In order to truly summarize/explain Michel Foucault’s “Panopticism” one must then understand both his point of view as well as Panopticism as a whole. However a primary issue when trying to break down and understand Foucault’s writing is manly due to the fact that his writing, and language itself is difficult to grasp, because at its core this reading is difficult to grasp. The main concept behind Foucault’s “Panopticism” is control and power. These key concepts are stressed throughout Foucault’s entire essay. To understand Foucault’s point of view one must grasp Foucault’s basic principals in “Panopticism”. These principles are centered on the idea of control, which in turn leads to power. When in control an individual/governing body …show more content…
has the capacity to dictate how the individuals being controlled are able to behave as well as act. The word power can be defined as either a person or organization that has the ability to have a lot of control and influence over either individuals or over an organization. When control exists there is power. A prisons main asset in governing its people is its ability to maintain control over its prisoners. A school has a similar principle to it as well. The ideology of education through a controlled environment allows for students to learn. This however if you analysis the relationship between both of them, the similarities are frightening. A prisons guards, rules, cells, and routine, allows order to be maintained. This order is control, without control the prisoners would run rampant thus not permitting the prisoners the ability to learn from their mistakes. This same concept can be brought into context when considering schools. Schools require order, rules, routine, classrooms, and teachers in order to uphold order. Without rules the students wouldn’t learn and then the students wouldn’t learn for new knowledge for the future. The similarities are nearly identical both in concept and in execution. Foucault too expresses how the similarities between schools, hospitals, and prisons resemble one another. These comparisons correlate even in today’s society. People in todays day an age use phones, computers, mp3 players, and tablets all connecting to the Internet and leaving a digital footprint of where they have been, what they are looking up, and what they say. We are monitored, examined, and analyzed either by the sites we visit or the things we post, in a sense we are being controlled. The ability to watch and yet not know when or who in fact is watching you can dictate an individual’s decisions. Foucault discusses the “Panopticon”, and those within the Panopticon cannot see who or when they are being watched. Foucault then discusses how this Panopticon can be used in both the workplace, schools, and in the case of those who are ill either mentally or physically, then a hospital or mental institute as well. One of the main reasons as to why this Panopticon being able to work within the structures of a hospital achievable because those ill cannot interact with each other, therefore they are not allowed to influence one another. This theory in turn allows those with illnesses from worsening or spreading such illness to those around them [in the case of physical illness as well as worsening those with mental issues]. The similarities amongst the Panopticon and the monitoring of peoples activity on the Internet shows how this Panopticon has manifested into something different. The Panopticon, although stated as a physical structure, does not have to be a tangible material. As we can now see this concept of being seen meanwhile not knowing when or who is watching does in turn affect our behavior. The difference between these two structures is that as a modern society we acknowledge the fact that these things have taken into affect and willingly let it be done. We recognize that we can be watched at any moment of our lives either electronically or physically, however unbeknownst to us we are actually responding to this knowledge subconsciously. According to Foucault the Panopticon is expresses as, “the architectural figure of this composition.
We know the principle on which it was based at the periphery, an annular building; at the center, a tower; this tower is pierced with wide windows that open onto the inner side of the ring; the periphery building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole width of the building; they have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding to the windows of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows that light to cross the cell from one end to the other” (Page #184). Foucault explains how those inside cannot see those who are watching them but can still be watched. This, at its core, causes those individuals to respond accordingly and thus make them be more diligent workers, students, etc. This invokes the same response amongst us today on the Internet, we know that someone can watch what we are doing and so we make sure we do not do anything idiotic to end us in trouble. Therefore this basically is the same ideology as the Panopticon. The enclosed environment and constant surveillance is a key concept that allows the Panopticon to work. It will allow for those to whom are being watched within its structure (either physically tangible or intangible), to be controlled in an enclosed environment. Ideally this would be best for a jail, as it would be able to control people and keep them in line for the duties they must carry
out. In order for a new power to take hold then that new power must opposes the original power and in order for it to be implemented it must be utilized. This can also be related to our current political parties and their point of views. Each new opinion that is spawned within a party is usually created in order to challenge a previous idea or it is created due to a challenging point of view, which would in it be challenged. This is a difficult thing to grasp but just like Foucault’s explanation of Panopticism it is difficult to comprehend. However if one was to apply the Panopticon as a whole to all of society, some of the issues that may arise can be foreseen. It can be disputed that the Panopticon will actually cause harm to the society it is implemented into. When contemplating the jails and all the criminals within it, the Panopticon can be harmful; although theoretically it was deemed to show promising results the Panopticon does not punish those who have committed a crime. The Panopticon just leaves those to who have committed a crime to be left in a state of meaningless imprisonment with no actual punishment or acknowledgement of their own wrong doings. The Panopticon would also require a lot of space and therefore be quite costly. This can cause and issue as the funding, if actually attempted would be very difficult in finding. On a more social level if the Panopticon was utilized in everyday society, using the old physical structure as an example, would infringe on the rights of the people; or would it? In modern day society one can argue that this process has all ready begun and that we are letting it happen to us. When one truly analyzes our society, our lives have been fabricated within this structure without our knowledge. With all the technology we have developed it has allowed not only us as people to evolve as people but allowed for Panopticism/the Panopticon to evolve as well and thus make it much easier for those in control and in power to utilize such a device such as Panopticism. One can see that the Foucault’s ideas are difficult to grasp, and they are it is extremely hard to decipher his point of view on the situation as throughout the essay. His point of view seemed, at first, to be in agreeance with what he was expressing. The control the ideal of the Panopticon, although it wasn’t until the near ending of his essay that Foucault’s point of view is skewered and unrecognized. One cannot make a determinate answer as to Foucault’s personal opinion on the topic of which he even wrote about. One can find it difficult to read, as the language as well is quite difficult and thus can posse problems when attempting to write a response. When you don’t understand something you cannot write about it with confidence and without confidence to support your writing, how can you expect your essay to be able to sufficiently explain in detail both Foucault’s thoughts and your own when let alone you don’t even understand his own thoughts. In conclusion one can see that as a whole Michel Foucault’s Panopticism, even when summarized and put into my own words can be difficult. Ultimately the text is what is it is, and that is a hard to read essay with abstract thoughts, difficult vocabulary as well as language etc. The difficulties that come with just reading a hard text follow through with a hard to write summary.
The theory of Panopticon by Foucault can be applied in this poem. According to Foucault, there is a cultural shift from the old traditional discipline of inmates to a European disciplinary system (314). In this new disciplinary model, the prisoners always assume that they are under constant watch by the guards and they start policing themselves. Panopticon is the process of inducing inmates to a state of conscious and ...
Foucault as a post structuralist was very interested and invested in studying society, more specifically the constant changing of knowledge and how society as a whole viewed other individuals within that society. This was done by grouping these individuals into unsavory categories; these categories were developed based on the acts or ideas of these individuals which were seen as being against the “norm”. Within the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, these categories of people were comprised of the prostitutes, vagabonds, beggars, criminals and the mad; they were confined to institutions all across Europe.
I believe that Foucault is trying to address how power manifests in a society. He questions the ‘how of power’ (Foucault, Pg. 92), and the effect of the truth that produces power (Foucault, Pg. 93). Foucault believes that power is produced through discourses of truth, which are learned in society. This creates a triangle of power, right, and truth (Foucault, Pg. 93). Foucault believes that power; right and truth have a highly organized relationship (Foucault, Pg. 93), as societies demand the production of the truth for power (Foucault, Pg. 93).
...t in the Universities in the twentieth century, living out Tocqueville’s fears that equality would penetrate in the intellectual minds as well. Equality has evolved into relativism, and is producing equality of the thoughts; which has allowed a dysfunction and abuse of freedom in the mind. Religion and higher education are the best means of preserving wholesome mores and teaching people how to use their freedom well. Whether one labels it morality, transcendence or self-exploration; it all comes back to the importance of balance in a democratic society. Further, this discussion does not suggest this is the source of success in a democratic society; however, it is definitely a major detail that should be respected and encouraged. The defects of the democratic society, such as, equality, individualism and materialism are actualized in the both Tocqueville and Bloom.
...eded to be punished so they could remain docile. The film gave many scenes that helped to understand Foucault’s arguments that were expressed in Seidman’s reading and in Foucault’s reading, “The Carceral”. Foucault’s argument that power works in a disciplinary way in current society was greatly analyzed in this film because it used a psychiatric ward that had nurses, and other people of authority, who had the power to punish. Having the power to punish and having produced docile bodies are techniques that Foucault would describe as using the, “disciplinary technique”, that is talked about in his, “The Carceral”, chapter of the book, “Discipline and Punish”.
Many scholars have compared Michel Foucault to Friedrich Nietzsche, including Michel Foucault. Foucault has written papers on Nietzsche and talked about Nietzsche’s influence on his writing and philosophy in interviews. When Foucault talked about Nietzsche in an interview, he said that Nietzsche’s ideas can be used and abused. There is some contention between scholars on how much of an influence Nietzsche had on Foucault. Although some might argue that Foucault’s ideas are fundamentally based on Nietzschean ideas, I argue that Foucault’s faithfulness to Nietzsche’s ideas is only foundational because Foucault takes the basic structure of Nietzsche’s theories and builds on it with his own style with the exception of their views on punishment.
Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?
My first instinct was to avoid this article like the plague because of the author. I knew that Michel Foucault’s work would be densely packed and intellectually challenging. A review of so prominent a writer can be fraught with risk. And yet, I was intrigued. The title of the work, in Foucault’s terms is an énoncé or statement that could have meaning only within the context of a more general discourse. Foucault was speaking not simply about others, but about himself and his relationship to the vast discourse for which he is the author. He was, after all, speaking before la Société française de Philosophie, immediately following the publication of his monumental work, The Archeology of Knowledge. This paper will examine the general approach or style of discourse that Foucault uses to lead his audience through his argument.
Sarah Snyder Professor Feola Gov’t 416: Critical Theory Assignment #2 On Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” Michel Foucault may be regarded as the most influential twentieth-century philosopher on the history of systems of thought. His theories focus on the relationship between power and knowledge, and how such may be used as a form of social control through institutions in society. In “Truth and Juridical Forms,” Foucault addresses the development of the nineteenth-century penal regime, which completely transformed the operation of the traditional penal justice system.
panopticon, conceiving it as a grand tool of social progress wherein distractions would be limited and
Foucault begins his work by describing an imaginary institutional building called the Panopticon to describe discipline and show how power is internalized. The Panopticon is designed to have a circular structure in the middle which houses the watchmen and the cells surrounding the tower. This structure allows only the watchmen to see the prisoners, the prisoners cannot see back. Therefore, the watchmen can constantly monitor the prisoners who are placed in individual cells, exemplifying that visibility is a trap. Although it is impossible to watch each prisoner at the same time, the prisoners do not act out because they never know when they are being watched or not, therefore they indirectly
Foucault’s conception of power differs from the Critical theorists conception of criminal violence in the fact that Foucault believes that power is used as a deterrent against crime and is used to keep people in order due to the fear that they are constantly being watched from the “viewing tower” and that power is everywhere. However critical theorist conception of criminal violence is that, “Both crime and the criminal law are shaped by the structure of the political economy, with particular emphasis on the importance of class, ethnicity, race, and gender.” This meaning that unlike Foucault’s power, the power in the Critical theorists is controlled by a select few and its creates crime rather then deter it and
In exploring the markings of modern power, Michel Foucault coined the term “governmentality” – a concept meant to open up enquiry into the myriad of more or less calculated and systematic thoughts and actions that seek to shape, regulate or manage the way people conduct themselves by acting upon their hopes, circumstances and environment.1 He was of the opinion that governing a state is most effective when it colonizes modes of thought. Foucault’s own work examples in “The Subject and Power”, discuss a number of struggles of resistance that have developed over the past few years such as “opposition to the power of men over women, of parents over children, of psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population, of administration over the ways people live”.2 Despite their diversity, these struggles were significant for Foucault because they share a set of common points that allow us to recognize them as local forms of resistance to governmentality. These oppositional struggles focus on the effects of power experienced by those individuals who are immediately subject to them.
In the previous paper, I mentioned about the Panopticon’s advantages and disadvantages and how does it impact our daily life. As time flies, Panopticon is no longer to have one form only, prison, but transformed into many different forms surrounding our lives gradually. This time I will talk about one of its forms in daily lives, in detail to tell you the functions of it and the horror of its power.
Foucault’s investigation on governmentality, focused on the problem of personal subjectivity, is to care for the problems of “who are we” and problems that we are facing. Foucault also pointed out that, the main purpose was not on “what are we” but is to refuse to be “what are we”, his words are: