Foucault's Panopticon Essay

Power finds its way into our daily lives; Foucault illustrates this in the example of education, saying that school succeeds “in making children’s bodies the object of highly complex systems of manipulation and conditioning” (Rainbow, p.66-67). This means that these children grow up to become, for the most part, law abiding citizens, aware of the social norms and relationships of power. Foucault explains this following of the rules as a product of “studiously cultivated fear of criminals” meaning that we “tolerate the maintenance, or rather the reinforcement, of the judicial and police apparatuses” (Rainbow, p.72).

Adding to this discourse surrounding the penal system, Foucault drew on the idea of the ‘Panopticon’ model of a prison which

was designed so that the prisoner would be unaware of whether they were being watched, and thus act in a way which was attending to the rules of the prison. Foucault sees the panopticon as a metaphor for an omnipresent authoritative gaze, being present in not only prison facilities, but in all parts of society, such as schools, offices and hospitals. These are examples of where power need no longer be understood as a force bearing down on society, but a sort of self-regulation of norm behaviour coming from within.

While Foucault’s understanding of the panopticon is valid, they must be expanded upon to adequately tackle contemporary ideas of power and surveillance in society (Caluya, p.3).

Technological advancement has meant that the type of surveillance Foucault addresses with the panopticon does not really address the kinds of databases, computer networks and CCTV. Foucault seems to not only question how the state wields it power, but unlike Marx, seems to put the onus on the public. This theory has been used to understand the phenomenal acceleration and extensive use of surveillance post 9/11. If we apply this theory of a network of power, rather than a oppressor and the oppressed, this attempts to suggest that the shift in security measures post 9/11 did not emerge from “legislation, but from a shift in public consciousness effectuated by a host of ‘local knowledges’ around home safety and security, accident prevention and child prevention” (Caluya, p.6). Just as post 9/11 ushered in new forms of surveillance, the recent acts of violence by ISIS in Iraq have brought about new anti-terrorism laws, with the Prime Minister stating that “one of the most important defences we have against terrorism is social cohesion. It’s particularly important communities feel prepared to report suspicious or problematic behaviour to authorities or intelligence agencies”

(SBS).

Q1 - Do you think that these new anti-terrorist laws are a product of the state, or have emerged from public consciousness?

Q2 - Do you think Foucault’s idea of power as a web is valid, or does Marx’s idea of power as a ‘top down’ model makes more sense?