Foucalt-"Panopticism"

Summary

Michael Foucalt’s Panopticism analyzes and purports the effectiveness of the structure proposed by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, known as the panopticon. Foucalt opens with a description of the antithesis of Bentham’s theory of panopticism: a tightly run, highly-discipline oriented society in which the people are kept in line by strict rules, and even stricter punishments for violating those rules. This society arises out of the crisis of a medieval outbreak of the plague, and extreme measures are taken to limit the spread of the disease as much as possible. Every aspect of this type of society is minutely controlled-there is a procedure for everything, as well as a clear chain of command. “The plague is met by order…It lays down for each individual his place, his body, his disease and his death…”(3)

At the opposite side of the spectrum, Foucalt delves deeply into the benefits of panopticism-a system in which every person under surveillance is separated from one another, and within easy view of a central watching position, which masks the watcher from the subjects’ eyes: “[The subject] is seen, but does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication.”(6) Panopticism is, in almost every way, completely different than the rigid society: instead of power being concentrated in only a few individuals who are beyond scrutiny, the position of the watcher is a loosely defined one, which is open to all individuals of the public, and the watcher themselves can be observed from time to time. In addition, because of the isolation and constant, vague threat of close watch, security does not have to be nearly as extensive: “there were no more bars, no more chains, no more heavy locks…he who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power…”(9)

Foucalt’s intended audience appears to be students/teachers of these theories and relevant others-indeed, this excerpt comes from a textbook entitled Rethinking Architecture: A reader in cultural theory. His background would seem to corroborate this assertion-he was a professor/educator in several institutes of higher learning, and thus would gear his writings toward an academic audience, learners and instructors alike. As with Boudrillard, Foucalt is disseminating his academic, informed opinion through his writings, staking his professional credibility on this argument, using it as leverage.

Inquiry

Foucalt’s examination of the benefits of panopticism, especially when compared so effectively to the nightmare totalitarian society, makes good logical sense, and appeals to the reader’s want of an effective, loosely run institution. However, we ought not to forget that the whole system depends on the principle of obedience through fear, just as the totalitarian system is. Tempting though cynicism might be, it is within the capabilities of human nature to desire to behave in a positive, constructive way without being watched every minute of the day(or living under the threat of such observation). We are more than able to look inside ourselves and find the goodness and conscience that keeps us in line without doing so merely because it violates the letter of the law. However, if the system is all stick and no carrot, resentment will inevitably build, even more so if the subject is made to feel that there has been no trust whatsoever placed in them. Students are similar in this aspect to other subjects in an institution. Enforcement of anti-plagiarism rules, for example, can incorporate a wide spectrum of trust. If every single paper in every single class were run through such a scan such as that provided by turnitin.com, students would feel invalidated, as though they were never worth any amount of trust. Honor codes, while sticky and often naïve systems, must be present on some level to prevent outright resentment and total lack of motivation to abide by the rules.

Discussion Questions

1. In what situations, if any, would a totalitarian system be most effective at keeping order and discipline?

2. On what level does panopticism work? What aspects of it are most effective, and which are unnecessary?

3. To what extent should rigid regulations and subtle observation and enforcement be combined?