Contemporary Panopticism
Current social control
©2012
Academic Paper
40 Pages
Summary
The growth in surveillance has been a component of the growth of contemporary society, however, due to advances in information technology and the rise of greater links in communication there are other forms of surveillance, such as the internet and social media, which complicate methods of social control. The mix of advanced technologies supported by sufficient data management systems used by governmental agencies and corporate groups has provided a more undistinguishable and more powerful means of surveillance. Modes of social control have now developed into systems of control where an individual can be empowered and empower others. Living in a society where every movement whether online or while shopping on the local high street can be monitored and scrutinized leads to an environment where intrusion becomes an integral part of modern life. A life of surveillance is therefore sure to prevail.
This paper discusses how contemporary surveillance has elements of the principles of panopticism in its processes. The discourse suggests that contemporary forms of control have some elements of discipline however principles of constant observation with constant scrutiny are highlighted to be a significant aspect of contemporary surveillance processes. Furthermore the paper highlights that contemporary surveillance, where data is power and having knowledge about individuals and groups by governmental agencies and corporations extends this power, collects its information reminiscent of panopticism.
This paper discusses how contemporary surveillance has elements of the principles of panopticism in its processes. The discourse suggests that contemporary forms of control have some elements of discipline however principles of constant observation with constant scrutiny are highlighted to be a significant aspect of contemporary surveillance processes. Furthermore the paper highlights that contemporary surveillance, where data is power and having knowledge about individuals and groups by governmental agencies and corporations extends this power, collects its information reminiscent of panopticism.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
9
ABSTRACT
The growth in surveillance has been a component of the growth of contemporary
society, however, due to advances in information technology and the rise of greater
links in communication there are other forms of surveillance, such as the internet and
social media, which complicate methods of social control. The mix of advanced
technologies supported by sufficient data management systems used by
governmental agencies and corporate groups has provided a more undistinguishable
and more powerful means of surveillance. Modes of social control have now
developed into systems of control where an individual can be empowered and
empower others. Living in a society where every movement whether online or while
shopping on the local high street can be monitored and scrutinized leads to an
environment where intrusion becomes an integral part of modern life. A life of
surveillance is therefore sure to prevail. This paper discusses how contemporary
surveillance has elements of the principles of panopticism in its processes. The
discourse suggests that contemporary forms of control have some elements of
discipline however principles of constant observation with constant scrutiny are
highlighted to be a significant aspect of contemporary surveillance processes.
Furthermore the paper highlights that contemporary surveillance, where data is
power and having knowledge about individuals and groups by governmental
agencies and corporations extends this power, collects its information reminiscent of
panopticism.
10
INTRODUCTION
This aim of this paper is to argue that contemporary surveillance is a panoptic
process. In order to do this, the paper will compare the principles of panopticism in
contemporary surveillance methods to its origins in Victorian surveillance. It will be
based around panopticism as panopticism is a key theory in understanding how
power and control is distributed through the means of surveillance. The first section
will be a historical analysis of surveillance focusing on how discipline, control and
power through the means of surveillance, are embodied within the principles of
panopticism. This section will also look at Victorian surveillance processes and how
power and control was subjected on individuals and for what purpose. The second
section will explore the concept of panopticism in terms of power, discipline and
control. This section will critically analyse Michel Foucault's work on panopticism
through the work of Gilles Deleuze, focusing on the panoptic principles of discipline
and control. The third section will be a contemporary analysis of power and control
within contemporary surveillance methods. This section will attempt to highlight that
contemporary surveillance methods have large elements of panopticism within its
processes. Due to limitations, this paper will focus on the contemporary surveillance
methods of security and surveillance, Institutional surveillance and social media and
surveillance.
11
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF PANOPTICISM
Before delving into the concept and principles of panopticism, it is important to
understand the period in which it was developed. This would be useful in order to
analyse the relevance of panoptic principles in Victorian society and furthermore its
value in contemporary society. During the Victorian era there were many notable
changes occurring in society such as political developments and cultural reform.
Upper and middle classes wanted to separate themselves from the lower working
classes such as labourers. This was done by instilling discipline to these labourers
which was used in a manner to control them and keep them subjected to power
(Andrzejewski, 2008). These labourers were cogs within the key change of this
period, being the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution developed from an
industrialisation boom resulting in a change from an agricultural focused society into
asociety based on an economy of trade and manufacturing. This rapid growth of
manufacturing led to a society of capitalism where efficiency of production became a
key aspect of this growth. Efficiency of production was based on discipline of
labourers (Andrzejewski, 2008).
Within a factory setting the labourers' were under constant surveillance by
supervisors which ensured compliance to rules and regulations of the workplace and
consequences were harsh if not compliant. In many instances the workers did not
know they were being watched and therefore assumed they were always being
watched (Mainwright, 2005). This constant observation was performed in order to
gather information on the best workers and which labourers could be utilised best for
the purposes of production (Clark, 1994). Supervisors noted down which workers
performed and these observers also highlighted any room for improvement thus
suggesting that the supervisors had the role of scrutinising where workers were not
compliant. Where it was found that labourers were performing very well, these
individuals were given longer breaks or given opportunity to gain more money
through work. They were also encouraged to tell supervisors which workers are not
working or causing disruption to the production process (Clark, 1994).Consequences
of lack of compliance to performance standards or rules and regulations however, led
to punishments which included lack of pay if the workers arrived late for their shift or
talking while at work (Andrzejewski, 2008 and Clark, 1994). This ensured that the
12
workers must arrive together and work together in a coordinated manner. This
developed an internal discipline of time and mentality. Factory discipline was very
important and the supervisor dictated the discipline in many ways. The supervisor
told the workers when to work, how they conduct themselves during the job and
make sure the jobs are being done within a reasonable time. Discipline was therefore
designed to "coerce workers into doing more work than they would freely choose to
do had they maintained control of their hours of work and work intensity" (Clark,
1994: 129). Discipline was used in a manner to increase potential for profit in order to
gain as much as possible from an individual worker.
Following the above discourse, it is now possible to understand and analyse the
inception of panopticism as a concept of surveillance. The above discourse will aid in
understanding how principles of control and power are subjected on individuals and
groups in contemporary surveillance methods.
13
CHARACTERISTICS OF PANOPTICISM
The panopticon is a type of building, such as a factory, hospital or school designed
by English utilitarian Jeremy Bentham. The specific design of the building allowed an
individual to observe many inmates of an institution without the inmates ever knowing
they are being watched. The most analysed institution within the framework of the
panopticon design is of a prison setting. It is difficult to theorize contemporary
surveillance and panopticism without any confrontation from Michel Foucault's
`Discipline and Punish' (1975) discourse. Foucault attempts to elaborate on the
concept of panopticism and highlights the function of discipline as a mechanism
within a prison. Furthermore he argues that discipline is used as a form of power
against inmates. Foucault suggests that constant observation or perceived
observation acts as a control mechanism where discipline is internalised leading to
inmates becoming socially constructed identities which are considered `norms' of
society (Foucault 1975). Once discipline is internalised, the inmates conform to these
`norms' automatically; a concept called `docile bodies' by Foucault. He also
emphasized the importance of the principle that power should be visible and
unverifiable where the supervisor or prison guard sees everything yet is never seen
by the inmate. His analysis goes on to state that constant observation of the inmate
allows to order and provide `social sorting' of the inmates which allows constant
scrutiny of the inmates behaviour and mannerisms. Once the inmates are
individualised and are under constant observation, there are greater levels of
efficiency within the prison which leads to an automatic functioning of power.
The theoretical analysis of Foucault's work on panopticism and particularly of his
work on discipline is a key critique used by commentators such as Gilles Deleuze.
Deleuze suggested that Foucault's work on discipline and control is not
representative of post-modern societies and Deleuze's critique will form the basis of
critique for the purposes of this paper. "Postscript on the societies of control" (1992)
by Deleuze suggested a shift in society from a disciplinary society as stipulated by
Foucault to a controlling society where individuals and the environment where they
reside and work, become more complicated, diverse and technologically advanced.
Deleuze suggests in his discourse regarding panopticism, that the spatial metaphor
used by Foucault in his analysis of the panopticon, is no longer applicable in post-
14
modern societies. Within the context of space, Deleuze suggests that discipline is
highly reliant on its enclosures which operate as `castings' or `moulds'. These
enclosures can be of various types; either physical, cultural or material (Deleuze,
1992).
Disciplined societies are societies where every individual has their own `signature'
however in post modern societies, Deleuze suggests that control and power needs to
be understood in terms of open and fluid spaces (Simon, 2005: 15) highlighting that
control and discipline does not act on the body so much as the environment through
which the body moves (Simon, 2005: 15). Societies of control however modulate a
body whereas societies of discipline attempt to objectify and stabilize bodies. The
`signatures' of an individual are different in societies of control and are not so much
signatures but codes; codes acting as a password to access locations or services
and therefore control mobility. Deleuze therefore highlights in his argument that an
individual is doubled as code, as information or as simulation such that the metaphor
of the panoptic gaze is no longer relevant to the physical body, but its `coded' double.
Observation is therefore not a key indicator of surveillance in post-modern society,
but of data analysis. Controlling societies emphasise `information' about bodies and
minds and not `acting' on bodies and minds (Boyne, 2000). This emphasis on
information about individuals according to Deleuze, produce a form of `dataveillance'
which parallel the modulating effects of power. These effects of modulating are
occurring due to the potential of technology to produce and manage these `data
doubles' of individual citizens. These concepts towards the identification of an
individual could never be matched by mere visual enclosure (Simon, 2005: 15).
Disciplinary surveillance is designed to control the body and mind yet `dataveillance'
aims to control the representation of the body through data and statistical analysis.
Deleuzes' argument towards to a society of control and not of discipline is further
enhanced by other commentators such as Poster (1996) and Lyon (2003). Poster
argues that these databases act as a `superpanopticon' where information is
sourced, sorted and organised, producing subjects of power. Lyon (2003) further
suggests that controlling societies are potentially scarier than disciplinary societies.
Lyon suggests that as greater amount of data is collected and administered
regarding an individual, it is possible to gain an insight into the movements, actions,
15
interests, eating habits or spending habits of that individual. This can then be
assessed for various purposes such as national security or for gaining an edge within
the realms of business for capitalist gain. This therefore leads to contemporary
surveillance methods and its relevance to principles of panopticism.
16
CONTEMPORARY SURVEILLANCE AND PRINCIPLES OF
PANOPTICISM
As David Lyon has pointed out, the sociological response to the general issue of
surveillance has been dominated by images of the Panopticon (Lyon 1994). This has
been especially true of CCTV surveillance which naturally invites comparisons with
Jeremy Bentham's proposal, written in 1787, for an architectural system of social
discipline, applicable to prisons, factories, workhouses and asylums. Bentham' s
architectural design "has been one of the most powerful metaphors in locating the
theoretical and social significance of CCTV in contemporary society" (Norris 2003:
249). The design of the panopticon illustrates the mechanism of surveillance. It
consists of a circular prison building including a central watchtower. It enables a
single officer to control a multitude of prisoners. Its impressive clearness makes it an
evident model for contemporary trends of surveillance. In form of modern CCTV
systems as for example in shopping malls the panopticon suppose to celebrate
its renaissance: The view of the camera's eye is expected to be felt by the subjects
regardless of the operation or even the existence of a CCTV system. It is hardly
surprising, then, given the parallels that can be drawn with CCTV, that many theorists
have been drawn to both Foucault's concept of the Panopticon and his analysis of its
disciplinary potential (see Davis 1990; Fyfe and Banister 1996; Reeve 1998).
As Fyfe and Bannister (1994) note, CCTV, like the Panopticon, facilitates the power
of the watchers over the watched not only by enabling swift intervention to displays of
non-conformity but also through the promotion of habituated anticipatory conformity.
However, just taking the diversity of current forms of CCTV systems into account, it is
obvious that the panopticon approach, stressing parallels to the industrial age of the
19
th
century, is highly questionable in regard to current social developments towards a
post-industrial society based on mobility and information flows. Lyon considers:
"Whatever one may learn from Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon or George Orwell's
totalitarian telescreen technology, it is not clear if these are entirely helpful ways of
understanding surveillance today." (Lyon 2002: 4). Thus McCahill states that one has
to go "beyond Foucault" (McCahill 1999). Given the challenges of globalisation and
the new patterns of living in a highly individualised society the panopticon has to be
re-examined, combined with other discourses and models. Re-reading Foucault
17
Norris has lately extended the understanding of it. He pointed out that in the end the
panopticon is "far more than anarchitectural form of visualization". It implies at its
"heart" already "the collection of individualized codified information". As the deviant is
segregated from society, the panopticon is "exclusionary" as well as "inclusionary". It
provides a "rationale for social classification" (Norris 2003: 251).
A further strand is to interpret the increasing use of CCTV in the context of the
contemporary shift towards a risk society (Beck 1986). Thus, a changing perception
of security can be observed all over the world. New sources of insecurities are
located in terrorism, drug trade, growing social inequalities, transnational migration or
the vulnerability of information and communication infrastructure. In this context
CCTV is understood as a response to risks. The multifunctional potential of it makes
it a management tool for all kinds of dangers and possible hazards, such as traffic
jams, fire, tunnel accidents, crime, terrorist attacks etc. In this respect a shift from
reactive to proactive policing can be considered. Moreover, it has been pointed out,
that the management of risks is not only addressed to state agencies as the police
but increasingly to a mixture of institutions and organisations within the security
branch. In combination with neo-liberal political programmes and strategies risk
management becomes more and more a responsibility of corporate and individual
regulation. (McCahill1999: 54) An installation of a CCTV system leads meanwhile
probably in many countries of Europe to price deductions in insurance. The suicide
plane attacks of September 11
th
have certainly roused a world-wide concern for
issues of risk and increased the sense of insecurity. It is likely it has intensified the
public acceptance for the further installation of CCTV throughout the world.
A further perspective of understanding the increasing use of CCTV is the current
trend of commodification urban space. Its increasing employment is described as
part of a broader transformation of contemporary cities throughout Europe. Within the
reconstruction of the old industrial to the new post-fordist city, which is characterised
not by a mixture of functions, but first by the management of leisure and
consumption, CCTV is understood as a tool of economic restructuring space. Parallel
to architectural revitalisation, declined city centres, e.g. around central stations, shall
be "won back "through its employment. It is argued, that the aim is to create a
'commode' space for tourists and consumers. In times of scarce urban financial
18
resources a new emerging understanding of urbanism is suspected to immolate
public space for pure economic interest. Reeve considers: "The danger is that this
largely insidious move towards a particular and commercially driven conception of
what public space is for may lead to management and even policing practices which
reduce the social richness of public space and thereby reduces its potential to be
genuinely civilising and civic" (Reeve 1999: 73).
Turning away from the idea of urbanism in terms of social difference it is assumed
that public space is transformed to homogenised zones. But the purpose of
commodification is not just the creation of pleasing and comfortable atmospheres.
Within the entrepreneurial city, it is said, that the managing of urban space means to
classify people according to their economic purchasing power. According to this
visual surveillance could become a tool of social exclusion. It is argued, that people
could be sorted out by operators if their appearance and behaviour is not in
accordance with the commercial utilisation of space. Hence would follow, the
commodification of urban space implies its segmentation according to certain social
affiliations, which are negotiated not publicly, but determined by commercial
interests. In line with that, it is also seen that the commodification of urban space
correlates secondly with an inner commodification of behaviour of those who want to
belong to the favoured space. A certain behaviour and appearance is asked for in
order to participate on the playground of leisure and consumption. Within this context
the surveillance potential of CCTV turns out to be one of "social sorting" (Lyon 2003).
While surveillance can be perceived as monitoring of people's actions, the key
characteristic that singularizes dataveillance is the type of monitoring; under
surveillance, tactics of monitoring are more physical whereas dataveillance practices
are digital. Particularly, dataveillance can express interest for the digital traces of a
person as for example credit card transactions, phone calls, online activity and online
purchases. Clarke identifies two types of dataveillance; personal and mass
dataveillance techniques. (Clarke, 1988)
Personal dataveillance mechanisms are simply records that organizations/companies
or institutions keep of individuals they are interested in, for purposes of determining
whether their financial transactions for example are acceptable or valid. Mass
dataveillance mechanisms are applied on a group of people when there is a certain
Details
- Pages
- Type of Edition
- Erstausgabe
- Year
- 2012
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783954894864
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783954894871
- File size
- 706 KB
- Language
- English
- Institution / College
- Coventry University – Law
- Publication date
- 2015 (December)
- Grade
- 1st Class
- Keywords
- panopticism contemporary surveillance institutional surveillance social media surveillance panopticon foucault deleuze Dataveillance
