"The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring one is totally seen without ever seeing; in the central tower one sees everything without ever being seen" (p.5)
Summary
In his article entitled "Panopticism," Michel Foucault describes the ultimate surveillance mechanism known as the panopticon and its subsequent impact on society. Often utilized in prisons, the structure of the panopticon is effective in that the constant fear of being watched causes individuals to self-monitor their actions in fear of being caught.
According to Foucault it is the ultimate "utopia of a perfectly governed city," (p. 4), as the panopticon functions as a lab of power where society can be examined in its de-individualized form. Through observations, one can become more efficient in how to best control society, and thus have the ability to understand what motivates individuals to do what they do. As knowledge follows the advancement of power, the panopticon becomes the ultimate way of examining "power of mind over mind," as those who are in the outer ring of the panopticon self-monitor their thoughts and actions to appease the all-seeing eye that keeps watch. Foucault concludes that the concept of the Panopticon can be applied to anything, for it is ultimately a discipline mechanism that has evolved from a model of surveillance through the ages to something that could ultimately form a disciplinary society.
Inquiry
While the Panopticon's creator Bentham utilized this design for buildings, Foucault explores how the Panopticon could be applied to any venture, where absolute power is focused and honed on those in the periphery ring. He claims that Bentham:
"dreamt of transforming into a network of mechanisms that would be everywhere and always alert, running through society without interference in space or time," (p. 7).
As a society we are becoming increasingly dependent on automatic forms of new media such as calender updates, e-bill reminders, and text messages that delve into our private lives and personal information. Take the example of e-bill reminders - why deal with the hassle of remembering to pay your bills when you can sign up for e-bills, which automatically deduct your monthly payments from your bank of choice and apply said credit to your account. In the new media age where identity theft is far too common, this reliance on programs to access our personal bank accounts to pay for services that automate our lives demonstrates how far the Panopticon has infiltrated our daily lives. We, the consumer are in the periphery ring, self-monitoring our actions by paying bills on time to avoid legal consequences. Giant corporations sit in the "tower," controlling how much services cost, when services must be paid for, and cracking down on those who do not comply. Those who occupy the tower are nameless faces to us, we just know that at the end of the month when we see that our cell phone bill and utilities were paid for the system works. We are completely at the mercy of those in the "tower," who power our lives but pay little attention to the automatic e-bill programs that silently siphon funds away to pay for our life expenses without creating a ripple in our fast paced lives.
Given that we are becoming increasingly reliant on these invisible mechanisms that power our lives, here are some points to ponder:
- As new media becomes increasingly automatic, and the world powers are grappling to create bylaws that govern new media use, how does the Panopticon model fit into the rampant growth of new media?
- Following the structure of the Panopticon, where those in the periphery ring exist in individual cells constantly self-monitoring their actions to avoid being caught, and those in the tower exist to keep watch over the outer ring, who is in the "tower," of today's Panopticon regarding new media?
- Should there be rules and regulations citing how those in the "tower," must enforce their power to avoid a total invasion of privacy?
- Does privacy exist in the Panopticon model?
5 comments
I do believe that there should be rules that draw the line between what is okay to be monitored and what is an invasion of privacy. I feel that the victim in the Panopticon model may feel as though they have no privacy because they are being watched, however, they have some. Take security cameras in stores for example. Although they are “watching” you at all times, when you enter a restroom they can no longer follow you. On a societal level, I believe that everyone needs privacy too. If the government were in control of absolutely everything, we would turn into robots—following the rules that were given to us and never striving to stir from the status quo. Even though in the Panopticon model the victims are not under constant watch, the pressure the victims are under does the same damage; some privacy is a necessity.
I think that one of the major problems with new media is that the society as a whole become completely unaware or ambivalent to whom exactly is in the guard tower, “watching us.” Every time we log onto the computer, the websites that we go on can be tracked using “cookies,” and the reason we allow them is because the tracking of our actions on the internet are supposed to make surfing the web easier for us. We might have the convenience now of having websites that remember what we previously bought, like Amazon.com, and it will then make suggestions as to what we should buy next time, but do we really know who else is looking at all that information that people put on the web? If I would have to guess, I would say that large corporations (not really the government) are the ones that are watching and exploiting its “prisoners.”
I believe that the Panopticon model is very evident in new media, but most of society does not understand new media enough to modify their behavior as would be described by the model. For example, in British society, it is a well known fact that CCTVs are used to deter crime and increase security. As a result, individuals behave differently with the knowledge that they are being watched. In contrast, most individuals who are on the Internet are under the impression that they are anonymous, but often times, this is not true. For example, with illegal file sharing, it is possible that all activity is being tracked, but people don’t believe that the threat of being under surveillance is enough to modify their behavior. People are more threatened by the physical idea of the Panopticon (surveillance cameras) more than the digital one.
I think new media has already passed the points of being invasive. While the Panopticon is used as a form of control for those who have already gotten out of control by society's standards, it is one of the few forms of new media that is used strictly to discipline and punish after the wrongdoing has been done. Most forms of new media are used as a form of control even before the illegal or wrong actions have been taken. It seems as though new media is on track to control or watch all aspects of people's lives and I wonder if the next step is going to be tracking devices implanted into a person or 24-hour surveillance where any third party can see what a person is doing. The government is quickly turning into the model of the Panoptican and I believe we all have a right to privacy, but that right has been invaded and is continuing to be even more invaded as more new media is developed.
Jeannette, do you have any examples of most forms of new media being used as a form of control before illegal actions have taken place? I don't question the statement, per se, I just question whether or not MOST forms of new media experience such control. I know that the Patriot Act has given government security agencies far more control than they used to have, over new media especially, in the hopes that they can prevent terrorist attacks, but do you have any concrete evidence that our privacy can be interrupted at will, or are there still some personal programs such as email that don't go constantly monitered? Also, do you feel like this tactic of prevention vs. reaction is a better tactic for the safety of our society, or is it truly a massive invasion of privacy?
Post a Comment