ESSAY PROGRESS

How do panoptic techniques in modern day society affect those who are subjected to them?

Panopticism is present everywhere in today’s society, where ever we go we are under constant watch of security cameras and other members of the public, this ‘scrutiny,’ causes people to change the way they act, feel and even look. Every move we make is being documented and assessed from a distance, and causes a form of self discipline and change that can be seen in the effects of Bentham’s ‘Panopticon.’

The Panopticon is an ‘annular building’ with individual cells all around the outside and a giant all seeing tower in the middle with venetian blinds on the inside and outside of the windows. This provides a one-way gaze, whereby the subjects in the cells know they are beeing constantly watched,  “hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” (Foucault 1977: 65) It was through this principle of isolation and constant surveillance that the Panopticon functioned. “The inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment,”(Foucault 1977: 65) its this ‘not knowing’ that causes the subjects to start correcting their behavior for fear of being watched, they are “caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.” (Foucault 977: 65)

The Panopticon functions by using 3 separate techniques. Firstly “a strict spatial partitioning” (Foucault: 1977: 61) is needed, this prevents the ‘in mates’ from coming into contact with his fellow inhabitants, “He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject of communication” (Foucault: 1977:65). The second techniques he describes is ‘Surveillance’ which is a form of monitoring activity, this knowledge of being watched has a psychological affect which has the power to create self discipline within the subject. The third technique he talks about is registration, in that it allows us to identify the individual. Individuals are recorded and observed in society today, the information collected about us, are used to create a digital version of us. We can see this showing through in personalized online adverts, which are subjected to us on a regularly basis. “Computers become machines for producing retrievable identities.” (Lyon 2001: 115)

These concepts can be seen in todays CCTV surveillance, “it can be claimed that through surveillance cameras the panoptic technology of power has been electronically extended: our cities have become enormous Panopticons.” (Lyon, 1994; Fyfe and Banister, 1998; Tabor, 2001) Foucault describes the city as a series of “disciplinary mechanism[s].” (1977) CCTV has the ability to trap, control and individualize members of the general public. Maybe CCTV is actually a form of social control, which cause people to conform to what is deemed socially acceptable. In a way this is a restriction on our freedom, Todays society behaves in a manner, which we have been disciplined into, rather than acting freely and without restriction. We are forced to conform to society’s rules, which have an impact on the way the way we view the world, the way we behave, think and look.

“He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself. He inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection.” (Foucault 1977a: 203) What Foucault is referring to, is a form of self discipline that is caused by this “all seeing all knowing power,” which Foucault refers to as “omnipresence.” (Foucault 1977: 62) CCTV recording makes us as individuals accountable for our actions, the fact we are being watched and judged on a daily basis, which deters us from behaving in a way that society sees unacceptable. People essentially correct their behavior as a result of this gaze. It also has the power to change the way they feel about their surroundings. CCTV cameras have the ability to both scare the subject and also provide security. This is because the presence of the cameras indicates there is something that needs to be under surveillance, but there is also the comfort that there will be someone on the other side of the lens.

Surveillance can have a very different effect in some cases. In the 2009 documentary, “We live in public,” the idea of privacy is pushed to its limits. This documentary explores the story of Internet pioneer Josh Harris, who set up a big brother style project, in which he placed more than 100 artists in a human terrarium under New York City. He installed webcams, which followed and captured every move they made, eliminating all privacy. They were provided with as much food, drink and drugs as they like. But were unable to leave for over a month. This constant gaze on the ‘inmates’ resulted in some quite ‘abnormal’ behaviour.

This experiment was “a chance to display oneself under the gaze of the camera” (Ernst, 2002: 461) but this eventually was the destruction of the inhabitants.  At first the ‘inmates’ were in a state of ecstasy, there was a sense of love and compassion, there was also a constant need for attention and recognition, and the subjects were essentially seeking fame, acting differently to how they may usually. “Being under the constant watch of the world influences people to carry out actions they would not usually do. They may either play up to the camera which encourages the subject or they will be more reserved and up tight” (Koskela 2003:) Throughout the documentary you can see how the behavior of the subjects rapidly changes as they begin to get sick of the cameras. They face “the constant torture of the random but ever possible gaze,” (Ainley 1998: 90) this invasion of privacy had a very negative effect, turning these highly creative people into uncreative ‘docile bodies,’ when the experiment finally got closed down by the police, the subjects left in a zombie like state, this ‘strict partition’ from the outside world caused a ‘plague’ like effect, which changed the way they thought about the world and the way they behaved. This is an extreme case of what effect panoptisicm can have on individuals and shows how the techniques used cause radical changes in behavior and personality. The experiment shows that if we continue to increasingly publicize our lives eventually we will feel the wrath of these panoptic techniques.

In some ways the Panopticism, fails without a sophisticated cultural visual language for reminding citizens that they are being watched. We have all been programmed to police each other’s actions essentially. The ‘Panopticion’ makes all acts visible but it is unable to distinguish between acts that conform to the rules and acts that pretend to conform. If it cannot tell the difference between the two there is no threat of retribution, which means the machine fails. The majority of society will conform under the watch of CCTV but a select few will feign conformity, these people understand that even though they know their actions could be on camera there is no definite chance that the footage will be accessed. “[t]he sheer mass of the data would be impossible to handle’”(Lyon, 2001: 52)

There is no denying that these security measures contribute towards a “disciplinary” society, but for some of these methods, rather than being security measures, can be seen as tools which allows the individual to be controlled and therefore society as a whole. (Foucault, 1977)

Foucault describes the disciplinary mechanisms as “subtle coercion for a society to come” (Foucault 1977: 209) quite surprisingly Foucault’s beliefs have become a part of how our society functions today. Many of his ideas have been carried on through various different media. We now have a society, that functions through a number of different bodies, like Hospitals, the Police and Prisons. All of these bodies register, classify and record us. This has been happening for a long time now; Foucaults writings have become a part of the way our world works. We are no longer anonymous; we are known, and it is becoming increasingly easier to access information about us, everywhere we go, there are panoptic forces acting upon us. As Foucault states, “visibility is a trap.” We are unable to act and behave in a manner that apposes the constraints that have been placed upon us. The question is, whether in the modern society, there is any inclination to behave in this way, or whether we have now become a predominantly accepting society of “docile bodies”, (Foucault, 1977) quietly doing as we are told and conforming to the rules without even realizing that we have been conditioned to behave this way through using a series of disciplinary mechanisms that have rooted themselves into our urban fabric.

Panopticism works in many forms. A very different instance would be the use of women in advertising, in a ‘sex sells’ society, we are subjected to hundreds of images of beautiful women on a daily basis, we see huge billboards scattered with women gazing upon us. Here a pair of seductive eyes has replaced the gaze of the CCTV camera. Although the method of delivery has changed, the results do not. This replacement gaze works quite differently on both genders. Men mainly control the media, “In this culture, the look is largely controlled by men. Privileged in general in this society, men also control the visual media. The film and television industries are dominated by men, as is the advertising industry.” (Coward 2000: 33) The use of women in advertising is mainly targeted at males, as this is a very easy way to grab their, all these images of women we come across everyday, are thought of as the perfect women. But actually this is a false representation of what the models are really like, the majority of them have been airbrushed and photo shopped in order to enhance the bodies outlining today’s predominantly male run society’s beliefs about the perfect body, physique, face etc. These are just ideas of what men went, In a highly visual society where looks matter, this can have a negative affect on how men view women and can create a very shallow society. In this day and age there is a clear divide between what is beautiful and what is ugly. This puts pressure on women all over the world who are faced with these images on a daily basis.

“The command created by an image obsessed culture is ‘do some work! Transform Yourself! Look Better! Be more erotic!” (Coward 2000: 39) Women are affected in a very different way. These images Cause women to question their identity and the way they look, this results in a mass makeover essentially. Where women feel inclined to change the way they look. It also causes them to become uncomfortable with the bodies they have. “Women’s experience of sexuality rarely strays far from ideologies and feelings about self-image. There’s a preoccupation with the visual image – of self and others – and a concomitant anxiety about how these images measure up to a socially prescribed ideal” (Coward 2000: 33) This results in a constant race for the perfect body, forever chasing the dream of society’s representation of the perfect woman. This has eventually lead to this size 0 trend, causing girls all over the world to go to extreme measures to lose weight and get in shape, “women are compelled to make themselves attractive in certain ways, and those ways involve submitting to the cultures beliefs about appropriate sexual behavior, women’s appearances are laden down with cultural values, and women have to form their identities within these values, or with difficulty, against them.” (Coward 2000: 36).

Advertisers use this Panoptic Gaze to target consumer’s unconscious needs and sexual desires. It also has the power to influence what we buy, what clothes we where what’s in and what’s out. Everyday we a shown what we want, or what society thinks we want. These desires are targeted on a subliminal level, he are constantly bombarded with these types of adverts. “The camera in contemporary media has been put to use as an extension of the male gaze at women on the streets” (Coward 2000: 33) Coward is referring to voyeurism.

Bibliography

Ainley, R. (1998) Watching the detectors: control and the Panopticon. In R. Ainley (ed.) New Frontiers of Space, Bodies and Gender. London: Routledge, 88-100.

Coward, R. (2000) “The Look,” in Thomas, J. (ed.) Reading Images, Casingstoke: Palgrave, pages 33-39

Ernst, W. (2002) Beyond the rhetoric of panopticism: surveillance as cybernetics. In T.Y.Levin, U. Frohne and P. Weibel (eds.) CTRL[SPACE]: Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother. ZKM Centre for Art and Media: Karlsruhe, 460-463.

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison. London: Penguin Books.

Lyon, D. (1994) The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lyon, D. (2001) Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Fyfe, N.R. and J. Bannister (1998) ‘the eyes upon the street“: closed-circuit television surveillance and the city. In N.R. Fyfe (ed.) Images of the Street: Representation, Experience and Control in Public Space. London: Routledge, 254-267.

Koeskela, H (2003) ‘Cam Era’  – the contemporary urban Panopticon, Surveillance & Society 1(3): 292-313

Tabor, P. (2001) I am a videocam. In I.Borden J.Kerr J.Rendell and A. Pivaro (eds.) The  Unknown City: Contesting Architecture and Social Space. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 122-137.