In 1975, French philosopher Michel Foucault coined the term ‘panopticism’ in his book, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. The term itself is derived from the panopticon, which is a rather ingenious prison design. The panopticon is circular, with prisoners housed on the outer circle with their cells facing towards a central observation tower. The tower is built in such a way that anybody inside can see outwards to monitor the prisoner’s behaviour, but the prisoners cannot see inside the observation structure. What this means is that the tower can be manned by a single guard (or no-one at all for that matter) as the prisoners are never quite sure if they are being observed from the tower that has 360o visibility. In this respect the panopticon reveals its most clever trait: the ability to make the prisoners self-discipline (i.e. behave passively) out of fear of being observed and disciplined accordingly.
(Image: Michael Gagnon)
Panopticism refers specifically to the ways in which we, as everyday people, ‘self-discipline’ in terms of our daily activities. This can be as obvious as obeying the various laws of our society when no-one is around, or as nuanced as choosing socially acceptable clothing (i.e. formal work wear for a formal job) in a variety of situations. Whether minimal or extreme, Foucault’s theory pertains to the belief that we implicitly fear some form of discipline—be it punishment from the police, the loss of our job due or varying degrees of social rejection—and mould our behaviour to suit.
So why am I so caught up on a French philosopher’s theories about self-discipline? This article on the PopSci front page sent my mind a-whirlin’ in regards to the possibilities of a new level of panopticism. The article covers the announcement of a new 360o, 100-megapixel surveillance camera system (called ISIS) which is currently being tested at Boston’s Logan Airport. ISIS is capable of stitching together its panoramic recording view into a single picture, in glorious high-definition quality.
(Image: Faxe)
The ramifications of such technology are clear on a security level: authoritative bodies now have the ability to keep an uninterrupted eye on entire areas, with the sort of picture quality that will make it nigh impossible to avoid detection if you do something non-kosher beneath ISIS’ gaze. But what concerns me most is what this means for panopticism as it relates to everyday people.
This technology presents an immediate potential future where we may be shown on the six o’clock news in ‘glorious’ HD quality… warts and all. Forget the potential embarrassment of having to explain to your mother that you were seen in some background shot on the news picking your nose. That now-archaic fear pales in comparison to seeing yourself on a news broadcast in such high quality that the world will know that you don’t iron your shirts, you don’t notice when your shoelaces are untied or you’re sporting a pimple that could bring Sir Edmund Hillary back to life and make him want to plant a flag on its conquered peak.
(Image: DaBler)
And the worst thing is that we won’t even have to see ourselves in such ways for the HD quality to work its subtle magic. Noticing the same controllable appearance imperfections on other members of the populace will result in much the same end: a world even more concerned with outward appearance. Hollywood actors and makeup artists have had to adjust to the incredible attention to detail afforded by high-definition technology, and so now do we.
Forget the concerns about increased surveillance and the impact that may have on our privacy. I’m more concerned with having to take a meticulous interest in my appearance. Who’s worried with me?
Popular Science has been a leading source of science, technology and gadget news since 1872. With up-to-the minute latest space news, insightful commentary on the new innovations and concept cars ...if it's new or future technology you'll find it at popsci.com.au.
You know it may just be me, but the last thing I’m concerned about with this new technology is whether I’ll look good on camera. I’m concerned about how minutae of my person may be used as evidence against me. For example, if a software program is run on this HD footage that can identify articles of clothing, does that mean that I could be automatically flagged in the airport for wearing the same set of clothing as a currently wanted criminal?
Ha, good by public privacy.
Surveillance doesn’t faze me that much because it should be in the public arena, and i never really do that much to get me in trouble; e.g. murder or drug deal.
I understand the ramifications but, as with absolutely everything it can be used in a bad way. I mean, a shopping trolley can be used in a bad way. It boils down to whether or not we trust the people using hte technology. Probably not since its the government.
On a side note, panoptocism can be tied into the jurisprudential theory of ‘internal point of view’. The internal point of view is when members of a society view the laws of their society internalised. The laws of the state become the morals of hte person.
In this theory we don’t just not do things because we think we are being watched, but also because we think it is WRONG not just ILLEGAL. The difference can be illustrated with drink driving.
Not that long ago people drank and drove all the time. It was a little silly but it wasn’t viewed with teh same moral outrage that it is today. Now we have laws which prohibbit it. If you now own up to drink driving everyone you know will villify you. Its as if you have finally ripped off your mask and, instead of their friend they now see Pol Pot sitting in the room eating the heart of a 5 year old boy (jerked of course).
This is because of the internal point of view.
Interesting stuff.
Agree with the above comment. We’re being more ‘watched’ means that we are more accountable, but it’s also becoming more acceptable to be human and make mistakes. Classic examples are Sarah Palin and her bikini pageant days, or Barack Obama and his pot-smoking admission. Once upon a time both candidates would have been vilified for these actions, but truth is everybody has skeletons in the closet and voters accepted both these actions without too much fuss.
In the case of stuff like surveillance in public places, I’m prepared to sacrifice a degree of anonymity to gain a little safety. There is a limit, though and that cuts in when the government sacrifices liberty for the sake of crimes that may never be committed - hello, internet filter.
While I’m not worried about taking more care in my own personal appearance due to advancements in survaillance technology I am becoming concerned with it’s prevelence. It seems that more and more these days we’re seeing cameras on every street corner. The more advanced these become the more easily a computer program can be created to track the movement of any (perhaps eventually every) individual. And I dont think that just because a tool is in the hands of a goverment means it will be used in the correct way. Recently the RTA owned up to loading everyone’s faces from their licence photos into a program to assist the police more easily identify people from videos/photos. And what did the RTA do when this came out? They apologised without so much as a slap on the wrist and kept right on doing it. That’s the kind of thing that scares me. This whole big brother notion that the western world seems to be getting in to.
So much for taking the road less travelled! Truth be told, the issue of increased surveillance and losses in privacy does concern me, but I incorrectly assumed that you guys may have heard enough of that angle of late. As you all mostly touched on the same topic (increased surveillance being a negative), I’ll address most of this communally.
Panopticism bothers me on almost every level (excluding the parts where we self-discipline that which is illegal). The very existence of the theory of a deterrent against socially unacceptable acts (illegal or otherwise) makes it all too tempting for regulatory bodies (read: the government) to use on the populace. We’re facing issues in Australia at the moment that are not only copping a local public outcry, but also international criticism: the proposed internet content filter springs to mind (which has drawn comparisons with China - not the most glowing of comparisons given the context). The misappropriation of technology to be used as a deterrent on the general population concerns me because it implicitly treats the majority as though it will potentially be doing something wrong - kind of a way of assuming potential guilt (think Minority Report) before we’ve even done anything. Any system at any level that treats or punishes the moral majority (e.g. DRM for games) as though they’re doing the wrong thing, takes things a wee bit too far for my tastes.
Thank you all for your comments, and welcome to the blog Evie!