. American Scientist, v. 63, no. 1, 1975, p. 60–9.
THOMAS, Marianna (Ed.). Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Historical Commission, 1994.
TOOHEY, Peter. Boredom: A Lively History. London: Yale University Press, 2012.
VAUX, Roberts. Letter on the Penitentiary System of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding, 1827.
VAUX, Roberts. The Pennsylvania Prison System. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, v. 21, no. 116, 1884, p. 651–64.
YOUNG, Julian. A Schopenhauerian Solution to Schopenhauerian Pessimism. Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch, v. 68, 1987, p. 53–69.
Published
Versions
- 2022-03-17 (3)
- 2022-02-01 (2)
- 2022-02-01 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Voluntas: International Journal of Philosophy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The submission of original manuscripts to this journal implies the transference, by the authors, of the copyrights for printed and digital publication. The copyrights of a published manuscript belong ultimately to the author, and only the copyright for its first publication is reserved to the journal. Authors may only use the same results in other publications explicitly indicating this journal as the medium of the original publication.
Licence
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) - This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
