the execution and its message over the executions per se, but also over the course of events of varying degrees of formality, such as sentencing and services. Solemnity and seriousness were important perspectives in the messages conveyed. One important role of the execution, according to Michel Foucault, was to be a ritual of the sovereign, like for example a coronation, demonstrating unlimited sovereignty and power. It was also essential to the politics of fear, showing the unconstrained dangerousness of the sovereign.134 Retribution or deterrence and a vision of unlimited power probably were the two combined goals for many in authority. Yet while in most European countries the executions eventually became seen as problematic and intramural executions were implemented, in the colonial setting other rules could come to be applied. In French Indochina postcards, showing the execution or the severed heads spread the image to those not personally attending. Beyond individual sovereigns we can interpret the reign with Foucault or with Michael Vann: ”The execution was essentially a warning lesson to those who might challenge French rule. Viewed in this light, the ritualized execution was an educational act of state terro.”135 Those legislating for and also all those acting around and at an execution had their reasons to influence which messages were sent. The actions and their messages were thus formed by intermeshing but divergent aims. Therefore, the forms, methods, and symbols of the execution has often been discussed and revised. The conflated messages could even be on public display. The execution of a heretic could convey the message of an eternal condemnation, while at the same time the condemned was accompanied to the scaffold by priests ready to receive a confession.136 While the public saw a dishon134 Foucault 2012 p 59 sq, see also Fritz 2004 p 811. Mathieu Soula expresses these ideas well: ”La peine de mort, et l’exposition qui la poursuite et l’achève, représente un instrument de la domination sociale et politique. Elle est à la fois un attribut de la souveranité, un moyen de la manifester et, en tant que technologie de pouvoir, un outil de la construction de cette souveranité. Elle serait un des accesoirs de la mise en scène d’un spectacle essentiellement politique.” Soula 2015 p 118. 135 Vann 2010 p 40. 136 Janin-Thivos 2003 p 113 sqq. 59
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=