Panopticism

Panopticism is a social theory originally developed by French philosopher Michel Foucault in his book, Discipline and Punish.

Summary

A Panopticon is a circular building with an observation tower in the center in an open space surrounded by an outer wall made up of cells for the incarceration of mental patients or convicts. The purpose of the design is to increase the security through the effectiveness of the surveillance. Placed in a cell, inmates cannot see each other through the concrete walls and their cells are flooded with light so that everything they do can be observed by the central tower. Foucault explains an additional function of the central tower in his book, the "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison," "We have seen that anyone may come and exercise in the central tower the functions of surveillance, and that this being the case, he can gain a clear idea of the way the surveillance is practiced." In this way, with the inclusion of the public and non-institutional members, the disciplinary mechanism of observation is decentered, which has the effect of increasing the efficacy of the disciplinary mechanism.

Panopticism in Discipline and Punish

In Discipline and Punish, Foucault builds on the idea of a panopticon as conceptualized by Jeremy Bentham, and elaborates upon the function of disciplinary mechanisms in the prison and in everyday society, as to illustrate the function of discipline as an apparatus of power. Although this style of architecture could be used for various institutions such as schools, factories and the like, Bentham specifically uses a prison as an example: it is a building with a tower in the center, from which all the surrounding cells are visible. The inside of the tower, though, cannot be seen. It individualizes and leaves them constantly visible; never knowing when they are being observed. The occupant is always “the object of information, never a subject in communication.”

"He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection" (202-203).

This type of design can be used for any population that needs to be kept under observation, such as: prisoners, schoolchildren, medical patients or workers.

“If the inmates are convicts, there is no danger of a plot, an attempt at collective escape, the planning of new crimes for the future, bad reciprocal influences; if they are patients, there is no danger of contagion; if they are madmen there is no risk of their committing violence upon one another; if they are schoolchildren, there is no copying, no noise, no chatter, no waste of time; if they are workers, there are no disorders, no theft, no coalitions, none of those distractions that slow down the rate of work, make it less perfect or cause accidents.”

By individualizing the subjects and putting them in a state of constant visibility, the efficiency of the institution is maximized. Furthermore, it guarantees the function of power, even when there is no one actually asserting it. It is in this respect that the Panopticon functions automatically. Foucault goes on to explain that this design is also applicable for a laboratory. Its mechanisms of individualization and observation give it the capacity to run many experiments simultaneously. These qualities also give an authoritative figure the “ability to penetrate men’s behavior” without difficulty. This is all made possible through the architectural ingenuity. In light of this fact Foucault compares jails, schools and factories in their structural similarities.

Examples in Modern Society

A central idea to Foucault’s Panopticism is the systematic ordering and controlling of human populations through subtle and often unseen forces. This is apparent in many parts of the modernized world. Modern advances in technology and surveillance techniques have made Foucault’s theories all the more pertinent to any scrutiny of the relationship between the state and its population.

Increased surveillance cameras have the effect of reminding us however, of the little use of "panoptic" mechanisms on the part of liberal democracies. It could also be argued that increased surveillance technologies are unnecessary in the face of disciplinary mechanisms as illustrated by Foucault's Panopticism. Foucault argues that Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon provides us with a model in which a self-disciplined society has been able to develop. These apparatuses of behavior control are essential if we are to govern ourselves, without the constant surveillance and intervention by an agency in every aspect of our lives. The Canadian historian Robert Gellately argued that because of the widespread willingness of Germans to inform on each other to the Gestapo that Germany between 1933-45 was a prime example of Panopticism.

Panoptic theory has other wide-ranging impacts for surveillance in the digital era as well. Kevin Haggerty and Richard Ericson, for instance, have hinted that technological surveillance "solutions" have a particularly "strong culture allure" in the West. Increasingly visible data, made accessible to organizations and individuals from new data-mining technologies, has led to the proliferation of “dataveillance,” which may be described as a mode of surveillance that aims to single out particular transactions through routine algorithmic production. In some cases, however, particularly in the case of mined credit card information, dataveillance has been documented to have led to a greater incidence of errors than past surveillance techniques.

In one of the “Eyes of New York” ads introduced by MTA, close up photographs of several different sets of eyes are juxtaposed while underneath reads in bold print, “There are 16 million eyes in the city. We’re counting on all of them.” This a continuation of the “If You See Something, Say Something” concept first launched in March 1993. MTA Director of Security William A. Morange says, “It is impossible for the police departments to be everywhere and see everything. Our passengers extend our reach and-by sharing their information-make the system safer."

If discursive mechanisms can control and modify the body of discussion within a certain space (to the benefit of a certain class/the government/security), then there no longer remains the point of having an active agent in order to keep the same power using the threat of violence.

Panopticism and Capitalism

Foucault also relates panopticism to capitalism:

"The discipline of the workshop, while remaining a way of enforcing respect for the regulations and authorities, of preventing thefts or losses, tends to increase aptitudes, speeds, output and therefore profits; it still exerts a moral influence over behaviour, but more and more it treats actions in terms of their results, introduces bodies into a machinery, forces into economy ... The disciplines function increasingly as techniques in making useful individuals. Hence [the degenerate's or poor's] emergence from a marginal position on the confines of society, and detachment from the forms of exclusion or expiation, confinement or retreat ... They become attached to some of the great essential functions: factory production, the transmission of knowledge, the diffusion of aptitudes and skills, the war-machine" (210-211).

"But the peculiarity of the disciplines [elements of Panopticism] is that they try to define in relation to the multiplicities a tactics of power that fulfils three criteria: firstly, to obtain the exercise of power at the lowest possible cost (economically, by the low expenditure it involves; politically, by its discretion, its low exteriorization, its relative invisibility, the little resistance it arouses); secondly, to bring the effects of this social power to their maximum intensity and to extend them as far as possible, without either failure or interval; thirdly, to link this 'economic' growth of power with the output of the apparatuses (educational, military, industrial or medical) within which it is exercised; in short, to increase both the docility and the utility of all elements of the system" (218).

"If the economic take-off of the West began with the techniques that made possible the accumulation of capital, it might perhaps be said that the methods for administering the accumulation of men made possible a political take-off in relation to the traditional, ritual, costly, violent forms of power [i.e. torture, public executions, corporal punishment, etc. of the middle ages], which soon fell into disuse and were superseded by a subtle, calculated technology of subjection. In fact, the two processes - the accumulation of men and the accumulation of capital - cannot be separated; it would not be possible to solve the problem of the accumulation of men without the growth of an apparatus of production capable of both sustaining them and using them; conversely, the techniques that made the cumulative multiplicity of men useful accelerated the accumulation of capital ... The growth of the capitalist economy gave rise to the specific modality of disciplinary power, whose general formulas, techniques of submitting forces and bodies, in short, 'political anatomy', could be operated in the most diverse political régimes, apparatuses or institutions" (220-221).

References

• Foucault, Foucault (1995). Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books. Retrieved 2008-06-15.