Foucault’s Panopticism: A Theoretical Concept

Introduction: Foucault’s Panopticism

Michel Foucault’s concept of Panopticism is an elaboration on Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a prison system designed for disciplining abnormal or criminal individuals, aligning them with accepted societal norms, traditions, and laws. Foucault juxtaposes the Panopticon with the metaphorical representation of a plagued society. The first concept aligns with dictatorships and monarchical administrative setups, where individuals risk their lives, face contagion, or punishment if they move from their designated places (Foucault 226).

On the other hand, the theory of Panopticism differs, arranging spatial unities to enable constant surveillance and immediate recognition. Foucault asserts, “Visibility is a trap,” as surveillance occurs from a centrally located tower surrounded by circular cells, maintaining the supervisor’s invisibility—a mode of power ensuring order. Discipline is maintained through inducing a permanent state of consciousness among inmates that they are under constant surveillance, an “automatic functioning of power” (230).

Foucault further elucidates this automatic functioning, describing how power becomes individualistic, distributed among “bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes,” and entangling individuals in relations (232). Drawing on Bentham, he emphasizes that the exercise of power should be both visible and unverifiable for the subjects (231), declaring it a “permanent victory” over them, with physical confrontation avoided at all costs and decisions made beforehand (234). Henrik Soderstrom expands on Foucault’s thesis, asserting that those with knowledge gained through surveillance hold power over the prisoners. Soderstrom emphasizes the circular nature of power, where knowledge production facilitates its exercise. This circular process underscores the central role of power (Soderstrom 1-3).

Bentham and Foucault’s Panopticism

Foucault explicates Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon following his own example of the plague society. Describing the Panopticon as a “marvelous machine,” Foucault emphasizes its ability to produce consistent power effects due to its circular design, with a surveillance officer invisibly situated in the central tower overseeing cells arranged around it (231). Each cell is visible from the tower, illuminated in the background, creating a scenario where inmates act like individual actors in their respective theaters, unaware of others but conscious of an invisible watcher.

This concept finds application in various contexts, notably in prisons, where Foucault argues that the Panopticon serves not merely to punish but to train and correct behavior. It becomes a laboratory for different experiments aimed at altering and instructing individuals collectively, given the impracticality of individually monitoring and teaching each person (236). The system allows for the simultaneous instruction of diverse techniques to various individuals, all observed invisibly from the tower. The isolated nature of the learning process prevents collaboration among inmates, mitigating the risk of plots or rebellions. This centralized approach also minimizes the need for numerous officers, as power is distributed from one supervisor who, in turn, is monitored by superiors.

Foucault asserts that the Panopticon, as a figure of political technology, can be adaptable to multiple purposes. In the context of a prison, it efficiently fulfills functions such as safe custody, confinement, solitude, forced labor, and instruction. The ultimate goal is to shape and teach prisoners to adopt specific behaviors, achievable through the strategic tactics outlined by Foucault (236). Thus, the Panopticon becomes a versatile tool in the broader framework of political technology, serving the multifaceted objectives of confinement and behavioral modification within various institutional settings.

Example of Foucault’s Panopticism

Your experience in your school resonates well with Foucault’s concept of Panopticism. The circular layout of the principal’s office, combined with the strategic placement of CCTV cameras throughout the school, mirrors the Panopticon’s design, allowing for continuous surveillance. The principal, positioned at the central point, holds a position of power with the ability to observe various areas of the school through the glass windows and CCTV monitors.

The disciplinary actions taken, such as calling teachers or students to the discipline office based on surveillance footage, reflect the distribution of power as outlined by Foucault. The surveillance system becomes a mechanism through which the principal exercises control, identifying and addressing behaviors that may be perceived as conflicting with school norms and traditions. The combination of visibility and invisibility in this setup aligns with Foucault’s idea that the power of surveillance is most effective when those being observed are unaware of when or if they are being watched.

Your personal experience of being caught playing truant, with the prefect acting as an intermediary sent by the discipline in-charge, illustrates the practical application of the Panopticon-like structure. The principal’s direct involvement, monitoring activities through CCTV, reinforces the internalization of surveillance, creating a state of consciousness among students that they are constantly being observed.

In short, your school’s structure and disciplinary practices serve as a tangible example of how Foucault’s Panopticism can manifest in various institutional settings, showcasing the dynamics of power, visibility, and control within the educational environment.

Works Cited: Foucault’s Panopticism

1. Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism.” Editor. Bartholomae, David and Tony Petrosky. An Anthology of Writers. 6^th Ed. Boston. Bedford / St. Martin’s. 2002. Print. pp. 223-239.
2. Soderstrom, Henrik. “Inflation, Amplification, Multiplication in Foucault’s Panopticon.” Henrik Soderstrom. Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2023.

Relevant Questions about Foucault’s Panopticism

1. How does Foucault’s Panopticism apply to contemporary surveillance technologies and practices, and what implications does it have for individual privacy and social control?
2. In Foucault’s Panopticism, the Panopticon serves as a metaphor for disciplinary power. How does this concept extend beyond physical institutions, such as prisons, to encompass societal norms, cultural expectations, and everyday behaviors?
3. Foucault suggests that the Panopticon creates a self-policing effect among individuals, leading to internalized surveillance. How does this internalized surveillance manifest in modern societies, and what are the consequences for individuals in terms of conformity, self-regulation, and the shaping of identity?