The panopticon derives its function through the amplification and enabling of observation. Sight is a mighty weapon when wielded properly, and frightful to its targets. The evil Lord Sauron in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings takes shape not as a man or monster, but as a great burning eye, piercing the sky with his gaze. His fiery visage is one of the most lingering images, and certainly one of the most haunting. We, though, are not in Middle Earth and our evil leaders are but human, yet the principle remains. Being watched is frightening and possessing the power of observation is pure power. In the past, physical walls and geometric tricks were required to impose such powerful observation. Such construction is now unnecessary as the use of modern technology and the proliferation of cameras make other options more feasible.
Cameras provide the ideal means of observation as the "power" is, "unverifiable: the [subject] must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment" (Foucault, 231). Traveling through Europe last summer, it was interesting to see that there are no traffic cops. Rather, there are traffic cameras, and as I passed through I hadn't the slightest idea where they were located. All I knew is that they were there, watching.
The same idea is echoed throughout literature and movies. Be it the Will Smith blockbuster Enemy of the State or Orwell's 1984, the future is full of surveillance technologies and through them the respective governments have a way to control and deter any undesirable activities. The thought police prove fearful for it is unkown whether they are ever watching.
In the present day, similar technologies are being employed. London has a "ring of steel" around it, consisting of road blocks to slow traffic as the cars pass by cameras equipped with facial recognition technology. A very similar plan has been approved for New York City in the downtown region. Also included in the plans are numerous license plate readers, some hidden inconspicuously on mobile vehicles. Similarly, the border with Mexico is being equipped with "smart fences" with cameras. Interestingly, though, anyone can go online and watch live feed from these cameras and report his or her sightings. This example is strikingly similar to the panopticon, where any untrained individual can take up the role of observer, and where even the public shares the responsibility.
My question has two main elements. One, how accurate is it to call these modern surveillance techniques, both in literature/entertainment and in the real world, a panopticon? And two, what comfort can be had in them, what is their necessity? Is terrorism our black plague? and in this era, with the Patriot Act and all else, are we better off being in such a machine as Foucault describes?
(good reading on the NYC ring of steel: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09ring.html?ex=1343275200&en=219d15391d1af88f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink )
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Calling these surveillance techniques a panopticon is accurate. The idea of the panopticon was to give everybody the sense that he was being watched at all times. "'The goal was to create what Bentham described as a debilitating "sentiment of an invisible omniscience" and “a new mode of obtaining power of mind'" (Watkins, 2007). If you believe that someone is always watching you, or there’s a chance that someone is watching you, there is a much greater chance that you a going to behave and do what you are supposed to be doing. I mean, you've all stolen from John Jay before, and that's because you know no one is watching and you're not going to get caught. But if there were cameras in John Jay, even though you know there are too many tapes for all of them to be watched and your probably not going to get caught, you would be much less likely to take that container full of french fries.
t’s also similar to the recent psychological study published that if you keep a food diary and have some one read it every week, you’re bound to lose twice as much weight as people who don’t. If you know someone is checking up on you, watching you, you’re going to behave. It also reminds me of some people’s view of morality: you’ve got to be good because he’s always watching…kind of like Santa Claus too.
Living in New York, you are taped some hundred times a day. They are in elevators, supermarkets, dorm entrances, and subway stations. In Spain they use cameras to take pictures of license plates of speeding cars. So if you’re not careful you will find a ticket in your mailbox. “Researchers and security companies are developing cameras that not only watch, but interpret what they see. Soon, some cameras may be able to find unattended bags at airports, guess your height, or analyze the way you walk to see if you are hiding something” (AP, 2007).
The point of the panopticon systems is to make society a better, safer place. If people watch their behavior, steal less frequently, speed less often, and if the “bad guys” can more easily be caught, then society is lifted. The hope is then everybody can live more carefree because life is safer. However, there is a fine line we have to be careful of. It is where our privacy becomes more important than our safety. There are many questions: Who is a bad guy? Who are the suspects? Who needs to be investigated? Who should be put on “the list”? These protective services should never expand to the point where people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of being arrested and question, or killed. Or so paranoid of saying anything related to being “wrong.” America was founded on the premise of free speech and it is what makes us a very special society.
Associated Press. "Surveillance cameras' latest job: interpret the threats they see." 26 Feb. 2007. Boston Globe. 28 Sept. 2008 http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/02/26/surveillance_cameras_latest_job_interpret_the_threats_they_see/.
Watkins, Michael. "Welcome to the Panopticon: Are Leaders Under Too Much Scrutiny?" Harvard Business Publishging. 4 2007. Harvard. 28 2008 http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/watkins/2007/05/welcome_to_the_panopticon_1.html.
I think that with time technology has come to play a significant role in our lives, to the point where it has become increasingly hard to avoid it. It is because of this that it is not surprising that cameras now seem to be everywhere and are becoming very hard to avoid. To a certain respect they do resemble a panopticon, because we do not know who is watching and when they are watching. These cameras have the same effect on us as does the control tower in the panopticon since they affect how we act because of the uncertainty of whether or not we are being observed.
As for what comfort can be had in them, is that they will provide footage for the police to review that may be crucial to taking criminals off the street or giving a person who ran a red light a ticket. At times they may seem creepy in that they take away a sense of privacy and have us reminiscing over big brother, but who knows what good they may cause and how one day this footage can make all the difference.
The driving force behind the panopticon is best stated by these words: "We fear that which we cannot see." (Episode 1, Bleach) Cameras are the only tool we currently have to mimic the panopticon machine without confining our entire society into panopticon structures. Cameras, however do fully encapsulate the premise of the panopticon, the idea of watching without being seen, the idea of being watched perpetually, yet inconsistently. Therefore we have successfully implemented with technology this surveillance technique with limiting interactions in the way that a true panoticon would.
There is one situation, however,m where the panopticon fails: in the wake of the insane. In order to be successful the panopticon relies on observed being fearful of the fact that they are being observed. Truly insane people, however, would not care about how closely they are being watch, they would simply act as they chose before physical constraints fell upon them. Foucault's love interest would undoubtedly fail if all it housed were madmen constrained only by the walls and the perpetually feeling of being watched. It is in this situation that "this invisibility is [not] a guarantee of order." (Foucault 230)
(Keiichi Anime Forever: http://www.keiichianimeforever.com/anime/quotes.html)
Before the piece even begins, the audience is advised of the abstract nature and expression of Foucault's work. It is in his odd, unconventional way of thought that we are able to think outside of our social conventions and perhaps point out the jarring truths of human nature that we accept as realities. With such in mind, I believe it is essential, rather than just accurate, to occasionally view our institutions as the panopticons they can so often become. Technology and development are so useful in hiding horrid truths behind a logical and acceptable guise. "Smart cameras" allowing any civilian, biased, prejudiced, angry, or ignorant to persecute another human being is a perfect example of Foucault's illustration. If more citizens were willing to take their minds out of traditional context as Foucault strives to do, perhaps the necessary awareness we lack could be restored or renewed.
While it is necessary to keep an open mind and see modern institutions and surveillance through the lens of Foucault, it is equally important to see them through their practical functions. Social conventions such as surveillance and border control are necessary for the security of the whole, but we must be critical of the sacrifices our society is willing to make to maintain that concept of "greater good." As free, educated citizens it is our responsibility to think beyond our own constraints and the constraints of traditional thought to evaluate if such conventions and institutions infringe upon the rights of human beings in order to maintain "power" of the whole. It is our responsibility. We must perceive our surroundings with an open mind but a critical eye. Personally, I believe that is what Foucault is trying to portray in his piece. We live in a world of institution, of crime, and of chaos, but such does not validate the imposing of such to maintain power above all. Ironically, it is in the hands of the civilians, "the imprisoned," to ponder on and decide if such "power" is beneficial or debilitating to the society in which they live.
Coping with domestic security issues in post-9/11 America has brought many new arguments into a new light. What before was considered an invasion of privacy is now often thought an absolute necessity. Surveillance technology accomplishes nearly all the objectives of the panopticon, save that of isolation. Human communication is at a historical high; people are connected constantly by cell phones and the internet. Thus, despite the pervasive nature of government surveillance which some Americans embrace wholeheartedly as a crime deterrent, terrorist groups continue to plot under the radar of government intelligence agencies.
Our modern panopticon works mostly on the general population. The aveage teenager is certainly less likely to steal from a grocery store if he knows security is watching, but the hungry kid who hasn't eaten in two days is not deterred in the least from stowing a loaf of bread in his coat and walking out. In the same sense, terrorist groups operate in desperation on such extreme assumptions, terrorists are not likely to cease activity now that intelligence agencies have greater reign in the realm of wiretapping. The volume of communication to be monitored is overwhelming--it can't all be reviewed. Therefore, motivated criminal organizations are still able operate in much the same way as they have for years. The reason surveillance scenarios such as Orwell's 1984 are so frightening is that whatever mistakes one made within the range of a telescreen were punished by Big Brother. In our modern version of 1984, surveillance technology is often an empty threat. There is too much communication to monitor to deter people from crimes organized every day in the name of extreme views.
Because of the increase in terrorism in the world, secret spying technology has been newly developed. Smaller cameras and newly designed cameras make it possible to view anyone. Especially with the internet and cell phones, the government can observe what a person is doing.
The visibility has become clearer. The new advances in technology have caused us to become more closely watched.
The panopticon is mainly used for the general population, but i think some people are trying to find a way to implement this into the fight against terrorism. After 9/11 and the bomb that went off in a Spanish train, more securities have been taken to prevent it from happening again.
Panopticon makes power more effective and economic, but it is not designed to save society, merely help it.
Unless human ethics drastically change for some reason, Bentham's all-seeing, all-knowing entity will never come into being. That is a good thing. Mankind would not be better off in a world entirely comprised of Panopticon-style monster machines. However, as posited in the provocation, our own society is getting a taste of surveillance by a greater power. The infamous legislation that has recently made Americans the potential subjects of surveillance, while quite limited, has the power to involve authorities in citizens' personal affairs, and thus is seen as invasive.
Bentham was a philosopher, and the Panopticon is a fascinating thought experiment. It could be an entity of order and effectiveness. But a Panopticon need not be used for all aspects of life. It could be helpful for places in society that require extreme order and a minimum of creative thought, such as post offices, prisons, and factories. But Foucault suggests that the Panopticon and its goals of “strengthening social forces” could be applied to schools, but this seems dangerous. Authoritative supervision of creative thinking is rather counter-productive. In housing complexes and private office buildings, as well as schools, it is generally understood that diversity of thought and freedom of expression are beneficial. Sarah mentioned the concept of “greater good,” and the invocation of that concept should really give us pause. The efficiency and accountability that an essentially omniscient Super-Voyeur would provide to some sectors of society could be abused by the human element, the instinct to seek power. It is a bit like wondering whether the world would be a safer place if a single country possessed every existing nuclear weapon. Presumably that country would say it was “for the greater good.”
I don't think Foucalt meant for his panopticon to solely consist of modern surveillance techniques. The panoptic mechanism as he described it was an ordered system that gave power to many rather than a few and used different techniques to re-enforce this 'prison'. I think this is different from say the society in 1984..where Big Brother has basically all the power and has turned society into a real prison. Yes, the similarities are there--everything people do--their roles all play into the ultimate goal of the society, yet people are forced to do it in their society. In our society, we are not (i hope not) so much forced literally to adhere to what society wants, but how we were brought up has affected what we do. Foucalt talks about how discipline is most effective with subtle techniques (like how in the panopticon where you don't know if you're being watched or not).
I think their role in society is clear-- in our society, at least--it has become necessary for it. In a way, terrorism has become our black plague. Though it is largely inflated by the media, it has become a topic that society has rallied upon and everybody (not just the government) has striven to defeat.
Post a Comment