To What Extent is Modern Society Panoptic?
This essay will compare the effect of
modern surveillance techniques with the theory of Panopticism, the idea that “...People under surveillance are – as in
the Panopticon – to be seen but to never know when or by whom; under control but without physical
intervention...” (Koskela, 2003, p293). Included in surveillance techniques
in our society are Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), internet monitoring and
tracking individuals by digital means; this essay will examine how these affect
human behaviour in a similar way to the Panopticon.
The origin of panopticism has
parallels with how societies faced the threat to life by the plague over three
hundred years ago. At its heart was
order and discipline; each individual was given strict orders and a
surveillance system was imposed until the end of the quarantine. Breaking the rules was punishable by
death. As Foucault states, “The plague-stricken town, traversed
throughout with hierarchy, surveillance, observation, writing... this is the
utopia of the perfectly governed city.” (1977,
p62).
In later years, when making laws and ensuring they were obeyed,
jurists were inspired by how the plague was dealt with, as “...the plague stands for all forms of confusion
and disorder...” (1977, p63), so
the same principles were applied.
Separating individuals out into
confined spaces was central to imposing discipline in various institutions such
as the psychiatric asylum, penitentiary and reform school. The “...disciplinary
mechanisms to which the fear of the plague gave rise...” (Foucault, 1977,
p63) are used to protect society from the abnormal.
Bentham’s Panopticon was designed for
“... punishing the incorrigible, guarding
the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspect, employing the idle,
maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, instructing the willing...” (Bentham,
2008, p01). The original Panopticon was a circular
building in which the inmates occupied cells around its circumference. The guard or inspectors’ lodge was situated
in the very centre of the building, with windows allowing 360 degrees
visibility. This meant that complete
surveillance of all inmates was possible 24 hours a day. The windows to the centrally placed lodge had
blinds that inmates could not see through.
This caused the inmates to potentially behave at all times in fear that
any behaviour that broke the rules would be seen by guards and acted upon.
The separation out of individuals is
key to the success of this means of keeping order; prisoners could not plot
together, patients could not spread diseases, pupils could not interact to
waste time or copy work. Seeing the
central tower reminds the inmate that he can always be seen but he “... must never know whether he is being looked at
at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so” (Foucault,
1977, p65). This building was perfect
for the observation it allowed the guards and the discipline it imposed on the
prisoners. As Foucault sums up, “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.” (1977, p65).
Not using force was a major
attraction of this means of control; in a panoptic institution, locks, chains
and bars were no longer needed because “...
he who is subject to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes
responsibility for the constraints of power...” (Foucault, 1977, p66). The prisoner imposes discipline on himself;
the design of the building minimises the guard’s work.
Foucault also points out that the
Panopticon also did the work of the naturalist by facilitating close
observation of those who are under scrutiny whether as patients, pupils or
workers, for various reasons. However
the Panopticon also had a more sinister use; it could be used to conduct
experiments on people, to alter behaviour, to punish individuals and to try out
teaching experiments in secluded educational establishments including
orphanages. As Foucault summarises, “... the Panopticon is a privileged place
for experiments on men and for analysing with complete certainty the
transformations that may be obtained from them.” (1977, p67).
In our present day society,
surveillance is accepted as the norm.
The CCTV camera is a direct parallel to the form of control just
described in the Panopticon. CCTV cameras
are found all around the United Kingdom; cities, trains, buses and most public
places. In fact the UK has been said to
be the most watched nation in the world, with an estimated total of over 4
million private and public cameras, that being a quarter of the global
total. Before the boom of the cheap
digital camera, the average Londoner could be caught on camera no fewer than
three hundred times a day.
So how effective has the introduction
of this form of surveillance been in changing human behaviour in our modern
society? In 1993, toddler Jamie Bolger
was abducted and murdered by a pair of ten year old school children; their exit
from the shopping centre in Bootle was captured on CCTV and this later led to
their conviction. Because of this, many
local Councils in Britain applied for open street CCTV to help counter
crime. Some three years later, nearly
every major city centre in the country had CCTV. But, as Robin Tudge points out, “One problem is that cameras are only as good
as the people watching the mesmerising monitors... the quality ... varies so
widely as often to render the material unusable for identification purposes.” (1988,
p86). However, the cameras were useful following the
Brixton riots in 1981 where CCTV images were used to identify those breaking
the law and resulted in a significant number of arrests.
It is however apparent that potential
street criminals are aware of the presence and power of CCTV cameras. Tudge (1988) quotes the example of a ‘very
street -smart’ gang one night in London that dished out six random beatings in
one night, all out of sight of CCTV cameras. Despite their efforts to remain
unseen, they still wore hoods and masks that clearly demonstrates they were
aware of the presence of the cameras. By being aware that they could be caught
on camera, potential law-breakers are more likely to think twice. “People
under surveillance are – as in the panopticon – to be seen but to never know
when or by whom; under control but without physical intervention.” (Koskela, 2003, p293).
Covert policing of the internet is
another form of panopticism, where those being watched do not know when or by
whom. Most people today use the internet,
not just for research but for online shopping and social networking. Tudge points out in the case of the latter
that many people fall into the trap of revealing too much information, “...with comments or photos that they forget...
but will be remembered for ever in a cached file somewhere in the world.” (1988,
p16). People can be overly eager to
reveal too much personal information, neatly summed up by Tudge as “...hyper-exhibitionism has been first glamorised
and then normalised.” (1988, p15).
Most people are also unaware that
every Google search they make is retained, regardless of intention. Internet crime is also becoming more
widespread and, as criminal activity is detected and publicised, the public
alters their behaviour. For instance, if
we take the area of counterfeiting of medicines, it is well documented (Legit Script,
2013) that millions of consumers buy their medicines on-line, not having seen a
doctor and therefore not having been given a prescription. Not only is this illegal but the patient/consumer
is more likely to be sold a counterfeit medicine that is unlicensed and may be
dangerous to their health. Awareness
that the internet is an unsafe place to buy their medicines will eventually
become known as campaigns to raise public awareness are carried out. Patients will understand the potential dangers
and consequences of their actions and that buying medicines without a
prescription is, in itself, an illegal act which will cause them to change
their behaviour. Potentially being
observed is a deterrent to committing a crime: the panopticon effect is again
seen at work in our modern society.
In countries where freedom of speech
is restricted, e.g. China, it is well known that censorship of the internet is
undertaken by specialised ‘cyber’ police.
The example of China is a good one as the population is well aware there
is a ‘Big Brother’, as in Orwell’s novel, ‘1984’.
The term is now used to refer to hyper-surveillance; in this
case, people are trained to comb the internet looking for communications
relating to criticisms of the Government.
However, governments cannot always
maintain control of their people via overt policing methods or by taking down
websites and blogs that speak out against them, proving that a panoptic
approach does not always work. A recent
political example of this was the Arab Spring uprisings in 2010/12. Many
believe that were it not for protest messages on the internet going ‘viral’
about the self-burning of a young man
named Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia, the riots throughout the country in protest
about social and political issues would not have happened.
This highlights the requirement of
governments to covertly police the internet. Where people have been found to be
creating unrest, then the government publishes this. The Chinese artist Ai Wei
Wei is an example of where this backfired on the government. Ai went live with
a cover of Gangnam Style, the famous K-pop phenomenon by South Korean rapper
PSY, through the posting of a four minute parody video on Youtube. The video
was an attempt to criticise the Chinese government’s actions to silence his
activism and was quickly blocked by national authorities. Ai was seen as a
direct threat because of standing as a political activist.
In 2011, following his arrest at
Beijing airport on 3 April, he was held for over two months without any
official charges being filed; officials alluded to allegations of ‘economic
crimes’ (tax evasion) but Ai was never charged.
Although the Government was not fully successful in curbing Ai’s
activities (many of his messages would have been via the internet) people who
might not have the protection of such public support would have feared that
they could be arrested and jailed and so curb their political protest activity.
Undoubtedly, for every dissident who would like to speak out on human rights
issues, the vast majority would be too afraid to do so. Other cases which serve to deter people from
activities not endorsed by the state are people who hack into the computer
systems of military establishments.
Gary McKinnon’s case (BBC News 2012)
is one of many examples of this. McKinnon was accused of hacking into US
military software systems. This case was
widely publicised and again this would have served to deter other people doing
this kind of covert activity as the authorities were able to trace the source
of the hacking right back to the computer of Gary McKinnon. Similarly, it is
now well understood by the general public, following wide publicity of cases,
that downloading pornographic images may be under the scrutiny of police who
are specialists in detecting this behaviour.
This knowledge is bound to influence behaviour in that it could deter
this activity. As Foucoult states, “the panoptic schema makes any apparatus of
power more intense... it assures its efficacity by its preventative character.”
(1977, p68).
The panoptic approach can be seen in
operation amongst potential employers today. It was mentioned earlier that a
permanent record of Google searches is retained and can be traced. Employers can use sophisticated technology to
find out information on employees and justify this by pointing out that they
have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide. Tudge (1988) also points out that Google is
developing an app for companies, the main purpose of which is to scan through
employee information such as reviews to predict who might be considering
seeking alternative employment. (Tudge 1988). Even people who have been
employed may be obliged to resign when their on line messaging is
revealed. A current case involves a 17
year old girl, Paris Brown, who had been appointed as Britain’s first youth
police and crime commissioner when it was found she had “... posted a series of crude remarks boasting
about her sex life, taking drugs, and being drunk at work.” (Welham J and
Henry R, Risque Tweets humiliate police
commissioner, The Sunday Times, 7 April (Accessed 10.4.13) She has since resigned her post; as
this story has been front page news and this will raise awareness, especially
among younger people who may forget that what appears on the internet is
universally visible.
Another form of surveillance could be
classified as consensual panopticism.
This can be described as the use of personal smartphones which have the
capability, through GPS navigational software, to track individual
movements. The participants in case are
at least aware that they are being observed and this could influence their
behaviour. People who do not allow
themselves to be tracked could also be assumed to have “something to hide”. (Tudge, 1988, p19)
When we think about panopticism in modern
society compared with the past, it is useful to be aware that, as Tudge states,
“... once, such surveillance activity was
highly targeted and legally regulated; now it is generally applied, unregulated
and absolutely routine.” (1988, p68).
Worldwide use of the internet makes it all too easy to track people’s
buying habits, how they behave, what they say, what they research online. As
internet users become more aware of this, they will alter their behaviour,
similar to the prisoners or the workers observed by the Panopticon. Although the Panopticon itself is no longer
used, its philosophy remains; “...exemplifying
the power and utility of design to enforce a regime of discipline.” (Tudge,
1988, p29). As Foucault states, “He who is subjected to a field of
visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of
power...” (1977, p66) Modern society is panoptic; people’s behaviour is as
visible to those who want to witness it as the prisoners’ behaviour was in the
Panopticon. As awareness grows, people
will alter their behaviour – especially online – so modern society could become
increasingly panoptic in the future.
Bibliography
3) Bentham, J.
(2008) Panopticon; or, The Inspection
House. London: Dodo Press.
4) Foucault,
M. (1977) Discipline and Punish,
London: Penguin Books Ltd.
5) Koskela, H.
(2003) ‘Cam Era: The Contemporary Urban Panopticon’, Surveillance and Society. [Accessed 16
January 2013].
6) Tudge, R.
(1988), The No-Nonsense Guide to Global
Surveillance. Oxford: New Internationalist TM Publications Ltd.
