How do panoptic techniques in modern day
society affect those who are subjected to them?
Panopticism
is present everywhere in today’s society; England is the worlds most watched
city. If it’s not the thousands of security cameras monitoring your movements then
it’s the constant watch of the public, this ‘scrutiny,’ can cause a change in the
way they we act, feel and even look. In a fast growing digital society it is
becoming easier to monitor and register the general public. Every move we make is
documented and assessed from a distance, this constant watch of the world causes
a form of self discipline and change which has almost identical qualities to 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 being 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 ‘inmates’ from
coming into contact with their 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 technique he describes is ‘Surveillance’, which
is a form of monitoring activity. This idea 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, is used to create a digital version
of us. We can see this showing through in personalized online adverts, which we
are subjected to 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 causes people to conform to what is deemed
socially acceptable. In a way, this is a restriction on our freedom. Today’s 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 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, deters us
from behaving in a way that society sees as 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, Prisons and many
other organizations. 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, 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 an easy way to grab their attention. The images we see everyday, depict
society’s perfect women, but this is actually a false representation of what
the models in the adverts 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 want. 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 even the way they look, resulting in a
large-scale 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 has had a huge influence,
which has fueled the constant race for the perfect body, forever chasing the
dream of society’s perfect woman. This has eventually lead to this size 0 trend,
causing girls all over the world to go to extreme measures to change the way
they look.
“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). In other words “they do to themselves what men
do to them. They survey, like men, their own femininity,” (Berger 1971: 63)
Women constantly think about their image and the way they are perceived, for if
they do not follow these cultural values they may be seen as an outsider, so in
order to “fit in” they have to take on board the male gaze, which in turn can
cause women to unconsciously change the way they feel, act and behave. “A woman
must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her
own image of herself…from her earliest childhood she has been taught and
persuaded to survey herself continually.” (Berger 1971: 46) Women assess the
way they appear to others, but realistically everything returns back to the idea
of the male gaze and how they will be seen through a male point of view.
“Advertisements
are one of the most important cultural factors molding and reflecting our life
today. They are ubiquitous, an inevitable part of everyone’s lives: even if you
do not read a newspaper or watch television, the images posted over our urban
surroundings are inescapable.” (Williamson 2005: 12) Everywhere you go you are bombarded
with some form of advertisement whether you’re conscious of it or not. Advertising
has major panoptic qualities, we are categorized and assessed on our wants and
needs, then subjected to adverts based on our desires, which in turn
influence’s us to buy unnecessary items fueling our ever growing consumerist
society. “Advertising sets up connections between certain types of consumers
and certain products.” (Williamson 2005: 12) Advertising can be seen as form of
social control, persuading and controlling the populations spending habits,
dictating what’s fashionable, where to go, how to look. “It proposes to each of
us that we transform ourselves, our lives, by buying something more. This more,
it proposes will make us in some way richer – even though we will probably be
poorer by having spent our money.” (Berger 1971: 131)
“The camera in contemporary media has been put
to use as an extension of the male gaze” (Coward 2000: 33) Adverts can quite
voyeuristic in a sense; many women are simply used for their beauty, in order
to attract the attention of the male eye. This is present in many alcohol adverts, where
drinking alcohol is associated with getting beautiful women. In the real world
this has no direct link at all, but advertisers target their audiences’ unconscious
desires, which creates a need for the product, and the lifestyle that comes
with it. “Advertisements must take into account not only the inherent qualities
and attributes of the products but also the way in which they can make those
properties mean something to us” (Williamson 2005: 12)
There is
no doubt about it that our cities have essentially turned into giant
Panopticons, we are all seen, we are all known, and we are all documented. The
panoptic forces we experience every day have the ability to not only change the
way we act and feel but can also influence the way we behave. We are subjected
to panoptic techniques in many different forms, and the outcome of the gaze all
depends on the method of delivery. CCTV has the power to dictate the way we
move around a space, but also has the power to make us feel safe or even scared
where as advertising dictates the way we look, what we buy, what’s cool and
what’s not. Panopticism has become part of the way we live whether we are aware
of it or not. It can be seen in many aspects of society today and it is only becoming
increasingly more present as technology increases. In a digital world, we are
no longer anonymous; we are now exposed to more forms of social control than
ever before, and all of these factors are an attempt to create a society of
‘docile bodies,’ programmed to follow orders, work hard, consume, look good and
don’t ask questions.
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.
Berger, J.
(1971) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books.
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.
Williamson,
J. (2005) Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertisements.
London: Marion Boyars Publishers Ltd
