Having the notion that the Panopticon is a prison by which all prioners are possibly viewed under the 'gaze' from the guard I want to discuss the possibility that in todays society; the cameras and police, are in some form a Panopticon themselves. From the line of thought we must concede the point that in todays society observation is everywhere; be it security cameras or police. However, the key difference between the two ideas is that of the staging area. As the Prison Panopticon is within an enclosed space and prisoners are kept on their own, communcation is dramatically reduced. On the other side, communication is paramount on the outside world. Other differences are that within the prison the inmates are made aware of the 'gaze' at all times, whereas in the outside, everyone knows about the surveillance, but they do not believe it matters, or they do not comprehend the Power that surveillance has.
People on the outside believe that privacy and freedom are their right and that such observation the government already has is an abuse of their power. But who are we to say so? If the Panopticon is to work and re-affirm self control within the prison walls, why would it not be a good idea to do so everywhere else? The answer is a tough one but moreover, it is not 'practical' in everyday because people do not want to be watched at all times. For the Panopticon to work, surveillance would have to be total! As in all homes, all rooms, all countrys: everywhere. This would then become a Big Brother World and then questions crop us such as; who watches the guards? And, where does the chain end? These questions would not be able to be answered.
I believe that the Panopticon is an ingenious conception and that should be seen in the highest esteem, but that it would not work in society because society is simply too vast. But I leave you know with one last thought. Do you think that if the Panopticon were to be implemented into the world as a whole, that the world would still go on as it does? The example used by a fellow student was that of downloading illegally. With the Panopticon in place, they would all be caught and punished. Would Society want to see the harsh reality of their illegal actions on a daily basis?
Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish. London Penguin 1991
Barker, P. Michel Foucault, Subversion of the subject. Simon & Schuster Internation Group 1993
Paul Geddes,
N0226661
Thanks Paul and very good work. You have raised some good practical questions about the panopticon. I think the very issue of practicality is a good way of shedding light on what Foucault does. I guess this is all a question of how literal we take Foucault to be. He saw the Panoptican as a model of how power relations work in society. The question of management is interesting, since in a way for Foucault management works silently. It works prior to any awareness of the regulating of our behaviour even if we do not know it. One of the most important things I think to remember with Foucault is that power is not necessarily considered prescriptively. If we take the example of illegal downloading sure there are questions of right and wrong with this issue whether it is good or bad is still an effect of power for Foucault. It is not simply a matter of people doing the right or wrong thing, but instead of becoming disciplined into acting in a way that is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis aside the question of awareness is also one that interests me. The inmates are not necessarily aware that they are being watched. Remember that the guard can be either in the tower or not. Power is more powerful because it operates even when it is not there paradoxically. The inmates are always potentially being watched and therefore are constantly reminded of the need for self-regulation. In a sense I think speed cameras operate in a similar way. Quite often if you drive, you will see an announcement of speed cameras ahead without actually being notified where specifically they are. The result of this is that one is placed in a situation of self-monitoring with power operating through its very invisibility. This generates in turn disciplinary habits which regulate human behaviour. You do have a very good point in relation to the awareness of surveillance equipment, e.g. there is a sense that security cameras are not as useful as they might be. They tend to be useful after the fact in that they can provide evidence of a crime which has taken place. Whether they act as a deterrent is another matter. In a sense we have become so used of them that we forget they are there, which in a way I suppose confirms Foucault’s point.
You also say that people do not want to be watched. There is truth to this claim. Hence we have in liberal democracies the private public distinction, phrase like ‘mind your own business,’ and the annoyance of nosy neighbours etc. There is a sense which Foucault’ discourse could be taken to contribute to heightened forms of paranoia and can contribute to conspiratorial and anti-state rhetoric. The crucial difference for me is that those who watch are uninterested in those that watch to the degree that the mechanism of power generate themselves. The particular historical instantiation of power that Foucault is talking about with the Panoptican, is one can generate self-monitoring in order for power to engage in disciplinary formations. After all, why peer into somebody’s house when there are individual agents in there who will do it themselves: brushing ones teeth, combing ones hair, monitoring ones appearance, fretting over behaviour, anxiety over our how we engage with structures, getting enough sleep to meet appointments, disciplining our children in order for them to conform to the same structures. This leads onto the ultimate paradox of Foucault, and one that is relevant to all poststructuralists. The structure is central as much as it is periphery. The camera does not have to be in your house to engage in the production of disciplinary regimes of domination and resistance. The panoptican is society and whatever mutations it takes and in whatever situations it arises in. The world going on is the constant reinforcement of the Panopticon!
I suppose Foucault would have argued that the Panopticon is, to a certain extent, already in force. He would suggest that the aspect that is apparent is the self-regulation of ourselves. As the prisoners do, they control themselves with the overarching presence of the guard tower. Foucault would suggest that the Government is the practical version of the Panopticon. We regulate ourselves through fear of the power of the Government. However, as you suggest Paul, simply because of the vastness of society, the Panopticon cannot be put into practice.
ReplyDeleteAs already highlighted though, Foucault would presumably counter this with the argument that the government is the free-persons version of the Panopticon. We still control ourselves in a similar way to that of the prisoners. Whether there is a guard in the prison or CCTV camera present, we still feel the eye of the ruling power.
Ian Millman
I don't think the panopticon has to be put into practice as a model for all of society or even as a particular prison, hospital, or any other institution for us to take its implications seriously. It serves as a metaphor or allegory and helps us to understand the nature of power; the panopticon ensures and masks the state's absolute power over mind and body. Minimal state involvement only aids the will to knowledge and power, the point is that we do not always feel the 'eye of the ruling power' or the gaze of our leaders, which leads us to fall into the traps of normalizing institutions that seem to have little to do with power. The panopticon would probably function at it's best if the prisoners were unaware of the guards watching them, or in other contexts, of the true nature of the psychiatrist treating them, the recruitment agent reintroducing them to work, even the school teacher or academic providing their specific education!
ReplyDeleteOf course in Bentham's model of the panopticon the guard IS there, the prisoners are unable to tell whether they are being watched and when, but the model taken as a metaphor or thought experiment is useful in questioning the level of state involvement and the consequences of our inability to gauge its presence. Remember - Power is not what you think!