10 replies to this topic

[Meursault]

Hello everyone,


It's been a long time since I've been remotely active here at TGL (if I was in the first place) and thus I'm coming back into the fold with a discussion about Panopticism in the Information Age (digital age, internet age, etc).

FIRST

Panopticism is the social theory posited by Michel Foucault in the chapter of the same name in his book Discipline and Punish. The name Panopticism comes from Jeremy Bentham's prison, which he called the Panopticon. The prison was a circle of cells with large windows only facing the interior "doughnut-hole" and a central guard tower. The prisoners would not have visual contact with anything other than the central guard tower (outfitted with Venetian Blinds). Herein lies the architectural brilliance of the Panopticon. The construction gave the impression to every prisoner that he was constantly under surveillance from the central tower. And the surveillance from the tower was ambiguous due to the Venetian blinds which would lead to the prisoners being unaware of the presence of a guard. Bentham's idea is that this would turn every prisoner into their own subject. The prisoner would not be disciplined by the guard tower, but would think they might be if they misbehaved and thus normalized their own behavior. The crux of this is that they are the exercising oppressive power upon themselves. Foucault goes on to apply this to many other institutions such as the school and the factory. These institutions, and society as a whole, function as the Panopticon because they all promote the normalization of behavior through observation and the exercise of power through said observation.

(If you don't find this short, shallow explanation amenable here is the Wikipedia article. Alternatively, I have a short 2000ish word essay that goes more in depth if you'd like)


SECOND


Now what does Panopticism mean in the context of the internet? The internet has been considered to have vast potential for liberation, and the revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa seem to support this. However, we've also seen the Panoptic nature of the net through various attacks by organizations seeking to normalize behavior (a tenuous recent example is that of the Kansas teen who seen as criticizing the governor was hounded to apologize from those who saw her actions. Although she didn't it is still and example of the swarming of discipline to those not normalized). Also, Facebook has fairly recently been thought to be giving information to the CIA and controlling the accounts of its' users (ownership over the content posted). In addition, Google's Page Rank system and various advertisements that show up from it stem from knowledge of the content we peruse on the net.

The above are examples of institutions engaging in Panoptic behavior (the school of the Kansas teen, the "factories" of Facebook and Google"), but what of what Foucault really considered the influence of Panopticism? The infiltration of the social body is the realization of Panopticism at it's finest. When the whole mass of humanity acts as millions of eyes constantly observing the other (or the individuals perception that that is the way it is) Panopticism becomes ingrained. In no other area is this more apparent then the Internet.

How so? The anonymous, faceless gaze of the masses allow for comments that "discipline" the original poster. If someone posts a video of them doing an act considered embarassing or engaging in an activity that isn't held in high regard by the majority, the reaction of the internet is to barrage the individual (or have the potential to barrage which is the true normalization. Lots more people could be posting really freaky shit, but they are (un)aware of the backlash from the majority) into not doing that action. I think there are stronger arguments depicting the internet as Panopticon but I don't want to proselytize I want to spark discussion, if this is something to even be discussed.



THIRD

This is where y'all come in. Is this an accurate characterization of the internet? Could it instead be of the liberatory nature so espoused in science-fiction and social theory?

Last question: Is it exactly like Foucault's estimation of Panopticism, that just as Panopticism underwrote and created the framework for the liberties of the Enlightenment, the Panoptic nature of the internet will provide the framework for the liberties that it has been considered to provide?




Please share your thoughts. (Full disclaimer: I have recently finished a paper on this idea and I want to test my arguments against any potential new ones)

[Hugo Holbling]

I'd be interested in your stronger arguments. It's not clear to me yet that the two examples you give are panopticism (in Bentham's sense, at least) since they involve active intervention by the participating public or corporations. Although in Bentham's model the prisoners normalised their own behaviour, it seems that the normalising forces (so to speak) were implicit, although it could be argued that public activism or corporations can only normalise what is to some extent already latent. Why is the internet any more panoptic than the court of public opinion that exists in any community?

[Scotty]

Thanks for posting this, I like your premise.

I don't know the panopticism, but it seems to me if people are policing themselves with the idea that somebody is watching over them, then the Internet is the exact opposite with the ability to be so anonymous.

Now, I suppose you could say that it is becoming more like that with corporations trying to police people by making them fear the potential threat of exposure.

If governments and corporations get bigger into the mix and try to control what is out there, it may end up being pushed that directions.

It is a big fear. I will keep thinking on this though but wanted to respond as I thought it was an interesting topic.

-Scott

[soleo]

It's an interesting idea but I feel it is a little over-enthusiastic.

As I understand it, F's analysis focused on the way a given institution's spatial arrangement could be organised to enable and enhance a greater visibility and thus lead to new forms of internalised disciplinary practices. It is the notion that spatial-architectural arrangements lead to given configurations of power and I think - being enthusiastic myself - the notion could be traced back to the prison-worlds created by Piranesi.

Okay, so in this prison-world, one is forced to act as if one is constantly being surveyed even when one is not and an example could be closed circuit TV on the streets where knowledge of them is supposed to deter crime.

The key to F's argument regarding to Panopticon, then, is that from given spatial organisation a new form of power relation can arise. The individual within such a spatial arrangement plays upon itself both the role of oppressor and oppressed. The individual "who is subjected to a field of visibility and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power" (Discipline and Punish, p 202) which is to say, the subjected quite literally internalises the behavioural codes of the oppressor.

So, rather than power being exercised by some authority, a top down affair, by someone in-power on someone who is not, the oppressor can now be physically absent, but the 'oppressed' will continue to behave as if they were still being watched.

As we can appreciate, I think it is going to be extremely difficult to draw an analogy from this to the internet.

You write:

Quote

The infiltration of the social body is the realization of Panopticism

This may well be so and it reminds me of what Baudrillard wrote in his essay, Forget Foucault, but as we have seen, I think its going to be a troubling step to get from the social body to the internet and in the strictest terms, if you are going to do this, we need stronger arguments than those you have supplied.

But all is not lost!!

What you offer is a very clear idea of how the They or the Other, those members of a community we all live in, promulgate standards of action and behaviour and expect all others to conform to these. In this sense, the They extends its presence into virtually all aspects of life, from language acquisition, to the way we hold a fork, to the lifestyles we happen to 'choose' for ourselves.

Foucault's influential analysis of power, which I feel is basically a reading from Heidegger's das Man, was to point out that power was always relational (as is consciousness), and that rather than emanating from any given site (the government, the economy, the army or police etc), it is diffused in all social relations. In other words, the subject-objects-to as well as being objected-to and objectified-by (I think there's an essay knocking around TGL where a given writer called Qualia spelled out this relational form).

Thus, you might want to critically re-examine your analogy of the Panoptican device to the internet and investigate the various forms of the limit-experience whereby members of a given community (government, CIA, school, forum or what have you) attempt to define and circumscribe the boundaries of legitimate action, behaviour and thought and how these power 'impositions' are contested, debated, troubled, made unstable, exploited and resisted by the Other.

Hope this has helped a little.

Edited by soleo, 30 November 2011 - 01:54 AM.

[Meursault]

Nice posts Hugo, Scotty, and Soleo here is my first reply.

Hugo

Quote

Although in Bentham's model the prisoners normalised their own behaviour, it seems that the normalising forces (so to speak) were implicit, although it could be argued that public activism or corporations can only normalise what is to some extent already latent.

I'm trying to move beyond the original panopticism, in the sense that the physical panoptic gaze is being supplemented by the internet. I'd also argue that the public activism and corporate normalization is an end result of Panopticism anyways.

Scotty

Quote

the Internet is the exact opposite with the ability to be so anonymous.

This is what makes it panoptic, The nature of the internet is democractic (no username is "king") in that it allows the oppressive gaze to be operated by anyone or by no one. It is ambiguous if your actions are being monitored, be it from a corporation, nation-state, or your sysadmin.

Soleo

Quote

The key to F's argument regarding to Panopticon, then, is that from given spatial organisation a new form of power relation can arise. The individual within such a spatial arrangement plays

Yes, that is the traditional argument against the panopticism of the internet. That it lacks the spatial organization of the original panopticon. However, when analyzing the physical structure of the internet it does seem to resemble Bentham's Panopticon. The gaze seems to go from the periphery (the screen of the user) to the central tower of the server. From there the webmaster can censor our actions that take place on the website we enter onto And gazes out from the server. The information flows linearly from server to screen (from tower to cell). The flow of information is decidedly panoptic in that regardless of your action on the net you are still "the object of information, never a subject in communication” (D&P 200). The faceless, segmented mass that F sees arise from panopticism is that of the internet. We are each independently looking into the window (screen) of our "cell" and normalizing our behavior. I think this is why I've considered the internet a supplement or a alternative structure of panopticism because it is no longer the physical surveillance of the school, the factory, the hospital, but the digital surveillance. Mark Winokur in his essay "The Ambiguous Panopticon: Foucault and the Codes of Cyberspace" has two interesting points:


1.) The digital surveillance is not just the other members of the internet acting as prison guards, but the subject-surfer who installs software to monitor his activity on the computer to prevent malicious software, etc.


2.) Code transforms the information that is transferred across the internet. No longer is there the signifier-signified-referent, but the signifier (the line of code) translates to the signified (the result of the code) and the referent no longer exists! The signifier produces the signified. How does this relate to Panopticism? The action of one online are not physical, and thus they are digital, and when it is digital, it is coded and the code is information. The action of the subject is again purely an object of information and the communication is gone.



In Diane Saco's Politics of Visibility she also confront this notion of the internet as Panopticon, particularly in segmenting bodies in space. Her argument is that the internet is able to reconstitute that body in space from the physical world, to cyberspace, and thus it can be more adeptly controlled.

Speaking of Foucault,

Quote

He notes, first, that surveillance is more insidious because more invasive, ubiquitous, and controlling, but he also argues, second, that its techniques produce (fabricate) rather than simply repress the Enlightenment individual. Hence, it is not just social control that is produced here, but also freedom. In fact, control and freedom—like power and resistance—are mutually constituted. Finally, central to these techniques for creating disciplined subjects are “the circuits of communication” with which information ostensibly about us is manufactured, compiled, sold, and distributed. These, then, are the defining features of modern, disciplinary societies: productive techniques of freedom and social control that include, at their base, technologies of communication for the production, reproduction, and dissemination of disciplinary knowledges."

And this is what the freedom of the internet is right? We believe we have the ability to acquire this new information, surf websites, play games, but the starting point is always from that structure of the Panopticon..

Edited by Meursault, 30 November 2011 - 05:33 AM.

[The Heretic]

Others already posted solid points, so let me reassess the idea of the panopticism.

The word is composed of "pan" & "optic," meaning "all-seeing," and Foucualt conceptualized it as a form of power that relies on the constant surveillance of a population & discipline (regimentation of the body), rather than overt repression.

Modern disciplinary societies all feature this. For Foucault, the outcome of panopticism is to create in the person a feeling of conscious & permanent visibility that guarantees the automatic function of a regime of quiet discipline. It is important to note that Foucault contrasted the messy, loud spectacle of the public judicial torture of the Ancien Regime with the discipline of the contemporary prison.

The Internet, especially in the boards like 4chan is much closer to the previous than the latter.

In order to sustain an argument that panopticism is a feature of the Internet, one needs to demonstrate the regime of power that is based on visibility (our identity is available at all times) and silence (we maintain decorum in the face of a faceless mass because we have internalized decorum).

Perhaps the future of the Internet, say, a virtual infrastructure mapped on the existing one called Space in 20 years will erase anonymity and bring our digital selves closer to the physical one, and the feature of panopticism will emerge all the more starkly.

[Meursault]

The Heretic, on 30 November 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

Others already posted solid points, so let me reassess the idea of the panopticism.

The word is composed of "pan" & "optic," meaning "all-seeing," and Foucualt conceptualized it as a form of power that relies on the constant surveillance of a population & discipline (regimentation of the body), rather than overt repression.

Modern disciplinary societies all feature this. For Foucault, the outcome of panopticism is to create in the person a feeling of conscious & permanent visibility that guarantees the automatic function of a regime of quiet discipline. It is important to note that Foucault contrasted the messy, loud spectacle of the public judicial torture of the Ancien Regime with the discipline of the contemporary prison.

The Internet, especially in the boards like 4chan is much closer to the previous than the latter.

In order to sustain an argument that panopticism is a feature of the Internet, one needs to demonstrate the regime of power that is based on visibility (our identity is available at all times) and silence (we maintain decorum in the face of a faceless mass because we have internalized decorum).

Perhaps the future of the Internet, say, a virtual infrastructure mapped on the existing one called Space in 20 years will erase anonymity and bring our digital selves closer to the physical one, and the feature of panopticism will emerge all the more starkly.

I think it's deeper than just being purely "pan-optic". The internet is better than Bentham's Panopticon because of the ambiguity of whether or not we are under surveillance.

Sure, people(?) on 4chan do not necessarily exhibit the self control that the early Panopticon-in-school would instill, but it does normalize this behavior across those particular message boards (the anonymous person feels like they can post whatever because of the nature of /b/). Discipline does not need to be a negation of action, it can actually be a production in that the person's actions were produced by the norms of the website s/he visited. In addition to this 4chan like all other websites is a replication of the structure of information exchange that is the Panopticon-as-internet.

Let's remember, this language we are conversing with is information to our computers, so we are literally an object of information (input) and not actually communicating through our prison cells.

[Mathsteach2]

Yet another interesting thread on TGL, (I wish I could respond more frequently to them all)!

My immediate response is to ask where does Teilhard de Chardin come into all of this!? I trust I am not seen to be diversionary or off-topic.

As a Jesuit priest, sometimes ostracised by the RC Church, he also holds some acknowledgement by others as the "patron saint of the Internet".

I guess one could argue that an all-seeing God has to be the ultimate in panopticism, but now I have moved into the spiritual realm and away from the observed reality of the Internet.

But isn't this exactly what Teilhard was intimating when he developed the idea of a noosphere from Vladimir Vernadski and Edouard le Roy (Wicki "noosphere")? Here at TGL it has also been suggested to me that I look at Sri Aurobindo, where again we move into the spiritual realm.

Whether or not we believe in God, or gods, I do not think we can deny the spiritual side to our being. I am convinced, for good or evil, the Internet is having a profound effect on our development and behaviour. For me personally, since the works of man can so easily be influenced by the devil, my faith in my God (Jesus Christ), and with His guidance, makes me indifferent to the machinations of a possible man-made panopticism inherent in the Internet. Indifferent, but not uninterested!

[Meursault]

Mathsteach2, on 01 December 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

My immediate response is to ask where does Teilhard de Chardin come into all of this!? ...
I guess one could argue that an all-seeing God has to be the ultimate in panopticism, but now I have moved into the spiritual realm and away from the observed reality of the Internet....
But isn't this exactly what Teilhard was intimating when he developed the idea of a noosphere from Vladimir Vernadski and Edouard le Roy (Wicki "noosphere")? Here at TGL it has also been suggested to me that I look at Sri Aurobindo, where again we move into the spiritual realm.

I have not read Teilhard de Chardin or the other authors you mentioned so I couldn't comment on their words.

I do not see God being the ultimate structure of panopticism for his adherents only on the technicality is that panopticism really stems from a democratic gaze. This being that it can be operated by a multiplicity of individuals, more a machine than anything else, and in this case the only wielder would be God. However, I see that God would be like the central guard tower from the Panopticon in that he has the potential to always be watching. But I think part of the oppressive nature about the Panopticon, and the power expressed on surfaces (seems to be an early precursor to "the gaze", Foucault never terms it as such), is that the subject cannot determine if the guard is present at all times, so there is this interesting uncertainty dynamic. Followers of Christianity are fully aware that God is always watching them, so the discipline that arises is less refined than the disciplinary power of the strict panopticism.

Edited by Meursault, 01 December 2011 - 03:55 PM.

[Mathsteach2]

I too have not managed to study Teilhard's own writings. I have tried, but my comprehension struggles!

I first became aware of his ideas through the reading of my basic study texts for Christianity, written by the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung: "On Being a Christian" (1974) and "Does God Exist?" (1978). There are two brief references to Teilhard in the first of these books, and then a more detailed commentary in the second.

Kung writes in DGE: " Nevertheless Pierre Teilhard de Chardin can never be adequately praised for his achievement of being the FIRST (my emphasis - questionable?) to have united theology and science brilliantly in his thought and provoked both scientists and theologians to become aware of their common problems." Reading this obviously prompted me to find out a little more about Teilhard's ideas, now readily available on the Internet.

There was a time in my idealistic (and with anarchistic leanings) youth that if we really were in heaven, with no pain and no corruption etc. then there would be no need for secrets. At the time I saw no need to refrain from saying anything to anybody, and as openly and publically as possible so all could hear, provided it was the truth. By experience I have learnt many times that in this world some things are better left unsaid. To have an anarchist society we all need to be anarchists!

To live in a world where everyone may know everything about everyone else they care to, seemed to me to be not unpleasant, in fact giving rise to a comfort zone for all of us which would then free us to pursue more intellectual endeavours, and, of course, suspected esoteric activities. Even in an anarchist society the propensity for wickedness need not be non-existent.

I am leaning on your phrase, Meursault, "- the technicality is that panopticism really stems from a democratic gaze." I wonder that this is being implied by Teilhard's idea of a noosphere, or a super-consciousness, a Gaia hypothesis, or Sri Aurobindo's "transformation of human life into a form of divine existence."? For Christians, since God is a spiritual being then His all-seeing and ever-presence should not be a detriment to comfortable living and we do not have to concern ourselves whether or not He is taking a nap!

The Internet may well become the ultimate panopticon if permitted to become so by those of us who fear such a possibility. But as with all forms of totalitarianism which try, the true spirit of individuals will never be annihilated. Those who wish to rule and control should take heed of history, even before the advent of the Internet. Those who wish to see the Internet as part of an evolutionary process (to an Omega Point - Christ - in Teilhard's terms) might care to give the noosphere some attention, I think!

[Meursault]

I actually have recently completed a paper about how the Internet in fact challenges the structures I outlined in my first post, and does even a bit more. When I've got it confirmed that it's published in my universities periodical, I'll post in on here. Until then, I don't want them to think that I stole the idea, haha.

When dealing with theory I like to keep Fitzgerald's idea of "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function". So if you are confused with my about-face, it's because I never really believed in the first idea, but decided to look into it on its' merits.

Also, here is the original essay that indicates how the internet is pan-optic (forgive the brevity and inexact language, not one of my best essays and it had to be less than 1500 words)  Internet_Panopticon.doc (41K)
Number of downloads: 0

Edited by Meursault, 06 February 2012 - 06:40 AM.