Panopticism is a social theory named after the Panopticon, originally developed by the French philosopher Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. "Panopticon" refers to an experimental laboratory of power in which behavior can be modified, and Foucault views the panoptics as a symbol of society's discipline of supervision.
Video Panopticism
​​â € <â €
Jeremy Bentham proposes panoptikon as a circular building with an observation tower in the center of an open space surrounded by an outer wall. This wall will contain cells for occupants. This design will enhance security by facilitating more effective oversight. Living within cells flooded with light, the inhabitants will be readily distinguished and seen by officials who are not officially seen in the central tower. Instead, the inhabitants will not look at each other, with concrete walls dividing their cells. Because of the bright light emitted from the watch tower, the inhabitants will not know whether and when they are supervised, making discipline passive rather than active. Surprisingly, cellmates act in trouble as if they are being watched, although they can not be a real eye to them. There is an invisible type of discipline that governs through prison, for each of the prisoners to organize themselves, in fear that someone is watching their every move. Although usually associated with prisons, panoptic architectural styles may be used in other institutions with surveillance needs, such as schools, factories, or hospitals.
Maps Panopticism
Foucault's Discipline and Punish
In Discipline and Punish Michel Foucault constructed Bentham's concept of panopticon as he described the function of disciplinary mechanisms in such prisons and described the function of discipline as a power tool. Prisoners who have been seen, according to Foucault, are always "information objects, never subject to communication". He added that,
"He who is subject to the field of visibility, and who knows it, takes responsibility for power constraints, he makes them play spontaneously on himself, he instills in himself power relations in which he simultaneously plays both roles; his subjection "(202-203).
Foucault offers another explanation for the kind of "anonymous power" held by the central tower operator, pointing out that, "We have seen that anyone can come and exercise in the central tower surveillance function, and that this being the case, he can get a clear idea of how to supervise done ". By incorporating anonymous "public servants", as part of an integrated "surveillance" architecture, the disciplinary observation mechanisms are decryched and their efficacy is enhanced.
As architecture suggests, this panoptic design can be used for any "population" that needs to be kept under surveillance or control, such as prisoners, school children, medical patients, or workers:
"If prisoners are inmates, there is no danger of plots, collective escape attempts, new crime planning for the future, poor reciprocal influences, if they are patients, there is no danger of contagion, if they are crazy there is no risk of committing violence against one if they are workers, there is no interruption, no theft, no coalition, none of the disturbances that slow down rate of work, make it less perfect or cause an accident ".
By individualizing the subject and placing them in a state of constant visibility, the efficiency of the institution is maximized. Furthermore, it guarantees the function of power, even when nothing really affirms it. In this case, the Panopticon function is automatic. Foucault goes on to explain that this design also applies to laboratories. Its individualization and observation mechanisms give it the ability to run many experiments simultaneously. These qualities also provide an authoritative picture of "the ability to penetrate male behavior" without difficulty. This is all possible through geometric architectural intelligence. Given this fact Foucault compares the prisons, schools, and factories in their structural similarities.
Examples in the late 20th and early 21st century
The central idea of ​​Foucault's panopticism concerns the systematic arrangement and control of the human population through subtle and often invisible forces. Such sequences are evident in many parts of the modern and present world of information, which are increasingly digitized. Contemporary advances in technology and surveillance techniques may have made Foucault's theories more relevant to any oversight of the relations between the state and its population.
However, while on the one hand, new technologies, such as CCTV or other surveillance cameras, have demonstrated the continued use of panoptic mechanisms in liberal democracies, it can also be argued that electronic surveillance technology is not required in the original "organic" or "geometric" mechanisms. illustrated by Foucault.Foucault argues, for example, that Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon gives us a model in which self-disciplined societies have been able to develop.These behavior control tools are essential if we organize ourselves, without constant supervision and intervention by " agency "in every aspect of our life.German historian Robert Gellately has observed, for example, that because of Germany's widespread willingness to tell each other to the Gestapo that Germany between 1933-45 is a prime example of Panopticism.
Panoptic theory has other widespread impact for oversight in the digital age as well. Kevin Haggerty and Richard Ericson, for example, have hinted that technological oversight "solutions" have a strong "cultural appeal" in the West. The increasingly visible data, accessible to organizations and individuals from new data mining technologies, has led to the proliferation of "dataveillance", which can be described as a surveillance mode aimed at separating certain transactions through routine algorithmic production. However, in some cases, especially in the case of credit card information being mined, data detection has been documented to have caused a greater incidence of errors than past surveillance techniques.
According to Foucault's principle of panopticism, if discursive mechanisms can be used effectively to control and/or modify the body of discussion within a certain space (usually for the benefit of a particular class or government organization), there is no longer a need for an "active agent" to display more coercive forces overtly (ie, the threat of violence). Since the beginning of the Information Age, there has been debate as to whether this mechanism is perfected or accelerated, or on the other hand, becomes excessive, due to new and rapid technological advances.
Panopticism and capitalism
Foucault also links panopticism with capitalism:
"The peculiarities of the disciplines [the elements of Panopticism] are that they try to define in relation to the multiplicity of power tactics that meet three criteria: first, to get the exercise of power at the lowest possible cost (economically, by low spending it involves, politically , with its wisdom, its low exteriorisation, its relatively opaque nature, little resistance it creates, secondly, to bring this effect of social power to its maximum intensity and to extend it as far as possible, without failure or interval, third, to connect the growth of ' economics' with the output of the equipment (education, military, industrial or medical) where it is implemented, in short, to improve both the adherence and usefulness of all elements of the system "(218).
"If the economy takes off from the West begins with techniques that allow capital accumulation, it might be argued that the method for managing the accumulation of men allows political take-off in relation to traditional rituals, expensive, forms of violent power [ie torture, execution public, physical punishment, etc. from medieval times], which soon fell into disuse and was replaced by technology, subtly taken into account the conquest.In fact, the two processes - male accumulation and capital accumulation - are inseparably unlikely to solve the problem of male accumulation, the technique of cumulative cumulative diversity is useful in accelerating the accumulation of capital... The growth of the capitalist economy gives rise to a special modality of disciplinary power, the general formula, the mobilization of force and body, in short , 'political anatomy', can be operated in the political office, apara tus or the most diverse political institutions "(220-221).
Panopticism and information technology
Building on Foucault's Panopticism and the original Panopticon Bentham, Shoshana Zuboff applied the theory of Panoptics in the technological context in his book, "In the Era of Intelligent Machines." In chapter nine, Zuboff provides a very clear picture of Panopticon Information as a means of surveillance, discipline and, in some cases, punishment in the workplace. The Panopticon Information embodies Bentham's ideas in a very different way. Information Panopticons do not rely on physical arrangements, such as building structures and direct human supervision. Instead, the computer tracks each worker's movement by assigning him or her specific tasks to be performed during their shift. Everything, from the time the task starts until the time is done, is recorded. Workers are given a certain time to complete tasks based on their complexity. All of this is monitored by the supervision of the computer. Based on the data, the supervisor can monitor the worker's performance and take necessary action when needed.
The Panopticon Information can be defined as a form of centralized power that uses information and communication technologies as an observation tool and control mechanism. Unlike Panopticon imagined by Bentham and Foucault, where those under supervision are subjects that do not want to, Zuboff's work shows that Panopticon Information is facilitated by the benefits offered to willing participants.
In chapter ten "In the Era of Intelligent Machines," Zuboff provides an example of DIALOG, a computer conference system used in pharmaceutical companies in the 1970s. The conference system, originally intended to facilitate communication among many branches of the corporation, quickly became popular among employees. DIALOG users find that the system not only facilitates innovation and collaboration, but also relaxation, as many employees start using the system to joke with each other and discuss unrelated topics. Many employees report that using the system is a positive experience because it creates a culture of information sharing and discussion, which goes beyond the norms of formalities and corporate hierarchies that limit the dissemination of information between divisions and employees of various levels. This positive culture is made possible by the privacy that the conference system seems to offer, since discussion boards can be created to allow access only to those invited to participate. The Panoptic function of the conference system is revealed, however, when managers can gain access to informal discussion boards where employees post off-color jokes. Messages from discussions are displayed in the office to embarrass contributors, and many DIALOG users now know there is a possibility that their contributions can be read by managers and fear they will face disciplinary action, stopping using the system. Some users, however, keep using the system, raising the question of whether the remaining users modify their behavior under threat of oversight, such as prisoners at Panopticon Bentham will, or whether they believe that the benefits offered by the system outweigh the possibility of punishment.
Zuboff's work demonstrates the dual nature of Panopticon Information - participants may be under surveillance, but they may also use systems to monitor other people by monitoring or reporting the contributions of other users. This applies to many other information and communication technologies with Panoptic functions - phone owners can be tracked unbeknownst to them via mobile phone GPS capabilities, but they can also use the device to conduct surveillance against others. Thus, compared to Bentham's Panopticon, Panopticon Information is one in which everyone is potentially a prisoner and guard.
It is said by Foucault that industrial management has paved the way for a highly disciplined society. A society that values ​​objectivity over all others. The point is to get as much productivity as possible from the workers. In contrast to the Bentham prison model, the workers inside the Information Panopticon know that they are monitored at all times. Even if the supervisor is not physically there, the computer records every move and all this data is on the finger of the supervisor at all times. Systemic objectivity can have a psychological impact on workers. Workers find it necessary to adjust and satisfy the system rather than doing their best work or expressing any concerns they may have.
The Panopticon Information diverts from Jeremy Bentham's prison model by adding more levels of control. While Bentham's prison system consists of inmates at the lowest level monitored by a guard, Panopticon Information can have multiple levels. A company or company can have multiple satellite locations, each monitored by a supervisor, and then a regional supervisor who monitors the supervisors below. Depending on the structure and size of the company, Panopticons information can have multiple levels, each monitoring all the levels below it.
Now, the efficiency of Panopticon Information is questionable. Does it really lead to better workplaces and higher productivity, or does it only put unnecessary pressure on the people being monitored? The main criticism of this system is its objectivity. It is solely based on numbers, because it does not allow for human error. According to Zuboff, some people think the system is very profitable, while others consider the system to be very profitable because it does not take into account the efforts of a worker in a task or matters beyond the control of a worker. In addition, the lack of direct supervision only adds to potentially precarious situations.
Post-panopticism
The theoretical arguments in favor of the rejection of the Foucauldian Panopticism model can be considered under five general headings:
- Moving of Panoptic idealism with a seduction mechanism,
- Redundancy Panoptical encouragement aroused by the apparent resilience of the self-control function which is partly a normal, socialized, "western" subject,
- Reduction in a number of occasions of every possible need for Panoptical supervision due to simulation, prediction and action before the fact,
- Supplementation from Panopticon by Synopticon,
- Failure of Panoptic control to produce a reliable subject with benign.
The first point concerns Zygmunt Bauman's argument that the main principle of social order has changed from Panopticism to seduction. This argument is outlined in his 1998 essay "On the use of postmodern sex".
The second argument concerns redundancy surveillance, and is increasingly relevant in the era of Facebook and online disclosure. Is the metaphor of a panopticon appropriate for voluntary surrender of privacy?
The third argument for post-Panopticism, about the action before fact, articulated by William Bogard:
The figure of Panopticon has been haunted by a parallel simulation figure. Supervision, we are told, is confidential, inconspicuous, disguised, unverifiable - all elements of intelligence are designed into the architectural arrangements of space to produce the real effect of the discipline. Eventually this will lead, by means of its perfection, to the removal of the Panopticon itself... surveillance as its own simulation. Now this is no longer a matter of the speed at which information is gained to defeat the enemy.... Now, one can simulate the control room, project a number of unlimited actions, practice for every possibility, and immediately react with the programmed response to the actual event... with simulations, sight and foresight, actually and virtual start joining.... The ever-expanding field of perceptual control technology, the elimination of distance in the speed of electronic information has pushed surveillance beyond the speed limit to the purest forms of anticipation.
Such anticipation is very evident in emerging surveillance technologies such as social network analysis.
'Synopticon' concerns the supervision of a handful of people by many people. Examples of such oversight might include theater, Coliseum, and reporting of celebrity tabloids. "The opposite of this Panoptic polarity may have become so obvious that it finally declared the Panoptis metaphor altogether".
Finally, the fifth point concerns the nature of the self-harming Panoptist regime. The failure of oversight status is illustrated by examples such as "prison riots, sub-cultures of asylum, ego survival at Gulag or concentration camps, [and] retilation in the Balkans."
In their 2007 article, Dobson and Fisher put an alternative post-panopticism model because they identified three panoptic models. Panopticism I refer to Jeremy Bentham's original conceptualization of panopticon, and whether it is a model of panopticism that Foucault opposes in his 1975 Discipline and Law. Panopticism II refers to the idealization of Orwellian 'Big Brother' surveillance. Panopticism III, the last model of panopticism, refers to the high-tech human tracking system that emerged in the 21st century. This geographic information system (GIS) includes technologies such as mobile GPS, RFID (radio frequency identification tags), and geo-fencing. Panopticism III is also distinguished by its cost:
Panopticon III is affordable, effective, and available to anyone who wants to use it. The initial purchase price and monthly service charge are equivalent to the cost of the mobile phone. In less than five years, the cost of constant supervision of an individual has dropped from several hundred thousand dollars per year to less than $ 500 per year. Previous supervision is justified only for national security and high-risk trading is readily available for tracking spouses, children, parents, employees, neighbors, or strangers.
Cornell University professor and information theory, Branden Hookway, introduced the concept of Panspectrons in 2000: Panoptic evolution with the effect that it does not define more control objects, but everyone and all are monitored. Objects are defined only in relation to a particular problem.
See also
- Discourse , the Foucaultian concept developed in Discipline and Punish , among other works.
- Government
- The Hawthorne effect
- Panoptiklik
- Supervision
- Sousveillance
- Bulk surveillance
- Global monitoring disclosure (2013-present)
- Surveillance capitalism
References
- Foucault, Michel (1995). Discipline & amp; Punish: The Birth of the Prison . New York: Vintage Books . Retrieved 2008-06-15 .
- Zuboff, Shoshana (1988). In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power . New York: Basic Books. pp. 315-361. ISBNÃ, 0465032117 . Retrieved 2014-04-25 .
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments