I found the idea of the panopticon very interesting. I also found the discussion we had about it very fascinating as well. Observation becomes a mechanism that coerces. What Foucault is exploring here is that one can be coerced or forced to do something by merely being constantly watched-and the panopticon is perfect model for doing so. In the class discussion, the question was brought up- how does observation affect an individual? Firstly, when one is being watched or feels that he or she is being watched, the individual become very self-conscious. I would certainly agree with this assertions. When in private or when one thinks they are unseen, we do many things that we wouldn't dare do in front of others. When this privacy is suddenly interrupted, we become very self-conscious as someone has caught us in act we only do when we think we are alone. Someone in class brought up the example of singing while driving. I think this an excellent example. Singing in the car is something we all do, however, it is generally an act we do when we think no one is watching. When another car drives by or pulls up next to you, one suddenly stop and become very embarrassed and self-conscious.
Secondly, as Foucault explains, when one is constantly watched, his or her behavior alters. I would definitely agree with this. This certainly ties into the idea of being self-conscious when we are being observed; however, it is more than just that. Someone in class brought up example of police authorities surveilling drivers. I would argue that the fear of repercussion most certainly affects the way people drive. The chance of there being a police officer hidden on the side of the road is an incentive for driver's to follow the rules of the road. We abide by the speed limit, halt at stop signs and proceed when we have the right of way as we are afraid of what might happen if a police officer catches us disobeying these laws. Many would not abide by these laws if there were no repercussions or the chance that someone of authority could catch us in the act; this therefore alters our driving habit.
I have to agree with you full-heartedly.
ReplyDeleteSurveillance is mostly likely the single most effective way to prevent an individual from doing something undesirable or illegal. I can't help but to think of London, the city of police cameras. There is a camera on nearly every major street corner in the greater metropolitan area, and as a result, open crime decreased. Of course, there are counter examples of this. People actively protesting against the surveillance society have done so in demonstrations and art like Banksy, however, these acts must be done in the cover of night, where cameras have less visability, and there is far less of a police patrol presence.
The notion of being watched is a significant factor in how we act. Any time our chances for being caught increase, the incentive to commit a crime decreases.
Surveillance alone doesn't catch people and I think if more of us take that into consideration than we can begin to find new ways to subvert methods of control. A few years ago I was working at a video store and a co-worker ended up stealing around 60 bucks out of the till. While we certainly had it on film, my manager was unwilling to have us spend time going through the video tape in order to find the culprit. I did anyways and found the offender, but that's not the point. The point is that when you surveil you need to also sift through mounds of garbage data. The more people, the more garbage, the more time, the more you have to pay the surveilers to comb through the mess. At a certain point, much as in the panopticon, we must realize that there is no one in the tower.
ReplyDeleteThis surveillance also flows up. I've heard it said, and agree, that 1984's massive flaw is that it fails to envision the commodification of surveillance methods for the average citizen. Cases of hacking the elites cell phones e-mail accounts and the ubiquitousness of the video capable smart phone puts the power to judge and surveil into hands of the population.
I agree with Foucault's assessment of his time in a manufacturing/early post manufacturing society but it is not 1975 anymore. I believe our power structure is changing and we are looking at a very different sort of discipline take root in our society, though admittedly we're still in a transitional stage and I'm not entirely sure what we're transitioning to.
It's interesting that Tom brings up London, because following the riots several years ago they have tried to make it illegal to appear in public masked. That seems to be the only degree of anonymity one could still use in order to circumvent the panopticon's disciplining gaze, but the government understands that and would like to remove it as the last avenue to be able to act freely.
ReplyDelete