Foucault’s chapter “Panopticism” from his book
titled Discipline & Punish
examines Jeremy Bentham’s idea of the panopticon and its value in exercising
power and control through surveillance. The architectural design of the panopticon
prison, which features a circular holding structure surrounding a central tower
with complete visual access to the holding cells, operates through the idea of
the constant gaze. Prisoners in the cells are transparent to those in the watch
tower; therefore, behavior is consistently controlled. Bars and obstructions
are no longer necessary, since it’s the idea of constant surveillance that challenges
the prisoners’ behavioral outbursts. Essentially, it’s not even necessary for a
watchman to be on duty at all, as it is the threat of the gaze that does the
disciplining. As long as prisoners are aware that they are being watched, they
will behave.
Foucault uses this idea of the Bentham panopticon
and suggests that its methods of disciplinary control might prove successful in
other social institutions beyond prisons. According to the critic, hospitals,
schools, and military operations could also operate more efficiently while
functioning under a panoptic regime. He suggests that a conscious transparency would
not only normalize behavior among workers, students, and soldiers, but that it could
also assist in improving work output and efficiency. What’s implied is the binary
division between the working individuals and those imposing authority and
control. Interesting enough, the latter group does not even have to physically
exist. All that is necessary for the panoptic control to function is the mere idea of constant surveillance.
Although functional in theory, I asked myself
whether something like this could exist in today’s global society. Personally,
I think it’s a little too 1984, and I
can understand if certain institutions resist the panoptic system of discipline
and control. The refusal suggests that human beings should be able to maintain
some sense of privacy and personal agency, which I think is positive. I’m also
not surprised that the institutions that have utilized, or that are still
utilizing this method, reside in the communist countries of Cuba and Vietnam.
The Presidio Modelo, located on the Isla de la Juventude in Cuba is one of the primary examples of Bentham’s concept,
though it’s no longer a functional prison. Its last prisoner was released in
1967, but it still exists today as a national museum. On the other hand, Chi
Hoa prison, located in Ho Chi Minh City, still operates as the area’s main facility.
Its outdoor design is true to the structure of Bentham’s original panopticon. I
didn’t do enough research to compare statistics between these prisons and non-panoptic
facilities, but I would be interested to see if they were comparable. And if
there were, what would that suggest? I don’t think the similarities would
necessarily debunk Bentham or Foucault’s ideas, but it would reveal a new layer
of thought to the examination of behavioral control. What roles do reinforcement,
psychological control, and disciplinary action play in the modification of
behavior? This would be an excellent starting point to a very long academic
paper, or perhaps an article in a parenting magazine. Either way, I’d like to
hear your thoughts!
Jane,
ReplyDeleteFoucault doesn't appear to share Bentham's enthusiasm for the panopticon. It's true that he calls it "ingenious," but in the same breath he also calls it "cruel" (7). Also, he saw prisons as only the most visible application of the big P. For instance, "more profound" variations had been adopted by the military and the workshop.
It's not an enthusiasm he's conveying though. He's making a theoretical point, that the panopticon model stands as a metaphor to show how social institutions can operate successfully. Bentham is primarily focusing on the panopticon prison. Foucault expands this idea and superimposes it onto other social venues. Mainly, he's saying its essential model can work beyond Bentham's vision. Does he agree or disagree with its moral implications? I don't think it matters. I think the point he's making is that the human mind and spirit are both maleable, depending on the conditions surrounding us.
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding to my reply. I think that these type of interchanges fully exploit the value of the blog format. First, I agree that Foucault is not enthusiastic about the panopticon. But he thinks that Bentham is enthusiastic, not only in its application to prisons but in its potential to constitute a "network of mechanisms that would be everywhere . . . running through society without interruption in space and time" (209). Secondly, although Foucault speaks in terms of how, as you say, "its essential model can work beyond Bentham's vision," Foucault also sees variations of the panopticon as functioning in the here and now: in the military, in the workplace, and in the schools (210). Third, as to whether Foucault's moral implication matters, it matters to me, but maybe that's just because I'm malleable in mind and spirit. :)
ReplyDeleteDon't you come from the stop and frisk home of the illegal large soda? Kidding, but seriously. The surveillance state is much more 2013 than 1984. The stuff NSA is doing with algorithms is the epitome of panopticism. Functions for Foucault were at least metaphoric.
ReplyDeleteNice anti-Big Gulp reference there! You have to go to Jersey now to get your fix. Yes, I agree with you. Perhaps I was reading a darker tone in Foucault that gave me a feeling of terror linked to over-exposure. Nonetheless, you're right. Good point.
ReplyDelete