The French philosopher Michael Foucault developed the term “panoticsm” based on the work of the social reformist Jeramy Bentham’s panoptic prison, built in 1791. The panopticon prison was designed to allow the observers to watch without the inmates being able to know whether they are being watched. The design of the prison was a circular construction with a central observation tower from which all cells where visible. However this was a new innovation in prison building and one that moved away from the concept of the darkness of the dungeon and opportunities to hide. Instead it is replaced by light which provides visibility instead of concealment. In addition by the design of the cells each inmate is deprived of physical and verbal contact with his peers. In a sense, he or she is socially isolated and unable to communicate or to take up any collective grievances with their superiors. The philosopher Foucault described this as:
“He is seen, but he does not see- he is the object of information, never the subject in communication.” (Foucault,1977: 202)
What appears to be happening is a rearranging and redefining on the concept of control. In effect the Panopticon’s principles are moving to an individualised control in what could be described as a splitting and fragmentation of the masses, from the collective to the individual. In a modern context the E-mail for the receiver is a form of communication and control, in some respects without visual or auditory commands. The email requires you to act and self-regulate. Foucault highlighted similar methods of surveillance or controlling us in our society today, effecting the way we respond to stimuli.
Returning back to Foucault’s research he commented on and alluded to Bentham’s principle, which he stated “that power should be visible and unverifiable’’ (Foucault,1977: 201) what was meant by the previous quote in relation to the Panopticon were two things. Firstly that the inmate was visible continuously and that the tower was static, constant and it will spy upon you. Secondly the unverifiable element was that “he must never know that he is being watched, but he is always sure that this will be so.” (Foucault,1977:201)
In pervious society’s control and surveillance was undertaken by what Christian (1993) refers to as: - “the eye of God.” (Christian, 1993: 19 ). Here God was ever present and witnessed all, every wrongful event (sin was noted.) now in a secular society (sin), as it would seem has been replaced by risk and control by surveillance by the community. In the period of history that Foucault is describing other forms of control and surveillance where emerging. The formation of the first police forces where developed, whilst at the same time trade unions where emerging. This period of history was elegantly described in Pitts quote as “the rise of the dangerous classes.” (Pitts, 1992: 28)
Surveillance and social control was thus emerging and the governments of that time and social reformers like Bentham where aware of the need to protect the interest of capitalism. The similarities in Foucault on Panoptism seems to transcend in time and space, for example it was stated by Storch (1975) that it was take to be :- “an axiom in the police that guard saint James by watching saint Giles.” (Storch, 1975: 61)
In the above example the police observed saint Giles and as such subtlety controlled the working and criminal classes that lived there, whilst simultaneously helped to protect the gentry who lived in the prosperous saint James parish.
Within a modern concept Foucault’s theory and description with surveillance is used by the use of CCTV cameras. Being aware of the watchful eye of the camera, makes people think that they are constantly under suspicion 24 hours a day, resulting in the self-regulating of behaviour and self-imposed prison without bars. Here are the similarities with Foucault’s description of Bentham’s prison.
All these mechanisms are designed to make us act accordingly and fall into line. It is because of this constant knowledge and awareness that we are being watched that we effectively become the perfect docile bodies, self-regulating and obedient. It would seem that the surveillance cameras are there to make a message and in some respects become a modern day statement , that bears similarities to Foucault’s study as they are now the prison guards and we are the prisoners. As George Orwell described it in his book, 1984, your behaviour becomes modified and you self-regulate knowing the gaze of the camera is upon you. “There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the thought police plugged in on any individual wire was guess work. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire wherever they wanted to. You had to live- did live, from habit that became instinct- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and accept in darkness, every movement scrutinised”. (Orwell,1989: p82)
From the previous quote which suggests that human beings adapt their behaviour and become creatures of habit. Perhaps here we have become what Foucault alluded to in his study discipline and punish, as becoming the perfect docile bodies, self-regulating and obedient.
In our modern society the use of the social networking site Facebook places people in the public domain. Here we voluntarily place ourselves in the arena of public gaze, we are aware of our actions and actively being watched and this causes us to self-regulate. This not only affects us in our daily lives but in the virtual world of the internet. The principle is the same, we do not know for sure if we are being watched but comply all the same, because we might be. However this type of surveillance is more technical and advanced than that of the Panopticon, described by Foucault. The use of computers and electronics has been described by some commentators as dataveillance, and they advanced the notion of an electronic panopticon to recognise the important role played by these new technologies, to the routine operation of surveillance. (Lyon ,2009: 25)
Returning back to the social network site a photograph displayed on Facebook can alert others to view images and make connections that can become damaging. We conform to societal norms, behave in the ways others want us to behave again we self-regulate. This can affect what we buy and the image we want them to perceive us by, the clothes we wear and the clubs and associations we join. A stark example of how we self-regulate was outlined within a home office report on electronic monitoring when a juvenile commented on how the effects of being tagged had on the family members, he stated, “ I get home around five, then I see my dad for an hour, and then it gets me back to my house.” Cassidy et al 2005: 13). However whilst society may in the main view the surveillance of its everyday movements as an intrusion in people’s privacy governments and legislators have promoted these intrusions, as positive, In particular in the arena of personal safety associated with crime. Research upon surveillance undertaken by David Lyon that we can self-regulate our behaviour to achieve a positive outcome is evidenced when he stated “risk-based problems always offer chances of self-fulfilment, or the realisation of safety/ security, through prudent choice; to be “at risk” is to possess the information and the capacity to reduce the possibility of harm through responsible self-conduct. (e.g. .not walking alone in “risky areas”) (Lyon,2009: 237)
I believe that the modern world has moved on from Michael Foucault’s study focused on Bentham’s panopticism. The use of technical apparatus for surveillance has made our private lives more visible and controlled. Our actions are now monitored in all areas of our everyday activity. The mobile telephone can now awake us from our slumber; this also transmits a signal, identifying your current location. Also the roadside camera’s monitor your speed, whilst also scanning your number plate against a database of suspicious vehicles. Upon reaching your workplace you swipe your I D card to gain access to the building. When inside and at your workstation you log into your computer which subtly records your arrival time. Upon returning home from work, you are caught on the high street gym, petrol station forecourt CCTV system, and your purchase at the Petrol Station being logged for marketing purposes on your company engineered loyalty card. Even when you get into the commonly perceived privacy of your home, each website you visit assigns you a unique code which helps monitor your web browsing activities. In short a foot print of your behaviour is left as you pursue your everyday existence.
Despite the advancement in technology it may well be that the model of the Panopticon still has a function and purpose in the expanding arena of surveillance as stated by Foucault when he said
‘’ This Panopticon, subtly arranged so that an observer may observe, at a glance, so many different individuals, also allows everyone to come and observe any of the observers. The seeing machine was once a sort of dark room into which individuals spied, it has become a transparent building in which the exercise of power may be supervised by society as a whole’’. (Foucault, 1977:207)
