FINISHED ESSAY

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