Although I find Foucault to be very depressing, his essay about Panopticism is quite interesting. After he describes Bentham’s panopticon, I immediately think all the little instances in my day where I automatically regulate my actions. For instance, when I’m on the freeway and cannot find the headset to my phone, I carefully look in my review mirror to double check to see if a police officer is near by. If I think no one is looking, I attempt to make a phone call, but I keep my phone below the steering wheel and I carry out my conversation using the speaker icon. I am afraid to put the phone to my ear because there may be a slight chance that someone is watching me, and although I know that nothing horrible will happen (even if an officer catches me on my cell phone), the thought of receiving a fine for talking on the phone is too stressful to deal with. I do not need the threat of corporal punishment to prevent me from breaking the law, a two hundred and fifty dollar fine will work just the same. Sometimes, just the thought of being pulled over and receiving a ticket is enough to prohibit me from talking on the phone while I’m driving. Either way, I’m constantly regulating my actions regardless of whether someone is surveilling my actions or not.
What is so brilliant about the notion of panoptic surveillance is that it enables us to regulate ourselves. We automatically assume that we are always being watched; therefore, we make sure not to stray too far from what is expected of us. Even if we are not under surveillance, we ultimately monitor ourselves because the fear being reprimanded is quite high. The strength of the panoptic surveillance is its omniscient presence. If we cannot see who is in control but only assume that someone is constantly in power, than we will tread carefully. Once the metaphoric idea of the panoptic tower is set in place, it does not matter whether or not there is a guard or a supervisor because we will ultimately end up monitoring ourselves.
The other aspect of Foucault’s theory that I find intriguing is this idea that whoever is in power or whichever system is in place should operate with an invisible hand. Not knowing who is in control makes it impossible for anyone to revolt against whatever rules or systems that are set in place. It would be very difficult to fight against someone or something that is unidentifiable. How could we challenge something that we cannot see? This invisibility maintains the imbalance of power, and it strips us from accessing our own agency.
Even though I manage to grab onto a few ideas that I think I understand, there are still a lot of passages that are very confusing. Toward the end of the chapter, Foucault states that the “accumulation of men and the accumulation of capital cannot be separated” (220). I’m not quite sure I fully understand what he is saying in this section. I’m hoping we will be able to address this part of the chapter in class.
Hang up and drive! Haha. No, I often wonder how many accidents are caused by fear of being watched. I try not to answer my phone while driving anymore, but I remember the last time I tried I totally lost sight of the road not because of the call but just trying to be sneaky and look at the screen under the my dash. I think that's one place where Foucault doesn't touch on in his panoptic model of discipline- He assumes that people will conform to it without any kind of improvised resistance, which is totally what we do.
ReplyDelete