Talk:Panopticism

Links

Can someone please fix links

something someone did and was very dumb for doing

I removed the paragraph which stated that certain NYC MTA ad campaigns were and are the embodiment of Panopticism. The "If you see something, say something" and "There are 16 million eyes in the city. We're counting on all of them," were not panoptic. These campaigns are founded upon the premise that the state cannot be all-seeing. It is the very essence of limited government that the government seeks to remain small while relying upon a vigilant citizenry to report violations of reasonable and duly enacted law. The MTA ad campaign would have been panoptic if it said, "We will pay 1 million New Yorkers a monthly stipend to become informers to the MTA. If you see questionable activity, report it and we will reward you." But that is not the case. The MTA campaign is saying that if any citizen or rider of the MTA sees a potential bomb or terrorist activity, please report it because the government does not have the resources to replace a vigilant population, nor is it desirable. In fact, when the population is vigilant regarding the enforcement of reasonable and duly enacted laws, the police forces can remain relatively small and limited- there is no need for surveillance cameras and nor for a "police state." Such a situation is the exact opposite of Panopticism.

Removed:

Also, the MTA recently introduced a new ad campaign that is essentially the embodiment of all that Foucault finds wrong with the ideology of Panopticism. In one of the “Eyes of New York” ads, 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 of 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."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

This man appears to be editing this page based upon his own conservative views. And I agree with the man below me, he/she has very little understanding of social theory in general.

Error defining panopticism as a opposed to panopticon

I don't know what the person above removed, but his understanding of panopticism seems to be seriously flawed.(174.6.173.189 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Irrelevant sections The section on England and wales comes out of the editor's misunderstanding of panopticism. panopticism is more of a decentered disciplinary apparatus, rather than a big brother entity which stalks and monitors everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.173.189 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Panopticism and Capitalism

Eh, this whole sections reads like an essay. Kind of interesting, but not encyclopedic. I think the word I'm looking for is argumentative. But I'm not a deletionist, so someone else can swing the axe. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Argree, flagged it as POV and then saw your post here. Some of the capitalism statements are probably Foucault's, but they should then be marked as such. --Manscher (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's tangentially related to capitalism at best. Whoever put it there clearly dislikes capitalism, but there are other articles that are about capitalism where that may be relevant. Let's by all means swing the axe at our earliest convenience. Rōnin (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the most irrelevant bits and moved a quote. Rōnin (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this issue is resolved so I've removed the NPOV tag. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 19:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I got rid of the first block of Foucault text. I felt that it was not appropriate to have such a huge block of cited text on a Wikipedia page. If someone feels strongly about the paragraph I removed, I would suggest s/he summarizes the paragraph in their own words and includes that instead. In fact, the "capitalism" section would benefit from some summary in vernacular. Ivan.fyodorovich.karamazov (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ivan - just read your new "post-panopticism" section and found it to be a most interesting addition! Was wondering your opinion on the "Modern Society" section; I'd had some difficulty with the flow of the paragraphs/sub-sections there but avoided the impulse to make any major changes (merely placing my dataveillance paragraph where I thought it would best fit). I noticed you swapped "modern" for "contemporary" (as "modernized" appears right beforehand), which I thought was a good decision. Those types of words can be tricky too, as their meanings are so easily relativized and are therefore somewhat problematic for this subject area. Eagleton89 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Structure of page, where to put Bentham/Foucault

Looking for feedback as I changed the name of the "Summary" section to "Background," and moved everything related to Foucault to the second paragraph; I edited minimally without deleting anything. What do you guys think? Should we add an extra lead sentence? I sort of felt Bentham should make an appearance in the "Background" section but didn't want to alter the meaning of that section... Eagleton89 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)