Electronic surveillance has increasingly spiraled nearly everywhere, making people aware that they must control their actions. Foucault wrote “that surveillance was an inspecting gaze which each individual under it will end by interior to the point that he is his own supervisor, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over, and against, himself ”(cited in Sewell, 1999). He argued that panopticism produced distinctive modern forms of identity, because people thought of themselves internalizing the panoptical gaze.
Foucault’s work is pinnacle in that he saw the gaze as a way of disciplining society by normalizing people’s behaviour in time and in space. Surveillance and information technologies are tools that have enhanced panopticism in assisting social control over society, which in turn helps govern every instance of all members’ lives in society (Hudson, 2002). Foucault sees that disciplinary surveillance is operating throughout society where just like prison people’s rights to liberty are deprived e.g. curfews, parking fines, and disqualified driving licences. Therefore punishment is not only happening in prisons but as Hudson says “punishment and control take place in many tiny ‘theatres of punishment’ throughout society” (Hudson, 2002). We are all under a mode of control, for example doctors may supervise over patients, as teacher supervise over students and as prison guards supervise over inmates.
Foucault realized that domination in the information age is not about physical authority and control any more, but rather the likelihood for total knowledge and observation (Engberg, 1996). This idea has grown to become the darling of postmodern cyber-libertarians, who observe the oppressive surveillance of corporate and governmental groups as the accomplishment of Foucault's vision (Engberg, 1996). Cameras in public spaces and electronic monitoring of people bring about this modern panoptical procedure that sees everything, but it also has an additional symbolic ingredient in the data monitoring of credit agencies and insurance corporations. They form the opinion that society is being structured where all human activities will be stridently regulated through the fear of observation by some oppressive entity (Engberg, 1996).
The Panopticon can be applied to information technologies and electronic surveillance through its concurring outcome to achieve social control and to normalize the individual away from deviance and crime. Yet an overkill of panoptical practices has consequences that see governmentality exploiting and repressing people on how to behave (Danaher, etc al 2000). Whitehead gives an Orwellian appeal of contemporary technologies of surveillance by remarking that “Government cameras stare at us from stoplights; they spy on our children at school and peer at us on street corners, in public parks and in public buildings. Many private companies also use these systems…to keep an eye on their property and their employees. The surveillance cameras are often so tiny that they fit into the smallest openings. The plain and simple truth is that we are all being watched” (Whitehead, 2002).
George Orwell wrote the book Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), which depicts surveillance as a dystopia satire of totalitarian regimes of ‘thought police’ and that ‘Big Brother is watching you’ (Lyon, 1994). It illustrates the power of technology for social control with little regard for the private man and that people are crushed into conforming to societal norms. He saw privacy being invaded by the surveillance state and that Big Brother was replacing God. Orwell wrote in 1949 “whether one is being watched at any given moment is unknown…every sound you made was overheard…every movement scrutinized."(cited in Whitehead, 2002). The Orwellian aspect in understanding electronic surveillance produces a nightmarish perspective that surveillance is an inescapable web that serves the interests only of the powerful (Serwell, 1999).
James Rule’s (1973) outlook of electronic surveillance also has an Orwell vision, which can be viewed as a system that “would work to enforce compliance with a uniform set of norms governing every aspect of everyone’s behaviour. Every action of every person would be scruitinised, recorded, evaluated both at the moment of occurrence and forever afterwards. Any sign of disobedience, present or anticipated, would result in corrective action” (cited in Sewell, 1999: 4). Orwell’s analysis of technology surveillance and information was somewhat a mental plague that is forced upon our humanity in order to be manipulated by the influential to conform to what suits them best (Lyon, 1994).
However things have changed since Orwell’s times and it can be seen that some of his work has been outdated. It is well past 1984 and electronic surveillance has grown strong and reached global lengths where it is not only a government apparatus, but also a private one as well. People are even using the electronic surveillance to protect their privacy and right to security. Companies also have caught up with the use of information technologies and electronic surveillance in the name of consumption (Lyon, 1994). Nonetheless Orwell’s account and work must be acknowledged as it delivers an insightful point.
To a certain extent, the Panopticon provides a much more constructive understanding of information technologies and electronic surveillance. Lyon perceives the Panopticon as an alternative to Big Brother and that its panoptic principle was to anticipate for a utopia scheme in support of a social reform (Lyon, 1994). Subtler and less coercive methods have become increasingly well known in the advance societies, the argument is that this is due to the social control the panoptic power generates (Lyon, 1994).
There are many different angles that panopticism can be viewed. Cohen looked at crime control ‘in the community’ that includes offenders rather than exclude them. He explains that panoptical methods are used in ‘technological incapacitation’ such as electronic tagging which allowed non-serious offenders to be at home and to attend work or school whilst wearing the electronic tagging device. Cohen emphasizes that this is a much more humane (panoptical) practice as the offender wearing the tagging device is controlled by supervision measurements (Lyon, 1994).
The older CCTV networks are fast giving way to smarter digital cameras and DVR based surveillance. This ‘new surveillance’ characterizes low visibility, faster observations, and provides clearer images and wider visual fields with automatic panning, tilting, and zooming, which are panoptic shifts dispersing throughout society (Lyon, 1994). Virilio (1989) remarks “ space is no longer in geography, it is in electronics. Unity is in the terminals” (cited in Bogard, 1996: 193). Bogards account is very different as he sees these modes of observations simulating space of control to plan virtual courses of action. Preparing and organizing the observed to artificially perform in front of various forms of technology surveillance ranging from security cameras, security intercoms, access control systems, to home automation, to computerized data systems and recording devices, etc. These apparatuses have been referred as perfect surveillance “where nothing escapes the gaze” (Bogard, 1996: 183).
The panopticon spreads like cancer in order to ‘leukemize’ the entire social body (Bogard, 1996). Panoptical power has enhanced control by making inaccessible space or boundaries far more seeable. This age of new surveillance has made actual and virtual realities close aligned, synchronized to react instantly with programmed responses. Bogard refers to this as a ‘social science fiction’ process where electronic surveillance has made the citizen simulate their action as though acting dramatically for the camera with no real connection to the space that is eclipsed by security surveillance. Nonetheless it is a key feature in society’s entire modern organisation and is seen as a higher and purer form of supervision (Bogard, 1996).
Today’s information technologies and electronic surveillance is so advanced that they needs minute monitoring as they function atomically. Hence why panopticism has become the new management in the capitalist world (Lyon, 1994). It is not only regarded as very useful, but also a long-term cost-effective method in capitalism. The panoptical operation is superior in the workforce as it can produce the facts, employee performance data, and make workers conform to their duty, all without the face-to-face conflict. Lyon says “consumer surveillance amounts to a superpanopticon” Once more this can be reiterated back to Foucault’s vision of normailising and disciplining society, in this case the workforce (Lyon, 1994).
Gordon remarks that we are all in an electronic Panopticon and those employees, consumers and every other citizen are electronically watched and daily lives recorded into information systems (Lyon, 1994). This panoptical power channels through the forms of surveillance and information technologies, where its purpose is to treat the undisciplined back to a supposable normal entity.
The limitations of the panoptic society have to some extent been covered with the Owellian side effect that portrays a nightmare where people’s civil freedoms are intruded and trampled on by the authoritarian state (Lyon, 1994). The emergent use of surveillance cameras has lead to a militarisation of the landscape and nearly the obliteration of available public liberty (Davis, 2000). Yet some view past this vision and see the Panopticon as a different model in understanding information technologies and electronic surveillance. Then we have Bogards description that sees people (the watched) as actors in front of surveillance. This coming together of simulation and surveillance projects a pre-panoptic scene making reality generic and somewhat artificial. It makes a mockery of democracy and that society’s movement is nothing but a formulated action, which entitles us to enter the panoptical sphere (Boyne, 2000). Yet if people do not obey and go against the formulation they become excluded.
The exclusion of insignificant groups from a space is becoming prolific in the advanced capital world. (Davis, 1998). This segregation is due to the privatization of public space, which has seen marginalized groups, excluded. Outsider groups such as indigenous people, the homeless, young teenagers etc, are denied or restricted access to various spaces as they are considered what neo-Marxist refer to as social junk, meaning they are impaired to add to the capitalist society. Control over access is also accomplished by the panoptical gaze, disciplining the behaviour, that is, access is secured only to those who take part in permitted actions which, increasingly are involved in consumption activities (Doherty et al, 2008).
What was once publicly owned is now privately possessed e.g. corner stores replaced by shopping centres. This privatisation has seen a great demand for information technologies and electronic surveillance as restrictive instruments used greatly to not only scrutinizes marginal groups, but to assist in excluding them (Doherty et al, 2008). Public space for the unimportant people, the ‘flawed consumer’ is like running a gauntlet where their behaviour is now treated similar to a potential terrorist threat (Lyon, 1994).
However, these limitations can be seen as part of the process as social control always transpires in the context of a struggle. It is inevitable that there is no smooth transaction and that the modern panoptical society does have its challenges. Lyon says, “The Panopticon offers no neat total explanation of surveillance” (1994: 11). There is a realization that the regime of surveillance is fundamental in striving to achieve a utopia (Boyne, 2000). The panopticon developments have grown so much that even the watchmen can be watched, in that sense the gaze can filter out any corrupt conduct
In conclusion the panopticon submits a commanding and compelling metaphor for understanding electronic surveillance.
"is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication" (Foucault, 1979).
should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers" (Foucault 1979).
In what way(s) can the theory of the Panopticon be applied to information technologies and / or electronic surveillance? Address the possible limitation of this theory.
Reference
Bogard, W (1996) The simulation of surveillance: Hypercontrol in telematic societies. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, ‘Social Control in the 1990s
Engberg, D (1996) The Virtual Pantopitcon: Impact of New Media Technologies, Fall 1996 [Online]. Available from:
Danaher, G. Schirato, T. and Webb, J. (2000) Understanding Foucault. Sydney. Allen & Unwin
Davis M. (1998) City of Quartz. Pimilco. London. ‘Fortress Los Angeles’ pages 223 - 263
Hudson, B (2002) Punishment and control in Maguire, M et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of criminology, Third edition, Oxford University Press
Sewell, G (1999) On the Possibility of Sociology of Workplace Surveillanc. Department of Management. University of Melbourne. Parkville, Victoria
Van Krieken, Robert, Habibis, Daphne, Smith, Philip, Hutchins, Brett, Haralambos, Michael, Holborn, Martin. (2006) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives: 3rd Edition. Longman, Melbourne.
Whitehead, J (2002) Down With Big Brother: The Thought Crimes of George Orwell. Old Speak online journal. [Online]. The Rutherford Institute |. Available from:
[Accessed 24 April 2008]
Burke, R. (2005). An Introduction to Criminological Theory: Second Edition. Willan Publishing. United Kingdom.
Young, J (1999) The exclusion society. London: sage ‘From inclusive to exclusive society’. Pages 1- 29
This is a quote, you need to reference it.
Uncertain regarding what exactly? Perhaps elaborate on this point, mentioning something like, acting as a deterrent effect of potential crime that may occur.
You should not reference Boyne, rather reference the actual book by Foucault because that is where the ideas actually come from, not Boyne. Also, you have not references Bentham or Foucault – which are your main theorist. How can you legitimize your argument, if you are not referring to specific section of their books – you are using others peoples opinion about the works of Foucault/Bentham.
Who said this, Foucault ? Where is the reference and page number?
This point is not telling me anything, how did he describe it? Can you elaborate?
He can’t put it in today’s society, because his work was from a different generation.
Quotes need actual page numbers of where you found it. You may be marked down for this or questioned about it.
