Summary
Foucault’s Panopticism begins with a story describing how lepers and plague victims were dealt with in the 17th Century—leper’s exclusion, and plague victims intense surveillance and punishment. He then goes on to describe Bentham’s architectural Panopticon, which combines methods of discipline previously established, but to a more effective degree, “The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately. In short, it reverses the principle of the dungeon; or rather of its three functions - to enclose, to deprive of light and to hide - it preserves only the first and eliminates the other two (6).” The panoptic layout sets an authoritative figure in the middle with a full view of the people or things it governs, but restricts the “prisoners” knowledge of the surveillance. This setup allows for democratic control because anyone outside of central control can enter and survey the situation, with the central authority of the panoptic holding responsibility over the institution (9). The base objective of the article talks about reigns of power coming directly from an architectural and democratic figurehead, that could be instituted in ways other than just prisons, but schools and hospitals, to create a central means of discipline and order.
Inquiry
I can understand the idea of the panopticon working in a prison and hospital—central control keeping tabs, allowing those around to be aware of surveillance, but not have to acknowledge authority, simply continue doing what they’re supposed to be doing and no one will be punished or do wrong. However, I read the text with the Internet in mind; those in the cells as every person with access to the World Wide Web, and the central authority as the government keeping tabs on browser history and illegal activity. In context with the hyper world, I support that idea of panopticism—surveillance is sometimes necessary, and has shown to save lives and find predators. Like the layout of the panopticon, while using the Internet, us users are aware our actions are traceable, but if we follow rules laid down by our country, we need not worry; when we break rules (download illegal movies, that sort of thing) we do so the knowledge it is wrong, and should not be surprised if we’re caught. It makes sense. At the same time, as a democratic society, we can change how the system works—just as the central figurehead must allow others to survey them, we have the capability to do the same with our system (of course, this is arguable, to a degree and through lots of work it is possible.)
Questions
- How do you see panopticism working—simply as an architectural layout, social structure, hypertext theory? Or none at all?
- Do you think the central authority in the panoptic theory is a precursor to the Big Brother “Watching Over You” figurehead? Is tyranny in such a system inevitable?
- Do you think the hypertext world will ever be fully democratically regulated? Or will a higher, more influential authority always govern it?
Posts
I am responding to the first question offered, how do I see panopticism working?
ReplyDeleteI see a form of panopticism working in all three of the categories presented in the question. As discussed in class, street signs and speed bumps are forms of panopticism from an architectural standpoint; how a classroom is set up and camera surveillance can be viewed from a social standpoint; and illegal download regulation and browser history surveillance could be looked at in the hypertext panopticism theory. I don’t see the evolvement of the architectural and social structure changing drastically anytime soon, however within the realm of hypertext, much can still occur. We are already all too familiar with stories of illegal downloader’s being made an example of, but how much of an effect has that really had on ‘controlling’ the rest of society? More noticeable with panopticism in hypertext is the use of ‘control’ in what users actually see in terms of advertisements, articles, suggestions, etc. We, as users of the Internet, are utilizing a medium “in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded” (Foucault 3). Hypertext (with Internet) is slowly becoming nothing more than an instrument of subjection in which whoever wishes to, may put us under surveillance (Foucault 6).
I must disagree that a panoptic view of the Internet is the right course of action on some levels, specifically the following statement, “Like the layout of the panopticon, while using the Internet, us users are aware our actions are traceable, but if we follow rules laid down by our country, we need not worry; when we break rules (download illegal movies, that sort of thing) we do so the knowledge it is wrong, and should not be surprised if we’re caught.” It is true that all people should follow the laws of their respective country in any respect, including the World Wide Web; however, the problem encountered by current society is that the technology is advancing significantly faster than the laws that govern that technology. It would be nice to be able to follow a given set of laws in terms of copyright infringement, but these laws are not current enough. Take the following example: If I were to buy a movie from the store, but later lose the physical copy of the movie, should I be able to download the movie from the Internet?
ReplyDeleteAnother problem faced by Internet users is the borderless nature of the Internet. It is possible to move from one webpage to another, with each website hosted in a different country or jurisdiction. This can be a serious issue when you are visiting different countries with different intellectual property laws (take, for example, the popular BitTorrent website The Pirate Bay). If a website says a piece of content is free and claims it is legal, and perhaps it is in the jurisdiction in which the website is hosted, should it be the users responsibility to check every piece of text/media for ownership? Should the user be held responsible for downloading content that is illegal in there country, while they are being told by the website they are visiting that it is legal? If this is the case, should websites be regulated by country and jurisdiction to prevent the user from this situtation?