 |
| the panopticon prison |
 |
| big brother is watching |
One of the
more interesting concepts in Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punishment
is the panopticon. Panopticism is an
idea taken from Jeremy Bentham, who conceptualized a prison where all the
inmates could be viewed by a guard at the same time, without the ability to
know when or if they were being watched.
For Bentham this would exemplify the ability for people to overpower and
keep control over others in a modern society (Crimmins 1994).
The idea of the power inherent in the ability to watch others, and the
psychological effect of knowing that at any time you could be being observed, which
changes how people act; “anxious awareness of being observed”. (Foucault 2008:7)
Foucault expanded on Bentham’s original theory, particularly considering
the boom in observational technologies like surveillance cameras and phone
taps. Foucault sees how the idea of the
panopticon can be extended beyond controlling inmates, to governments controlling
the public. In 1984 Orwell also
used this idea, with the Big Brother government maintaining control over their
citizens through the fear of being observed doing something against the
government and being punished as a result.
Foucault saw the panopticon as symbolic of modern government as a whole (Foucault 2008).
In his discussion, Foucault talks
about the development of panopticism in the west, focusing on the historical
example of the plague in Europe. During
the plague governments were able to legitimately wield a great deal of control over
the regulation of its peoples, all in the name of the greater good (incidentally
Bentham was a famous father of utilitarianism and of the saying, the greatest
good for the greatest number). Foucault analyzed
if the plague really needed to be real, or if just the threat of a plague would
be enough to justify creating a panoptic society (Foucault 2008:4).
Power, as always for Foucault, is crucial to this understanding of the
function of government, and the panopticon really brings together all of the
ideas Foucault was working towards in his works. The whole point of discourse is the ability
to regulate and discipline without chains, “panoptic institutions could be so
light: there were no more bars, no more chains, no more heavy locks”(Foucault 2008:8)
The ability to see without being seen, as power or domination, and the
knowledge that one could be at any time observed as subjection. Foucault makes a connection between the
panopticon and the social sciences, where the panopticon is a laboratory where,
“it possible
to draw up differences: among patients, to observe the symptoms of each
individual, without the proximity of beds, the circulation of miasmas, the
effects of contagion confusing the clinical tables; among schoolchildren, it makes it possible to
observe performances (without there being any imitation or copying), to map
aptitudes, to assess characters, to draw up rigorous classifications, and, in
relation to normal development, to distinguish 'laziness and stubbornness' from
'incurable imbecility'; among workers, it makes it possible to note the
aptitudes of each worker, com pare the time he takes to perform a task, and if
they are paid by the day, to calculate their wages.” (Foucault 2008:8-9)
For Foucault
the panopticon is the ultimate tool of the social scientist, the ability to
observe people without being observed oneself.
The panopticon functions as a “laboratory of power… a way of defining
power relations in terms of the everyday life of men.” (Foucault 2008:9 -10)
While Foucault
himself did not discuss modern panopticism at length, in our post 9/11 society it
has become an incredibly complex and significant issue. Proponents of the increase in security and use
of observational technology and methods by the US government cite the terrorist
attacks of 9/11 and the omnipresent danger of attack as the rational for why we
need the observation to prevent future attacks.
The argument has continued to include more mundane crimes, like theft or
mugging, to help the police force’s ability to protect the public. Cities like New York and London has cameras
all over the place, in order to provide the police with the ability to be
everywhere at once without having expensive massive forces. Critics of this development however stress
that it vastly increases the power of the government and invades the privacy of
innocent people. They point to things
like red light cameras (which anyone on long island would agree have become
widespread lately) and to the wiretapping scandal of the Bush administration,
as examples of government overstepping their power and infringing on the rights
of the American people. They fear that
these developments will lead to a more authoritarian and restrictive
government, where people live in fear of disobeying their political
leaders. Shows like LOST have functioned
as allegories for Bentham and Foucault’s panopticon, as has the incredible rise
of “reality television” like Survivor or even HBO’s taxicab confessions. Nothing has proven to be more exemplary of
the panopticon than the internet and popularity of cellular phones, where at any
time anything we do can be recorded and displayed for all to see. In that way, perhaps the internet is a
popular panopticon, where anyone can be watching anyone else, but that is a
topic for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment