Bruno Latour proposes the idea of an Oligopticon to illustrate the inverse of Michel Foucault's notion of a Panopticon. Oligoptica, "do exactly the opposite of panoptica: they see much too little to feed the megalomania of the inspector or the paranoia of the inspected, but what they see, they see it well." This notion of oligoptica is introduced in order to further Latour's account of the proceedings of scientific activity.
Latour describes parliaments, courtrooms and offices as examples of oligoptica, or special places where the micro-structures of macro-phenomena are crafted. At such locations, the "panorama of associations" is created, and local activities become a “bigger” issue. Sites such as parliaments or courtrooms satisfy our global need to specify places, where different strands of “macro-social” phenomenon are weaved.
"From oligoptica, sturdy but extremely narrow views of the (connected) whole are made possible, as long as connections hold. Nothing it seems can threaten the absolutist gaze of panoptica, and this is why they are loved so much by those sociologists who dream to occupy the center of Bentham’s prison; the tiniest bug can blind oligoptica."[1]
^Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. OUP Oxford, 2005. p. 181
