The Panopticon is Marvelous?

Chapter 3 in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish was quite an alarming read. Foucault describes the way in which discipline through surveillance (as opposed to spectacle) and the act of ordering or individuating bodies is a type of power that consistently reinforces itself. Drawing from the example of the plague in the 17^th century and Bentham’s Panopticon, Foucault illuminates the power of separating bodies and the power of being seen without seeing—the power of constant and anonymous surveillance. In the example of Bentham’s Panopticon, Foucault explains how the existence of the seer or central power figure is of little importance; what is essential is the separation of bodies (inmates) and the idea of the surveillance. Foucault highlights the remarkability of Bentham’s structure because of its efficiency and self-reinforcement: “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 relations in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection” (203). While I find Bentham’s Panopticon and Foucault’s account of surveillance intriguing, I find his claim that the Panopticon is “marvelous” to be incredibly offensive.

Foucault moves on to argue for the possibilities the Panopticon creates:

It makes it possible to draw up differences; among patients, to observe the symptoms of each individual, without the proximity of beds…of contagion…it makes it possible to observe performances, to map aptitudes, to assess characters, to draw up rigorous classifications…to distinguish ‘laziness and stubbornness’ from ‘incurable imbecility’ (203).

Foucault seems to be implying that the power state represented through surveillance and through the separation of bodies will render a kind of control and analysis over the individual that will reveal information and individuality. I find this to be very problematic. While I understand the utility of separating bodies during plague epidemics and in hospitals to prevent contagion (although on a smaller scale, doesn’t exposure also strengthen the immune system?), I cannot agree that the separation and individuating of bodies will reveal aptitude, personal performance or character. This argument seems to be grounded on one side of the nature versus nurture debate and relies on a western ideal of the self that is individual and not collective. I happen to be on the other side of the argument. What about the productivity and potential of the collective, of interaction, and of human relation? Foucault seems to view the idea of the masses, of community and collectivity, as dangerous and uncontrollable, as opposed to a space of unrestrained potential. Again, while I understand the utility of the Panopticon and the appeal of the theory itself, I very much disagree with the assertion that the Panopticon is “marvelous” and that the drawing up of differences between individuals can and should happen through this machinery.